This brings up a good point, I believe. You referred earlier to the iconoclast controversy and I think the Judaic/Christian split is very relevant to this discussion.
As you point out, in Judaism, God could not be represented - there was no thing, no "form" possible of God. This was antithetic to their very concept of God, one of the key differences between them and other religions. To attempt to represent in form what could not be was based on a false concept of God.. I.e., any "image" of God was impossible, therefore false and forbidden.
This is still the case for Judaism, and the case in Islam (just a comparative reference, not an insult).
The big difference comes with the Incarnation. Neither Judaism nor Islam recognizes the Incarnation - God is therefore still, literally, impossible to represent in the manner of any visual form. "No man has seen God" (in the whole, not as an appearance in a bush e.g.)
You are also correct about opposition to paintings and statues of Jesus. What what we now call Judaizers opposed this. The above helps explain why. ( Of course, in all its aspects, the conflict between remaining Jews vs. Gentile is a major conflict in the early Church.)
Inside Christianity, we still see a range of views on this, Messianic Jews representing the Judaizer end of the spectrum.
During the iconoclast controversy, one of the important points made was that it is fundamental to Christianity that God became man, the Word became flesh and this forever separated true Christians from Jews (and Moslems) on this issue. Because, more precisely, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." We can only imagine how this must have sounded to Jewish ears.
Therefore representing God in the form or a representation of Christ was not a violation, because God Himself had incarnated in a form - and this is a fundamental difference between Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
A difference, the Incarnation, that the Church emphasized - after all it is fundamental to the faith.
This helps explain the artistic renderings from the catacombs onward that illustrate, in the simplest possible way, the basic fact of the Incarnation: human mother and Christ child: the Word became flesh and dwelt among us - as proudly proclaimed in the liturgy, in art, in song.
I wouldn't necessarily see God becoming human as "A form" for He of course has no comparison to wood and metal images/idols "forms" designed and molded by men...rather an exact representation of God...Christ is God. But I can see Israel having a problem with the incarnation..of course, Actually there are Christians who don't quite get this.
As for the "word becoming flesh and forever separating Christians from Jews", (as you stated), The Jews were first to hear from Christ..."He came unto His own"...many Jews did believe in Him and Jesus himself was Jewish...but we as Gentiles were "grafted/adopted" in. The Jews are blinded only until the fullness of the Gentiles is complete...and when Christ returns they will see Him as their Messiah.
I'm of the mind the Messianic Jews will go thru the Tribulation and preach Christ...it seems might be the 144,000 of Rev. So no, they are not "forever separated" from Christ, just blinded, and that for our sake or we would have no hope..... ...God has always reserved a remnant of Jews who He protects and that will be so as the years pass into endtimes events unfolding.
As for artistic drawings and images cast...fine to consider as art for those who appreciate this type of Art. But that is all they are for me..art. Way too much nudity for my taste!