Duck Duck Goose,
none of those look like what I found in my tortilla this morning
With all the thousands of people walking and talking with Jesus seems like this would be a no brainer.
Maybe there was never a Jesus Christ so the tale of how he looks varies like Nesse or the Yeti.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html
Well, for the most part, the historicity of the man Jesus doesn’t seem to be a problem. Whether someone believes He was the Son of God or maybe God himself is quite another subject…
I almost wrote Son oG! OG smash!
Here’s a cite that portrays a third century portrait on Jesus as young and beardless:
NARRATOR: By the middle of the 3rd century, Christians were buried alongside Jews and pagans in catacombs, underground tombs beneath the outskirts of Rome. There is evidence here of the growing homogenization of the Christian story. The artwork on the tombs shows little sign of Gnostic imagery. They are largely scenes from the canonical Gospels which are now merging into one single story.
Prof. JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN, DePaul University: What’s interesting is what they choose, because what they choose of Jesus is especially the healer. He appears beardless, so he’s a young. He’s a new, young God, as it were - he’s not an old fuddy-duddy like Asclepias - the god of healing. And what’s extraordinary is he’d either have his hand or even a wand on the person he’s healing.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/etc/script2.html
Does anybody remember the play that created a huge controversy some years ago, when they portrayed a black man as Jesus? It was amusing as hell. Death threats were called in, a couple of churches cancelled out along with five tour groups canceling their reservations too. I remember at the time when this was breaking news, that some of the stronger objectors didn’t have any problem if a black man wanted to portray Satan though.
JZ
Putting the complexion debate aside for a moment, it is doubtful Jesus would have had long hair, given Paul’s admonishment to the Corinthians:
Though we don’t know whether Paul ever saw Jesus (outside of visions), he would have been a contemporary of the man. It’s hard to imagine that he would have written the above passage if there had been an oral tradition floating around that Jesus had long hair.
I am just curious, are there even any records outside of the bible that strongly suggest Jesus even existed?
I always liked my fifth grade teacher’s* answer.
Jesus was all colors.
*It was a Christian school, so no church-state violations.
It’s not really unlikely that Cleopatra would be a blonde. Many of the ancient Greeks were blond, and they held blond hair in high esteem.
psssst! You’re supposed to look on the burrito!
I’ve been lurking for quite a while and posting a little for more than a year, and, tomndeb, I think this is the first time I’ve “heard” you make a joke. Do I just not hang out at the right times, or what?
BTW, har de har !!
In a nutshell–semi-contemporary historians didn’t raise any issues with his existence.
I think the hair color was held in high esteem because it was rare, not because it was common. Anyway, although I can’t find a cite for it now, I believe Plutarch or one of the other ancient biographers described her as having a dark complexion and auburn hair. Now, those ancient biographies aren’t known for being highly accurate and she may have used henna anyway, but there’s certainly no historic mention of Cleo as a blonde.
Maybe it wasn’t a joke to him. 
JZ
Any modern historian worth his tweed jacket doesn’t debate that Jesus, the historical figure, existed. Assuming you don’t take the Gospels into account, because, obviously, they’re a little biased, there’s still plenty of proof. There were loads of historians who lived at Jesus’s time who noted his existence in their books. For example, Josephus, who was a Jew, mentioned him several times. Tacitus, who was Roman (I think), also mentions him, and he would have had every reason to pretend Jesus didn’t exist - he h-ated Christians. Seriously. Sample quote: Nero’s burning Christians! Woohoo! (and for all you literalists, NO that is not an actual quote). The big argument isn’t about whether Jesus existed, its about whether he was Jesus CHRIST.
What did He look like? I don’t know exactly, but in Lives Of The Master, Edgar Cayce gave a description of the Last Supper, the twelve disciples and this:
You may as well add this to the list Duck Duck Goose offered. 
I remember reading, hearing, watching, or something (how’s that for a detailed cite) that Jesus was described by one of his disciples as being, “Ugly of countenance.” Have any of you heard this anywhere.
I agree with FriarTed
http://www.delayedreaction.com/two.html
my WAG is that some medieval prince had possesion of the shroud, showed it off to his rich friends whose artist used the image as the basis for all and future depictions of Jesus which would explain the similarites in facial features. At least thats what the little voice from the discovery channel told me…
** Any modern historian worth his tweed jacket doesn’t debate that Jesus, the historical figure, existed.**
Apparently you did not read my post concerning the myth of Jesus.
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...ce/fiction.html
First of all Josephus was not a witness to the events of Jesus, he was born about the time the supposed Jesus was crucified
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm
Hisstory was based on information in the Biblical text which is highly questionable
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm#Twelve
Furthermore his credibility on many issues are questionable probably for this same reason.
http://centuryone.com/josephus.html
I can provide many other links to scholars that show that this myth, just like the Afrocentric myth and the creationist myth, is political/religious not factual. Need we go into that?
Jesus is no more than a grown up version of an imaginary childhood friend. He is a figment of our desires and priestly machination whom appears (to us) however we want him to.
What does that have to do with the op?