Justice wrote:There is the argument that since Christ became man, we can portray him but the Father, hasn't taken on a human form nor has the Holy Spirit.
With those who make a fuss about rejecting images and depictions of the Father, it seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the basis by which persons may be depicted in iconography.
Obviously, it is not necessary for someone to become incarnate in order to be depicted. The Holy Spirit has never become incarnate, and yet the Church depicts Him in icons. The holy angels do not have flesh either, and yet, they are depicted. The devil also has never taken on flesh, although we sometimes see him depicted as an old man in icons, such as the Nativity.
So it is just plain silly to argue that the Father cannot be depicted because He has never taken on flesh. If the iconomachs were consistent in their faulty reasoning, they would necessarily have to argue that the Holy Spirit should also never be depicted in icons either, since the Spirit, like the Father, has never became incarnate.
This argument which suggests that the Word can be depicted because he became flesh, but the Father cannot be depicted because He never has, is spurious and falls completely flat, and should be abandoned.
St. John of Damascus, in his apology in defense of the icons, makes explicitly clear the basis by which someone or something may be depicted in icons:
"In a word it may be said that we can make images of all the forms which we see. We apprehend these as if they were seen."
All that is required is to demonstrate that God the Father has been seen, and then there can be no objections to His being depicted.
"But Scripture offers forms and images even of God." (St. John of Damascus)