This thread was split from another topic in the forum. It pulled the focus from an issue that is of much larger importance than any opinion of what Jesus Christ would have looked like.
That being said, I do not find scripture to support what WMB believed when he described him as looking like "Hoffman's Head of Christ." I find history and scripture that says pretty much the opposite.
Feel free to comment, I'm interested in what others have to say.
From the Martin Luther King discussion:
What you think Jesus look like is your opinion. The Hoffman's head picture is the closest to what brother Branham saw a painting came to the experience He had of Jesus when he saw Him. You might ofcourse not agree, but then again you can have your own opinion.
Your opinion or understanding of Scripture of course may differ with mine and that's alright.
I am excluding my opinion from the discussion of what Jesus Christ would have looked like, and basing it on scriptures and actual fact. WMB used his opinion (which he was welcome to do) but it was based on opinion and not actual fact.
In North America, Jesus is typically depicted as taller, flowing hair, fair skin, and light colored eyes. It makes Jesus seem more like one of the people from this culture so that we can easily identify with Him.
Jesus was born in a vessel that was created in the womb of Mary, and opinion would say that He would have some of her features. Scripture backs that opinion, when the Gospel of Matthew describes his arrest. The soldiers did not know which one was Jesus. Had he been a white male with flowing hair, he would not have looked like the other dark-skinned disciples who were definitely not divinely created.
He also was a carpenter, so the dark skin that he was born with would have been even darker than those in the temples. The sun would have darkened his skin.
Also, as a carpenter, he would have had a rugged appearance, at least until He was about 30 years old. Back then, the building trade involved very strenuous physical labor with heavy stone and lumber, without any sort of power tools or mechanical digging equipment that are in use today. Skinny and small muscles would not have fit.
Last, Jesus Christ did not have long hair. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul wrote, "if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him." Paul would have never called the Lord Jesus Christ "disgraceful."
Compare these two descriptions of Jesus Christ:
"He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. Surely He took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered Him stricken by God, smitten by Him, and afflicted. But He was pierced for our transgressions [see How Did Jesus Christ Die?], He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:2-5)
There's not an artist in the world could paint His picture, the characters of His face.
But Jesus a little frail Fellow.
His opinion of Jesus Christ was not a fault -- WMB was welcome to his opinion.
Where he crossed the line was when he first claimed that he had seen an angel in the "room", "cave", "cabin" or "den", described that angel as "dark skinned", "light skinned", "clean-shaven" , "bearded" .... and than said that he had seen Jesus Christ instead of the angel.
His appearance would definitely have been that of a tanned, muscular, physically-fit young man dressed in durable and practical clothing - which made Him indistinguishable from the "blue-collar" Fishermen who were with Him when He was arrested. The prophet Isaiah confirms His ordinary appearance