I would have to believe that He was very handsome and beautiful. First because he was good, second because if you read in between the lines where those Scribes and Pharises don't seem to like all that He did, it seems to spell of jealousy too, third no woman seems to have gone against Him and all that were close to Him liked Him, fourth because I doubt that someone close to God can be actually ugly, fifth He may not have had blonde hair and blue eyes but Himself He seemed to like, sixth there is not sufficient information so it's just speculation "My dear Watson."

Jesus was a Jew halfabee. I'm fairly sure most comprehend the fact of his having dark skin. As far as type of hair and beard go, just examine what was common in that geographic location, and era. I'm not sure what you are hinting towards when spouting his middle-eastern features. You have to understand the full picture here. His hair color and style is not of any great importance as is His skin color, or clothing. Who He was and the purpose of His mission is the center of significance.

I think it doesn't matter what he looked like. I do actually think it is ridiculous that he is portrayed 99% of the time as a white blue eyed dude who is always smiling. As for short, it's interesting that you bring that up. In the Gospel of Luke, the story of Zaccheus (or however you spell it) in the Greek it is difficult to tell who is the person who is short, Zaccheus himself or Jesus. It is unclear, so it could be that Jesus was like 5' tall. I don't think that matters much as far as the salvation of mankind is concerned.

I agree. Considering the fact that Jesus was Jewish and at the time he lived having a bread was wrong. (So one thing out of the way) It is said that Jesus had nappy hair (like a sheep) which is usually not ayran hair traits. I do agree that Jesus was most likely dark skined (think of the area he liked in- light colored skin would have burned) and was not at all like the pictures we see of Him today. Remember however, the time frame the pictures/paintings of Jesus began. Painters were in fact painting the average man of that time frame. The bread and the hair and everything is like that of a man in those times.

Painters were not painting the true version of Jesus, but rather a man in their era.

If it makes any difference- I am a Christain and believe that it does not matter what Jesus looked like because his message was true.

I think some of the opinions here are a bit to 'stereotypical' in terms of their take on Jesus' appearance. We could never be sure, I mean, he could have 'middle-eastern' traits, y'know?

Let's consider the facts. The middle-easterns are rarely solid 'brown'. Most of them are quite fair, with a reddish/sandy complexion. Therefore, it is very viable for Jesus to have been assumed a white-skinned person. Secondly, eyes are a very deep feature, which are for the large part, ambiguous to the untrained observation. Once again, quite a few middle-easterns come with light eyes in the form of light shades of 'brown' and some even in 'green'. Oh, and quite a few people from these regions are known to be 'tall'.

Therefore, it is very viable that he'd be stereo typed as a white-skinned, blue-eyed Aryan. Meanwhile, it is also equally viable for him to be counter-stereo typed by the sceptics as some dark brown-skinned man midget.

It all makes sense, though it really doesn’t matter; thought I’d toss in my fifty cents. --------------------------------------

However, none of this holds any relevance towards the impact that he’s made. It really doesn’t matter what his ‘ethnic’ formula was. He was who he was, and that transcends most superficial symptoms like ethnic traits, etc.

FYI: I am a proud agnostic, but I respect discussions such as this one; especially when humble.

Cheers.