In reply to:
[color:"blue"] Seeing and drawing are TWO different things. Does a picture capture the complete person of the person? If you have seen a picture of Christ, have you really seen Christ?--NO, merely an image made with a "imperfect" device that was man made.


But the same can be said about the written Word. It does not capture the complete person of Christ either, but that “imperfection” (used in all reverence) does not abrogate its propriety.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"] We can SPEAK about Him and His glory, because HE has given us His Word to do so and commands such. He did not give us His portrait.


Precisely, and that is the way that I would argue it. The problem is not so much that images, in themselves, would have necessarily been a breach of the second commandment due to their non-comprehensive ability to present the whole person (including His divinity), but rather that it is impossible to construct an image that does not misrepresent Christ, since we have no such images available to us. Any image constructed today will inescapably communicate things that are positively untrue about Christ, and that is the problem IMHO.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"] I disagree with the statement of yours that says, "my reason would not be because it would have been sinful to record how Jesus appeared to us as the incarnate Word," because a photo (1) is made with an imperfect device, (2) could never properly and fully capture the incarnate Word, and (3) simply, but more importantly, against God's Holy Word (Exodus 20:15-16, ..."any likeness of any thing"...; Deuteronomy 4:15-16, ..."the similitude of any figure"...).


In response:

1. All rhetorical devices are imperfect.

2. Ah, I’ll have to split this one. The Scriptures cannot “fully capture” the incarnate Word either. As to whether or not an image could “properly” capture the Incarnate Word, it obviously could when He was alive, but anyone intending to do so now, without access to Him, could not properly do so.

3. Begging the question, that’s what we’re discussing here. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

Oh, one other reason why it is good that we do not have images of Christ, and perhaps a reason why He came at such a time, is because it would undoubtedly lead to mystical idolatry by worshipping the images themselves. Case in point, the bronze serpent (2 Kings 18:4), and just look at what happened with relics in the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, my point here is that I believe the argument against images of Christ is sound on the basis of the fact that one cannot create an image that does not communicate untrue things about Christ, not so much that it will invariably fall short of communicating all that is true about Christ.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason