I don't understand how it required mental gymnastics. Its simple. In the OT God was not incarnate and therefore not representable through matter, and after the incarnation God was made flesh and therefore representable.
No, it isn't. Because the 7th council had as much to do with Christology as the rest. To deny that Christ can be depicted is to deny that he was incarnate and visible, at least from the eyes of the fathers at the time. As for veneration, it is hardly easy to tell people they cannot venerate Icons when the Icons stream myrrh, heal the sick, and show people visions.
Source? The problem was the masses being uneducated in Latin and the Church being hesitant to translate it into the vernacular for theological reasons. Not some vast conspiracy to keep the word away from the people.
Communists had to first wipe out the native Christians before they set up their false churches that are not usually in communion with the Original. This is hardly comparable to the early or middle ages. Even in the Eastern Roman Empire the Patriarch of the Church had the right to go against the Emperor's decisions both Politically and Religiously.
Who? Again provide a source. Who in the 7th century persecuted people for reading scriptures readily available in Greek?
A true statement. The "Bible" wasn't around until fairly recently. What the people did have was the Holy Scriptures, and access to them not only every day in services, but also could have copies made, or memorize them themselves as many did. Many Greek Laypeople would simply write down what was read during services. Icons were there for people not educated enough to read, so that they could remember Christ's life easily.
The incarnation of Christ into human flesh making God representable to human eyes IS a Chronological issue.
At the core, councils dealt with major disagreements that were seen as a threat to the Church. Mostly those had been disagreements over the Trinity and Christology. But just before the 7th Council, iconoclasm had become widespread. Since icons and images were deeply embedded in popular piety, this was a practical issue at least as important as Christology.
It's not human imagination though. We have early depictions of Christ, as well as the fact that he is human as well as God. Are we not meant to worship with all of our senses? A man-God sits on the throne of heaven. He is neither invisible nor removed.
The non-Christians were the ones rounding up and killing those who used Icons. So what you had was a group of Bishops loyal to Emperor Leo supporting these actions, and then the decision of the Council had to make a statement condemning these Bishops for their violent ways, kicking them out of the Church if they refused to repent. I don't see how this is non-Christian when Paul was the first to create the Anathema and use it. Furthermore I don't see for its "pretty close" to idolatry when neither Catholics nor Orthodox worship the Icon itself but rather the person represented.
ohohoho! curse you to hell! 
Yet God had Moses fashion a bronze serpent and the people of Israel had to bow before it. Also if you look in the Hebrew the word that translates to "Image or Idol" is the Hebrew word for Idol (pasal, פֶ֣֙סֶל֙).
Of course. These disputes often got violent on both sides, and it's equally a problem on both sides. But the statements in the OP don't just prohibit violence. They anathematize anyone who fails to honor images. The Christian way to combat violence is not with your own fighting words.
Interesting.
