In almost every Catholic church, you will find a statue of Jesus nailed on the cross. Some show Him in His glorified state; others show Him still in His suffering state. Protestants comment against the Catholic Church still having these images when "Jesus has already resurrected". They think that the statues are idols while images deny or do not acknowledge Christ's resurrection. So they just use the empty cross in their churches. However, I have seen evangelical posters showing Christ hanging on the cross in the suffering state but at a different angle. The image shown is an example of what I'm talking about.... This kind of picture of the crucifix is accepted by evangelicals but not the kind where you actually see the whole front of the image. Isn't that peculiar? I mean....why should that be condemned while the back-angle view is not? It's the same guy nailed on that cross, isn't it? And it does show an image of a person. So what if you don't see the face; it's a person all the same. And since anybody can tell that the person is being nailed to a cross, what difference does it make with either angle of crucifix image - if one denies the resurrection then the other would too, isn't it so? And what happens if the back-view image was 3D; is that wrong? Why? Does a 3D image make it more "physical" and therefore closer to idolatry or something? By 3D, I mean actually something like a statue; you can go all around it and view it from any angle. From any angle you look at the image, it is still an image showing Jesus Christ on the cross! How can that be a problem? What if you had a 2D (ie: a painting) of the risen Christ on the cross with a frontal view; is that wrong? Would it be idolatry to have the same kind of image in the form of a statue? Why or why not?

In short, it doesn't really make any sense to me to accept the image of Christ suffering on the cross like the image shown above while at the same time rejecting a frontal-view version of that same image, or rejecting a statue version of that same image.