Why are people so quick to dismiss Jesus' visual description, but not his life's description?

The descriptions of his life are from eye-witness accounts. The paints are from the imaginations of artists who freely admit that they don't actually know what he looked like. There's simply no comparison between the two. Slick: That's a common skeptic's version of events, but Matthew and John were both disciples of Christ. Yes, they wrote their gospels a few years later, and not while Christ was on earth, but they were still there when things were happening. Luke was a physician, and therefore educated and a capable researcher. He makes it clear in his gospel and in Acts that he produced his work through research. Many eyewitnesses would have still been alive. Mark was a relative of Peter, and is believed to have gotten most of his information from him. The idea that the gospels were written generations later is merely a theory put forth by skeptics. There is no proof of it, and records from the early church show that these gospels were considered to be the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from the very beginning. See link below for more on this.

Because of the Sheople wanting guidance through life.

The descriptions of his life are from eye-witness accounts. The paints are from the imaginations of artists who freely admit that they don't actually know what he looked like. There's simply no comparison between the two. Slick: That's a common skeptic's version of events, but Matthew and John were both disciples of Christ. Yes, they wrote their gospels a few years later, and not while Christ was on earth, but they were still there when things were happening. Luke was a physician, and therefore educated and a capable researcher. He makes it clear in his gospel and in Acts that he produced his work through research. Many eyewitnesses would have still been alive. Mark was a relative of Peter, and is believed to have gotten most of his information from him. The idea that the gospels were written generations later is merely a theory put forth by skeptics. There is no proof of it, and records from the early church show that these gospels were considered to be the work of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John from the very beginning. See link below for more on this.

Because of the Sheople wanting guidance through life.

well christians are of all different races and i'm sure most of them want Jesus to look the same way they do. If you go to a black person's house they are more likely to have a black picture of Jesus on their wall than a white one. People see what they want to see, and everyone has their own idea on how Jesus looks to them.

You are incorrect. The writings were written in the same generation as Jesus, when there were plenty of eye witness accounts available. That is why the historical depiction of Jesus is accepted. The Gospel's were written between 50-85 AD. The epistles of the other Apostles were written between A.D. 48 - 90 Josephus the non-Christian historian wrote about Jesus. He also lived within this same generation. Just to point out that other famous historical character's were often written about hundreds of years after the event, when there were no eye witness accounts at all; yet nobody doubts that these historical events actually happened, or that those people may not have existed. The pictures were painted hundreds or thousands of years later, therefore the two cannot be compared with each other.

The Bible accounts date back to the 1st Century. Pretty close to the time. The paintings we have are probably much "newer". I am not an expert in art, but maybe you or others here know something about the ages of the paintings we now have available? Also, an oral transmission of a story is more easy to convey than a physical description over time.

The date of much of the New Testament is before 70 BC, made by eyewitnesses, or written with eyewitness testimony. The earliest images of Jesus are from far later. For that matter, it is extremely difficult to draw an accurate depiction of a person from even eyewitness testimony, and they didn't have forensic sketch artists back then. Fact is, Jesus probably was not distinguishable from any other 1st-century Jew; after all, Judas had to point out which man He was to the guards who arrested Him, didn't he?

I'll tackle both . jesus was a character in an old old book that was written by scared uneducated shepherds that may or may not have been on a hallucinogen that grew in the desert