True, but that doesn’t change the question raised by some of Jesus’ real name. It was Y’shua, or Yeshua, but when translated into German, which has no ‘J’ so “Y” was used because it had the same sound as “J’ in Hebrew, became Jesus, “hesus” in Spanish, Jesus in English. The early Church that existed in the century (ies) after Jesus was murdered was the “official” Church, “catholic” meaning “universal”. The first “Church”, however, was the Church in Jerusalem that Peter, James, the brother of Jesus, and the Apostles founded. And they rejected the gospel Paul taught. They, at least, had known and followed Jesus when he was alive as opposed to Paul creating his church in the name of Jesus. Paul was a murderer of early followers of Jesus but claimed of have had a “vision” wherein Jesus spoke to him and that was when Paul went from being a zealot attacking followers of Jesus, many of whom had heard Jesus teach, to creating his ‘church’ based on selected stories about Jesus. That church became, over the next few centuries, the “Church”, the one that controlled the masses of illiterate people to gain followers, their money, and thus power. And that Church, in its many branchings, does the exact same thing today. Think of a mega church for the extreme today.

None of that addresses the question of using an image of a black man with dreadlocks to represent Jesus/Yeshua. He wasn’t “white”, although modern Jews consider themselves “white” and are treated as “white” rather than middle eastern in complexion, but modern Arabs don’t consider themselves to be “Black” and many would be insulted to be considered that.

I suppose Jesus could be considered ‘bronze’ just as white people like to get a nice ‘bronze’ tan in the summer and he was certainly outdoors enough to be well-tanned but bronze and black are not the same. It may have been impossible to find an image of Jesus appearing “bronze” but showing him as black is as misleading as showing him as white.