Nope. Not that "light" is better than "dark" - it's just that many of the pictures you see would (probably) have been painted by caucasian artists who depicted Jesus in a sort of "their ideal" kinda way. So, naturally, they create an image that is white. It's not racist for a white guy to paint a picture of a white man. Over the ages, depictions of Jesus have been different - depending on the culture the artist lived in. There are no known images of the man himself (like drawings or anything from his time alive) - so every image must rely on an artist's imagination...

When we imagine someone, we always do it through the filter of our own culture. Since most of the art Americans, British and Australians know is european, it is hardly surprising that depictions of the human figure, even of Jesus, more resemble europeans than anything else. but as you widen your knowledge of Christian art, you will find a surprising array of facial features for the Saviour, almost all seen through the eyes of the culture of the artist. Below are representations of Maori, Balinese and Japanese images of Christ.

no, besides Once you read the bible you find out that jesus is not a white man. He is an Israelite, so therefor he is actually dark complected. (i have dont research on this)

I wouldn't rule out the possibility in this modern day and age. While I agree with the message given by Singazelle and Friarnipandtuck, people have come to realise that Jesus was 'black' (or brown, rather - much like an Arab), and artistic license means something entirely different now, in this day and age of mass communication and vision.

Each culture sees their religious figure in thier own image. Why would a black artist portray Jesus as a white man? He would obviously be able to relate more to a black man. And since Americans are UNFORTUNATELY always seen in media and other cultures as light skinned, it only makes sense that as a country we choose to portray Jesus as light skinned. I personally believe given the time and place He lived, He would have look Arabic.

It seems logical that people would do research to determine how Jesus, being Jewish and living during that time in history, would likely have looked before creating any art depiction. Especially, since there's no actual image to copy. There are a number of reasons why someone chooses to do otherwise. I've seen Jesus depicted as the "lightest", as the "darkest" and "everything in between." It just depends on what the group of people seeking God looks like. I think people initially feel closer to Jesus if they can imagine that he looks just like one of them. But, when you actually get to know Jesus instead of just know of him those issues aren't important.

Jesus came from the tribe of Judah and Mary was half Levite. So Jesus was half Judah & half Levi. Judah is the kingly tribe. Levi is the priestly tribe. This naturally puts Jesus in line with the kings of Judah & being also from the tribe of Levi puts Him in line with the priests. We can see that not just spiritually, but natural bloodline as well that Jesus is even King & Lord by birth. Before 722 BC, when the nation of Israel had 2 states; the Northern half being Israel & the Southern half being Judah. The Northern half consisted of 10 tribes. The Southern half had the tribes of Judah & Benjamin. The priestly tribe of Levi was spread out on both states. Right around 722 BC, The Assyrians defeat the Northern half. While in Assyrian captivity the Israelites where placed in a region partly occupied by the Medes and Mannai called Gamir. The Israelites in Gamir became known to the Assyrians as the Cimmerians. About the same time in history another group of Israelites became known as the ‘Iskuza’ warriors. The Iskuza were the earliest of the Scythian people. E. Raymond Capt writes: It is universally accepted by modern historians that the Iskuza were called "Shuthae" by the Greeks and "Sacae" (also "Saka" and "Sakka") by the Persians. Herodotus further tells us the Persians called the Sacae, "Scythians." A giant mountain-side inscription called the Behistun Rock, made by the order of Darius the Great around 515 B.C., is written in three languages. All three languages are written in cuneiform and all three writings are identical in content. Imagine the Rosetta Stone on a scale almost as big as Mount Rushmore. Babylonian (Accadian), Elamite (Susian) and Persian are the three languages. Where the Persians and the Elamites wrote ‘Sakka’ in their version, the Babylonians wrote ‘Gimiri.’ These writings are the missing links to the identity of the lost tribes. They show us Israel’s identity as viewed by foreigners calling them Scythian and Cimmerian. After the Babylonias took over the Southern half in 586 BC, The rest of the tribes moved West into Europe to join their relative tribes. It's from crossing over the Caucus mountains that many acquire the term Caucasion. At the time of the Babylonian invasion, the prophet Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch took King Zedikiah's daughters and headed to Ireland by way of Egypt. Irish historians are unanimous that about 580 B.C. there arrived in Ulster a notable man, a patriarch or saint, accompanied by an Eastern princess, and a lesser person by the name of Simon Brach, or Barech. This party brought with them several remarkable things about which Ireland’s songs and legends cluster; those things were a harp (David’s harp), and a wonderful stone - the Stone of Destiny - the Lia Phail. According to many traditions, Jeremiah took the princesses to Spain, where one of them married a prince of Zaragossa. The other princess Tamar Tephi married Eochaidh, the Heremon, or head king of Ireland. By the time of Julius Caesar, Israel was pretty much dominating most of Western Europe. In the heraldry of the two leading tribes, Ephraim for the Northern tribes & Judah for the Southern tribes, Ephraim's symbol was the unicorn or calf (=engle - engle land) and Judah's symbol was the lion. With the British royal heraldry we see the 2 leaders have joined together. Skipping forward, just after the Crucifixion... Even though they fought a lot, the Romans & the Brits were pretty tight.. . Claudius Caesar gives his daughter, Venus Julia (Venissa) to the British king Arviragus for his bride. Caradoc, another British king & Pendragon in the battles against Rome, around the same time gave his daughter Gladys to stay with Claudius, who later (AD 52) adopted her. She then married a Roman Senator (AD 53) named Rufus Pudentius around the era of the Claudian Treaty, which lasted about 2 years. (They're mentioned in the N.T.: Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus (Caradoc's son, who also started the first Christian church in Rome & became the 1st Bishop of Rome.), and Claudia (Gladys changed her name after being adopted to honor Claudius Caesar) and all the brethren. 2Tim. 4:21) While Britain & Rome fought, Caradoc's sister (Graecina) also married a Roman General named Aulus Plautius. The irony of the fighting between Britain & Rome was that the rulers of both were related In-Laws. Almost 300 years later, Constantine's family also came out of Britain. Shakespeare wrote a play around Caradoc's dad. King Cunobelinus, the Cymbeline of Shakespeare. Jesus was Caucasion.

Personally, I think people were just being ignorant of the fact that Jesus was middle eastern, but, then again, almost every culture depicts Mary or Jesus or God differently.

Jesus the jew would be likely brown haired and possibly darker skinned than the European version shown in Roman catholic churches... On the flipside almost all cultures who accept Christianity or Roman catholism create thier own version of Christ in art & statues..

1 Cor. tells us That "Long hair on a man is a disgrace" so the long hair part is also a marketing ploy?