I guess that we're obviously talking about two different things, MofH.

If you're saying that it doesn't matter how Jesus is portrayed because, after all, he wasn't a real, historical person, rather just a figment of religious imagination -- then I would take exception with you.

If, on the other hand, you are merely saying that it is a reasonable exercise to use the arts in a manner to better help us understand the historical person, Jesus, or aspects about him that are not as easily conveyed in concrete terms as they might be through the arts -- then I wouldn't disagree. In fact...

..one of my favorite artist renditions of the incarnation is the movie "Phenomenon" (with John Traovolta). A movie that never made any claims to be portraying Jesus -- but did none-the-less.

The confusion -- and the line I think you seem willing to cross, but that makes me uneasy -- is that you seem to be saying that it is okay to portray Jesus in whatever manner makes you happy, still claim that it is an accurate portrayal (in historical, anthropological, biophysical terms) of the actual man, Jesus, who walked the earth some 2000 years ago, and that's okay...

...And I'm saying that that is the exact kind of thinking that led to the blue-eyed blonde Jesus.