Theologically it is.

After all, the figure of Jesus Christ shown in the New Testament is based on the experience that the disciples met with the resurrected Jesus. So it can not be so easily concluded that Jesus in public life had a glorious appearance as a child of God who is unmistakable to anyone. This is a complex issue. In the Gospels, though, Christ in public life is nevertheless depicted in a glorious figure, so it may be said to be a lie. But the truth is, you can not bring the theory that way.

The problem lies in the fact that the figure of Christ written there is taken as a theological expression, or in the life record as it is in the eyes of people and as it is in life. This is originally an issue of biblical science. However, the difference in this aspect also appears as a big difference to the teachers. Even so, the disciples and those around them would have seen what figure of the Lord Christ was. Is it a godly figure full of radiance of God? Or was it the vision of a poor carpenter, a genius, let alone a Jew, or a truly embarrassing appearance?

Even with that birth, in the light of the gospel text, it can only be thought that it was a poor, embarrassing thing without writing anything. The same is true for the Passion. If it is obvious to anyone that it is a child Christ of God, it will be so easy to cross the temple priests and elders, and the law tolls, no matter how malice and antipathy. It must have been impossible to
But on the other hand, if you were truly shabby in appearance, and you were only in exchange for the lowest "sinner and tax", those who crucified such Jesus as not being the Son of God How much responsibility did he have?

Theologically it is. Thus, it is very difficult to grasp the figure from that time when Christ walked on this earth based on the gospel. It can not be said so easily, also it can not be asserted without it .Let's think about this situation a little more.