Featured Let’s review some basic Christian understanding

Can you show me where I said anything that resembles what you said above?

I believe that to be true. I also believe that what actually took place at the conception is beyond the mind of man to understand.

Yes! But by calling Mary the Mother of God you are teaching something that is not only misleading but false! The fact that Mary has supplanted Jesus Christ in the mind of many, if not most, Roman Catholics, shows the gross error of that term and the heresy that has arisen because of it.

 

Why?..............................

 

Yes

This speaks to Mary only baring Jesus' human nature not his divine nature. Thus what you said can only be understood as Mary only mothering Jesus' human nature apart from his divinity dichotomizing Jesus' natures as at some point being seperate from each other when within Mary and during the birth of Jesus. I know what you want to say which is Mary is not the Cause of Jesus' divinity and I agree. But by specifically putting it that Mary only mothered Jesus human nature necissarily splits apart Jesus' human nature from his divinity taking away from the hypostatic union. Rather Mother of God indicates that from conseption Jesus' natures are both present within Mary whom becomes the mother of Jesus who is not seperate from his divinity. So once again Mary is not the Cause of Jesus' Divinity but certainly The Mother of Jesus who at all times from his conception is both human and divine. Thus mother of God.

I certainly agree with you here.

I disagree of course which is why 3rd and 4th councils emphasised this title for Mary to pull away from the Nestorian Heresy and the Monophysite Heresy. Its is important to the understanding of the nature of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.

It certainly shows lack of proper Catachesis where those people are conserned. But the title itself isn't the issue.

 

To you it may be semantics, but not to me.
I do not believe in the eternal sonship of Christ. Before his incarnation He was Christ, the Word, the second person of the trinity (1John 5:7)
The designation of "the Son" was given to him at his incarnation.
Hebrews says: "a body thou has prepared for me."
Christ always was deity and at his incarnation became flesh; he was not always flesh. He assumed a human nature and retained his deity. He never gave up his deity. He was fully God and fully man at the same time. However, in eternity past he was not the Son; He was the Word.
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the only begotten of the Father."
I can't argue with Scripture.

 

Mary carried both the human nature and the divine nature of the person, Jesus Christ, in her womb. She was the biological mother of the human nature of the person, Jesus Christ. She was in no way the mother of the divine nature of the person, Jesus Christ. I have no problem understanding the role of Mary in the Incarnation. I have no problem with the way Chalcedon defines the two natures of the person Jesus Christ other than their use of the term Mother of God for Mary!

 

I am not arguing with Scripture either. I have said nothing about the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ. I repeat:

I don't understand why that is so hard for people to understand. That statement by Gill is perfectly consistent with the Scripture I quotes and the one you repeated: "a body thou has prepared for me."

 

Yes we are in agreement here.

However, this statement is problematic in that Mary is the mother of Jesus in his totality not partially. She didn't just carry Jesus' human nature for nine months or give birth to just his humanity but the totality of Jesus Christ which includes his divinity. Mary is not the Cause of Jesus divinity. But Jesus Christ chose to have a mother and Mary is that mother of him who is not seperated from his divinity.

And we are in agreement how that comes about however we are not in agreement about the title which is important in making the case for the hypostatic union of Jesus' natures.

 

I suppose I was trying to correct terminology. It was the Word that became man, not the Son. Basically we agree.

Why introduce Gill. He is in error in many things. He may not be in error here. Stick with the Word.

 

I used Gill in this instance because I thought he was able to say what I meant better than I could.

 

So you're saying Jesus Christ "was...fully human." but you deny that he "became human"?

That's an empty argument, if your logic held up you would also have to say that the Father and the H.S. walked on the earth, and died on the cross. You can't use that verse to say that if the Son did something that the other two automatically did it as well...If so there would be no trinity.

 

Hebrews 1:2 - "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."
-This verse says "his son" is the one through whom the world was created...Therefore I hold to the eternal sonship of the son/word/Jesus.
Because...I can't argue with Scripture.:thumbs:

 

Jesus said in John 17 that he would go back to heaven and receive back his full glory that he had with the Father, ansd the Father in John also verified/testified he was His beloved Son, and John stated that jesus was the only begotten Son of the father, paul stated that he was the Son by nature etc

before His Incarnation, it was God the father/Son/Spirit, not father/Word/Spirit!

 

he was the Word/Angel of the Lord/Lord in the OT, and the Father eternally generated his own Son, thiose other "names" are what he was in various times/situations before His Incarnation...

 

How about:
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder. And His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Guess he knew what was hapening, Eh?

 

Well, I think you have to say He was both Son AND Word for all eternity.

And if all the rest of this doesn't blow your mind, the "Son" who is refered to in Isaiah 7 is called the "Everlasting Father"!

So the Son, Word, Messiah, is also the Everlasting Father....:laugh:

 

Just to throw another kink in this discussion, Read 1 Cor. 15:24-28...
Then comes the end, when he [CHRIST, SEE CONTEXT] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

So here we have the Future Eternal sonship and even subjection of the son to the Father...The Father puts all things under the son...except himself.

 

The author of the Book of Hebrews refers to the Son in the present, as He is now. It is that person, who was not known in the past as the Son, who created all things, though he was the same person.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The WORD created all things; without him was not any thing made that was made.

I know a person in the air force. He is a captain. It is perfectly acceptable English (or grammar) to say: "The captain, when he was young, was mischievous..." (referring to childhood days).

Again, the author of Hebrews is using Son, in the present, referring to the past. It is a title.