This thesis, with theological aesthetics as a theoretical horizon, and the iconoclastic controversy in the Byzantine period as a case study, is an analysis of the problem of Christology involved in the icon. It tries to make contribution in the three following aspects: (1) Study of the iconoclastic controversy itself. It is generally accepted that the controversy was the eruption of the inherent differences within early patristic theology as a public conflict, and a continuance of the Christological controversy into the post-Chalcedonian era. But most scholars share a tendency believe that the icon defenders' basic argument was the reality of the Incarnation (and used it against the iconoclasts), and this was for the most part attributed to John of Damascus. This thesis indicates that the ultimate foundation for the theological triumph of the defenders is the doctrine of the hypostasis of God-man, a basis on which the entire effort to defend the integrity of the humanity of Christ depends. Otherwise, the return to the Antrochene tradition of the icon defenders can hardly avoid being suspected of Nestorian. This, however, is the achievement of Theodore of Studios. (2) The theology of icon as theological aesthetics. The essence of the problem of theological justification for depicting the image of Christ is: How is it possible that a transcendent God descends and manifests Himself in a visible, perceivable manner, besides abstract concepts and language? Is there any legitimate dogmatic basis for human beings to receive revelation in this way and express it in a corresponding manner? This is the typical problem that concerns theological aesthetics. Although some scholars have already explored the problem of icon on the horizon of theological aesthetics, the systematic-theological content has not really been dealt with. The author analyzes how a proper understanding of the Incarnation by Byzantine Orthodoxy establishes an indispensable Christological basis for a theological aesthetics of the icon, this eliminating the prohibition of image of the OT, bringing a new order of epistemology, and how this achievement has benefited from the theology of Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor. (3) The tension between Word and Image. The God of Christianity reveals Himself through Word and Image. Thus a proper theology should willingly take in both. Unfortunately, in practice the latter is often neglected, or even put on the opposite side against the former. This tension is a recurring theme in the history of theology, with the Byzantine iconoclasm as an extreme expression. The author tries to demonstrate this tension, and argue that it is in correspondence to relationship between divinity and humanity of Christ. This explains why it has such a strong characteristic of Monophysitism, and behind it is the Platonic tendency of spiritualism and elitism. Similar ideology is still alive in Protestant theology today. Theology and church life are impoverished by this weakness. The theological aesthetics of icon is a necessary remedy for this tendency. By returning to the icon, it restores the balance between divinity and humanity of Christ. Its theoretical purpose has much in common with the correction of Protestant theology by Hans Urs von Balthasar. The aesthetical dimension, sought after by western theology, has always been an inherent central element in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. It can be of great value of reference for western theology as it faces its predicament today. / 沙湄. / 論文(哲學博士)--香港中文大學, 2005. / 論文(哲學博士)--北京大學, 2005. / 參考文獻(p. 170-176). / Adviser: Lo Lung Kwong. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-07, Section: A, page: 2619. / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Electronic reproduction. [Ann Arbor, MI] : ProQuest Information and Learning, [200-] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Abstracts also in English. / School code: 1307. / Lun wen (Zhe xue bo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 2005. / Lun wen (Zhe xue bo shi)--Beijing da xue, 2005. / Can kao wen xian (p. 170-176). / Sha Mei.