My eyes kept going back to this one particular icon of Christ holding the Bible in His hand. For the next several days I could not get that icon out of my mind.
That definitely happened to me. Thanks for posting that.
As personally edifying as I found it, he gets a couple of things wrong. The synagogue with images he refers to (the one at Dura Europos), is second century, not first. It's also right next to a house church, so Christian influence is very possible there. Jesus and His disciples would have gone to synagogues with rosettes and floral designs, but no evidence they had full blown images of people outside the Temple. And as seems to be usual in popular Orthodox apologetics, he jumps from "images are not Biblically forbidden" to "images are to be venerated" without establishing the latter.
Second, he mentions Eusebius while neglecting the fact that Eusebius is quite uncertain about holy images, calling them a "Gentile custom." IIRC, in another place when asked for a portrait of Jesus, he even uses the later iconoclast argument that no image could truly portray Incarnate God. So while Calvin might have been wrong that the fourth century Church was image-less (if Calvin even says that, I don't know whether he does or not), to thereby imply as the blog post does that the fourth century Church had the high view of icons found in modern Orthodoxy is not at all in evidence.