Are All Images of Christ Unlawful?

I read the following paragraph here:
Icons violate the Second Commandment that bans visual representations of God, including Jesus Christ. This is also known as “idolatry.” The Scripture makes clear that God hates idolatry and forbids a representation in art of what is divine.32 Making images to repre-sent God corrupts those who use them.33 Images teach lies about God.34 God cannot be represented in art and all who practice idolatry are commanded to repent.35 Just as in the Old Testament, so also in the New Testament does the Holy Spirit warn true believers, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”36.
Then I did a search on the subject of 'portraying Jesus in images or pictures for art or worship' and found an article by Jeffrey J. Meyers called 'Vere Homo, The Case for Pictures of Jesus: a Critical Examination of Seeing Jesus by Peter Barnes' I have a special interest in this subject for several reasons: because I love art, especially art that depicts humanity; because I am a visual artist that loves to draw the human face and form; because I am a believer and love Jesus Christ; because I myself have drawn or painted pictures trying to depict Jesus in a Bible story setting or of His face during His passion; and finally because, while I don't think any one picture has captured Him, I believe seeing pictures of Jesus in action along with pictures that foreshadow or symbolize Him such as in the video slide show I did of 'He Chose the Nails' can act as a storytelling device to remind us of aspects of God's amazing plan for the salvation of mankind. Because of all these reasons, reading that first paragraph filled me with dismay; I want to please God and not be disobedient to Him. I questioned my husband about it, and he said he generally doesn't like pictures or movies of Jesus because they never can capture the reality of who He is. He felt that it may not necessarily be wrong, but it would depend on the use of the images and the heart of the person who created them or used them. So I did the search and found the above article, which basically said the same thing my husband said. The author believes that according to early church history, images were considered lawful for art and education but not for uses of devotion and worship. Of course, in history this changed when much of the organized church decided to allow images for worship. The reformation in general reversed this decision in its churches and went back to either no images or images used for education and art only. His article is a refutation of a severe Reformed position that allows no images of any kind for any purpose. The author shows that this position is absurd scripturally and historically. He believes that it can be shown that icons, statues, portraits that are used for worship, veneration, and devotion are unlawful but that images made and used for education and art are lawful. He also discusses the difference between the art that God commanded to be created and used in the temple, which was used to show aspects of His glory and plan, and images that were created or appropriated by men to use in worshipping God or other gods. I believe Meyers does a good job of sorting out the different aspects of this subject.