Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Goosha
Originally posted by fredtgreco
But the point does get at your argument: if pictures of Christ don't portrary His Person, but merely are portraying a nature (a hunk of flesh), and they do so falsely, then of what use are they?
So, do you grant Paul's point that a picture portrays Christ's human nature and not His whole person (ie His diety)? Answer this first and then we can address your reductio.
I think what he was saying was that the logical consequence of that point (that a picture only portrays Christ's humanity and not His person) is the uselessness of such pictures, since the one thing they are limited to portraying by that definition (his flesh) is portrayed completely inaccurately.
One of the reasons I didn't want to get into the debate was because of my inability to keep up with the posts. In fact, my original post was simply to praise Paul...however, I did post so I can't complain if someone replies to it.
I understood what Fred was getting at...I think the point he brought was completely irrelevant and to be honest somewhat desperate. The second commandment can either allow for pictures of Christ or forbid it. To say that the second command is really just forbidding a picture of Christ because it would be inaccurate is to change the whole debate. He did finally say that he doesn't believe you can have a picture of Christ because that would be a picture of the whole person. This is nothing more than a restatement of his original position and does not refute or address my statement that pictures dont portray whole persons even for regular human beings. Your picture for your avatar doesn't tell me anything about the immaterial parts of your person i.e. personality, character blah blah. I could be wrong and would be willing to have someone disprove such an assertion but was not even the point of my post. I just wanted to thank Paul for his good work.