Do you want to encourage anti-semitism or something?? 
You just gave me glee. How often does that happen? Glee!
From Max Torque’s post: “but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Naziraeans.” I wonder what that’s supposed to mean.
It meant that his hair was parted down the middle, presumably in the style of the Nazoreans, who were a subsect of the Essenes.
There is a passage in the apocryphal Acs of Peter in which Peter, debating the magician Simon Magus, speaks of Jesus (alluding to various prophecies)
The phrase (borrowed from Isaiah 53) is sometimes interpreted to mean that Jesus would not be marked with the fine clothes and grooming (oiled hair, etc.) of the wealthy or nobility. At any event, the passage was written over 150 years after the time of Jesus by someone who knew neither Jesus nor Peter.
Origen makes reference to the philospher Celsus as describing Jesus as “ignoble” (translated variously), but we do not have the exact words of Celsus (who lived about 140 years after Jesus and who was making a philosophical point regarding the appearance of any god that took on human form).
Some people think Jesus is black.
Some people think the manned moon landings were hoaxed.
::: shrug :::
Had it not been for the message the Messenger would have been remarkedly unremarkable.
Because of the message He was “despised and rejected of men.”
Yet the so called dregs of society flocked to hear what he had to say and were the better for having done so. And so it is today, the high and mighty turn a deaf ear, while those who know their need heed the message.
I heard he looked a lot like Mel Gibson. Don’t quote me though 
Shh! Stick with the James Caviezel story!
(Sorry for quoting you.)
I recall in the movie Malcolm X (not necessarily a reliable source), the young Malcolm preaches that in the bible Jesus is said to have some kind of dark skin, and hair like that of a sheep (paraphrasing here). Is this an accurate quote? It would be consistant with curly, Jewish hair, or African hair.
To repeat what has already been said here, nowhere in the New Testament is there any description of Jesus’ appearance.
Doesn’t anyone read the Bible anymore? I mean, whatever your religious beliefs or non-beliefs, this book has been at the center of Western culture for millenia. Don’t you think you ought to read it?
The prophet Isaiah wrote concerning the Messiah:
Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
There is no definitive description of Jesus in the Bible or elsewhere AFIK.
As stated before His appearance was remarkedly unremarkable.
He came to deliver His (God’s Message), seal the New Testament with his life’s blood, be buried and ressurected the third day for the deliverance of mankind from the consequences of sin. He left nothing of a material nature behind to be worshiped in place of Himself and God.
The question of the OP does NOT have an temporal answer.
As quoted by the Malcolm X types, the passage says that his hair was like wool. But that’s a very selective misquoting. The actual passage, Rev 1:14, says
In other words, they’re using a passage that says he was white to argue that he was black. Which isn’t relevant anyway, since this is a vision of Jesus transfigured, so he’s all glowing, not as he appeared on Earth.
Thanks for answering me Chronos. So much more useful an answer than the previous two.
According to Sci-Fi author Phillip José Farmer (aka Kilgore Trout), Jesus looked like this, but skinnier.
And a slightly smaller hat.
Ya know, if He’d been a 6 foot tall blue-eyed blonde with 6pack abs, and Captain-Kirk-lit eyes as per the popular painings, Judas wouldn’t have had to kiss Him to identify Him to the Romans. He’d just have had to say “You see the one over there? Wierd hair colour? No, look up. Up a bit more. Yup. That’s Him. Can’t miss him can ya?.”
I think Judas kissed him because Jesus was really hot and Judas had urges he didn’t want to admit even to himself.
To be fair, the quote from Revelation also says that he had feet the color of bronze, and some people take that as evidence that Jesus had brown skin, but as you said, the image is intended to be symbolic, not literal.
Orthodox Christian tradition is that our Iconography does not depict the Lord as He was before his Resurrection but depicts Him in His Glorious state afterwards–even pre-Resurrection events are “back-dated” for theological purposes.
Some Orthodox scholars have taken the statement in Acts of Peter as “not necessarily deserving automatic rejection” (our attitude to the “Apocrypha” is kind of ambiguous, they’re neither “all in” nor “all out” as a group when it comes to Scripture) and have concluded that “uncomely” might not have been inaccurate.
However, we do agree on one particular: He looked like a Levantine Jew, whatever they looked like at that period.