In reply to:
Christ is the God-Man! Can you literally draw Christ's glory? Do you know of a video tape (et. al) that can record the Divinity of God?


I don't believe that any medium of communication can adequately capture the divine nature of Christ, that is not an especial challenge to images. Jesus did say, however, that whoever had seen Him had seen the Father, so apparently whatever sense perceptory information His followers had was sufficient to communicate His divine nature to them.

In reply to:
We have made allot of advancements in technology, but this device has not come to the forefront yet--only when we see Him face to face will we see His magnificent glory "fully", which is beyond imagination (and a Polaroid).


But can you speak His glory fully? If not, should you refrain from speaking about Him? My point in addressing this argument, is that I don't believe a particular form of linguistic expression is necessarily wrong simply because it does not present Christ in all His fullness. There is no linguistic medium that can do that.

In reply to:
God also guarded against this as Christ came in the fullness of time. If He had desired a Polaroid He could have come in the 20th century.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


Well, now that kind of reasoning would result in an abundance of problems. Surely you would not exegete Galatians 4:4 to say that Jesus came when He did in order to avoid cameras, would you? I of course agree that the world in that day was perfectly prepared for the ministry of Christ, but to reason from there that anything of later development would have been inherently problematic, I believe would result in manifold applications that you would not be willing to accept (i.e., this is begging the question). smirk

So your position is, that if someone had video-taped the Sermon on the Mount, it would be a sin to have done so and to show it to someone saying, "This is Christ as He appeared to us and taught us while preaching the Sermon on the Mount."? Why was it okay to view images of Christ firsthand, but not secondhand?

FYI - A couple of notes for you. I agree with your end conclusion about pictures of Christ, I just don't think this particular argument is compelling. Secondly, I actually don't necessarily disagree with the opinion that the fullness of time intentionally occurred prior to videography. However, my reason would not be because it would have been sinful to record how Jesus appeared to us as the incarnate Word, but because it is better suited to the glory of God in bringing people to faith by His sovereign grace apart from sight, as Jesus said to Thomas, "because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason