There is a fine but meanignful distinction between Azizi's post and MofH's.

In Azizi's (one might presume) that he starts from the premise that Jesus actually did look like something, maybe not what has been traditionally assumed, but something. And, starting with that presupposition, Azizi's post begins to "sus out" what Jesus may have looked like -- attempting to deduce from legend and historical record.

In Mof H's condescending (to Christians) post, he starts with the presuppositional that Jesus is but myth, therefore it doesn't matter how one might portray him. If Jesus was not, in fact, an historical human being, then what's the harm in charcteriziing him however you want to? -- as long as it isn't Westerners doing the (mis)characterization *wink-and-a-grin*.