13. But maybe Celsus had not read the prophecy, or perhaps he had read it but was misled by interpreters who erroneously hold that it does not refer to Jesus Christ. Well, what will he make of the Gospel narrative in which we are told that He went up to a high mountain, and was transfigured before His disciples and appeared in glory; when both Moses and Elias also appeared in glory, and spake of His decease which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem? Or again, if the Prophet says, "We beheld him, and he had no form, nor beauty," and so on, Celsus admits that the prophecy may be referred to Jesus, but it is a blind admission, for he does not see that the, fact of a prophecy giving particulars of the form of Jesus, many years before His birth, is a strong confirmation of the truth that Jesus Who seemed to have no "form" was the Son of God. But if another Prophet says that Jesus had grace and beauty, why will not Celsus allow that this prophecy refers to Jesus Christ? Further, if it were possible to clearly gather from the Gospels that our Lord had no form nor beauty, but that His form was without honour, marred more than the sons of men, one might say that Celsus in his argument followed not the Prophets but the Evangelists. The fact, however, is that neither the Gospels, nor even the Apostles, |73 give any intimation that He had no form or beauty; and it is obvious that Celsus is bound to admit the declaration of prophecy to be a true description of Christ; and this being so, there is an end to the disparaging statements concerning Jesus.