What did Jesus look like? Few people alive today know the answer to this. If He was to come to Earth in exactly the form He existed on the day He was risen, no one would look at Him and say "that's Jesus!" He could stand by a portrait portraying Him, or a statue, or even someone dressed up as Him, and no one would know it by sight alone.
Now, we can make an inference or two from Scripture about what He looked like. We know that He was a Hebrew, and thus He would have looked like a Hebrew man. We know, as Isaiah says, that He had no particular beauty (Isaiah 53:2), so He wouldn't have been a very handsome Hebrew man. It would even seem, as Judas had to identify Him for the Romans who arrested Him, that He would have differed very little from His Disciples. "Hey look, it's Jesus and Peter!" "Cool! Which one's which?"
Beyond that, the Bible tells us nothing about the appearance of Jesus. It doesn't have any doctrinal implications. If you could prove Jesus looked like this or that, it wouldn't mean anything for the Christian faith. But a surprising number of unbelievers beg to differ.
An example of this can be seen in the header image. The image displays a standard portrait of Jesus, along with a history of how this came to be. How true is this history? In truth, I don't know, nor do I care. It is possible that this image genuinely is based on the illegitimate son of a Pope. It's also true that, sadly, the Catholic Church is flooded with imagery with which they do some highly questionable things, such as when they bow before statues of Mary. I don't think it needs to be said, as it only takes a brief hover over the "apologetics" button in the menu above, but Bible Brain is very much not a Catholic ministry. What the Roman Catholic Church does, says, or believes, is utterly irrelevant to anything Bible Brain does, says, or believes. The simple fact is, the Roman Catholic Church is not a Biblical religion, and thus any criticism of the Roman Catholic Church fails as a criticism of Christianity.
But for a moment, we are going to completely ignore the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is a lot more Roman than a Church. Think about where the Pope comes from. Historically, the Pope is the result of two pre-existing religions coming together as one. The first religion, as I just said, is the Roman state religion. The Pope, also known as "pontifex maximus", was the chief priest of this religion. The leader of the Roman College of Pontiffs.
The other religion, of course, is Christianity. Christ-ianity. This religion, according to its own Holy book, was completed by the end of the first century. As Jude, the brother of Jesus Himself, says, "...I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3). Long before there was a Leonardo Da Vinci, long before there was a Cesare Borgia, long before there was even a Pope, the Christian faith was finished. It was complete, fully formed, never to change or update, and it only needs contending for.
What does that mean? Well, first of all, it means the Pope is an enemy of the Christian faith. He is a usurper of a throne that doesn't even exist. Far from being the "head of the Church" (a title that belongs to Christ according to Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18), he is an antiChrist. An alien. An invader. So Christians owe him no allegiance. We don't need to listen to his doctrines. We don't need to listen to what he says, obey what he teaches, or imitate what he does.
But more importantly, given that he has usurped the Christian religion, the Christian religion obviously came first. That means Christ came first. So, regardless of what He looked like, regardless of what Da Vinci thought He should look like, regardless of what anyone alive today thinks He looked like, we do not have to care. What matters is the faith He gave us before any of this came to be. Jesus could have been green, it wouldn't make a difference to what we, as Christians, believe.
So why was I sent this meme? Why was the origins story of Christ's portraits one of the first arguments against the faith I ever heard when I first became an apologist? Why is there even one person on this planet who makes this article necessary for me to write?
On a small scale, I suppose the answer is the invention of the internet. Overall, it just seems to make us dumber and less critical over time. "The internet told me to eat a Tide pod, so I did". "The internet told me Jesus is just a rebranding of the illegitimate son of a Pope, so He is". The irony is, while it seems to be making us dumber, it has the power to make us smarter. Maybe the abundance of numpties scraping the bottom of the barrel like this is because all the popular arguments died. By now, everyone knows the answer to the "problem" of evil. Everyone knows Evolution is a myth. Basically, everyone knows that popular atheist arguments just don't work. So just put out a bunch of new stuff. It doesn't have to be logical, it just has to be so numerous that by the time Christians have responded to one argument, 3 more have appeared in its place. And you don't even have to stop using the dead ones!
But the bigger problem, ultimately, is sin. We'll cling to any excuse to remain in that. "Why would I want to come to God? God wants me to get married before having sex. God wants me to stop drinking after I've had too many. God wants me to love my enemy rather than take every opportunity to sabotage his life. All these things, and more, are things God wants for me, but I'd rather go my own way". Well, suddenly arguing from stupid things like Da Vinci's paintings seem quite enticing...
But God keeps the invitation open. Salvation is available, right now, to anyone and everyone who is willing to receive it. See, Jesus, whatever He looked like, did exist. And He did die on the cross, and rise again, so that all who believe in Him will receive eternal life. Are you going to let Leonardo Da Vinci rob you of that?