J
justasking4
Guest
That would follow since God Himself cannot die.
- Status
J
justasking4
Guest
You missunderstand me. The scriptures can be trusted because they are inspired and inerrant.
It is not just another “Sacred tradition” but the very word of God. Not even your traditions can arise to this standard.
I agree. However, it is first in authority. Even over the church.
This example does not apply well to what the scriptures are i.e. inspired-inerrant. Nothing can replace them as with other books and works.
R
reluctant_saint
Guest
Well then, it’s obvious that our disagreement goes far beyond Mary. Our very ideas of Salvation are different.
I would argue that Jesus not only died in his humanity, but also his divinity. But I shall have to take a little time to write something up on this. Don’t get me wrong. Nietzsche said “God is dead.” I mean to imply no such thing by saying that God died, but because Catholics have a much more integral view of Jesus (where there is a deeper intimacy, for lack of a better word, between his humanity and his divinity) we view the death of Jesus as much more than just a physical event of a dying human body. We say it is the death of the God-Man in both his divinity and his humanity.
OK, I’m going to get writing on a Biblical reply as to this new topic.
Z
zemi
Guest
How do you know that Nicea (325) got it right?
Z
zemi
Guest
The Bible is not innerant. Only active agents like persons can be innerant. The Bible is not an active agent. The Bible is infallible. Thus interpretations if the innerant word of God may be fallible.
Infallibility of the interpretation was given by Jesus only to the Church he founded (as he was seemingly “intollerantly anti-pluralistic” and founded only one) and guess which one I would say that Church is…
R
reluctant_saint
Guest
OK, Justasking4, I’m reposting this because you missed it the first time it went up. It is long and takes up two posts, but I don’t believe in short answers. C.S. Lewis once said something to the effect that that people say they want to know the truth, but they’ll then complain when they find out the truth is complicated. You’ll just have to bear with me.
In his encyclical letter “Inneffabilis Deus,” where the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was solenmly defined, the main Biblical text that Pope Pius IX focused on was what’s known as the Proto-Evangelium, where God says to the Serpent “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:15)
All Christians understand that the seed of the woman refers to Christ who triumphs over Satan, but few Protestant scholars are willing to admit the fact that the woman in this Scripture refers to Mary. As to that we must jump ahead to the Apostle John, who was entrusted with Mary as his mother, to see that the woman in this passage really is Mary.
There are two times in the Gospel of John where Mary is mentioned: first at the wedding feast of Cana (2:1-11) and second at the Crucifixion (19:26-27). In both these cases, Jesus addresses her as “Woman,” a title which, I should add, was not used in a derogatory manner back then as it is now. As for Jesus saying to Mary “What have I to do with thee,” Biblical studies show that this phrase is a Hebrew idiom which can at one time express disagreement, but at the same time express consent. So it should not be considered as a rebuke in any way.
So why does John call Mary “Woman”? Because John was very concerned with showing the Jewish roots of Christianity. The Gospel of John is full of such instances where he is more concerned with showing the fulfillment of the Old Testament than he is with expressing historical truth. Consider how the Gospel begins. “In the beginning . . .” That comes straight from the first words of Scripture. What about where he talks about being born again of water and the Spirit? He’s referring to the second verse of Genesis chapter one where it says “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” So the world came into being through water and spirit; so also the believer is born again of water and spirit.
How about this one? Why do all the Synoptic Gospels say Simon of Cyrene helped Christ to carry his Cross, but the Gospel of John says “and he went out, bearing the cross for himself”? (19:17) The answer is because John wants to point back to Genesis 22:16 where “Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son.” He’s showing how Christ is the fulfillment of Isaac, who also carried the wood on which he was to be sacrificed.
Why does the Gospel of John say that Christ was crucified on the day of preparation of the Passover (John 19:14), but the other Gospels say he died the next day? Matthew tells us that it was “the day after the preparation” (Mat. 27:62), and the other two Gospels say it was the day of preparation of the Sabbath (Mark. 15:42 & Luke 23:54). Now the first three Gospels make sense together for saying that Christ died on a Friday, but what about the Gospel of John? Again, John is concerned with Spiritual truths. He says that Christ was tried and crucified of the day of preparation of the Passover, “and it was about the sixth hour.” (19:14) Now the sixth hour was the traditional time the Temple Priests would have begun slaughtering the lambs for the Passover. Remember, the Gospel of John is the only Gospel which actually calls Jesus the “Lamb of God.” (1:29,36) The phrase otherwise also appears in the book of Revelation, which John also wrote, but it is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. So John is emphasizing the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Pascal lamb.
I could talk even more about the Gospel of John, but I think that’s enough to show my point. That’s how John’s Gospel works. He’s constantly taking things from the Old Testament and showing what they correspond to in the New.
So what then is the significance of Jesus calling Mary “Woman”? John is setting Mary up as the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15. Let’s delve deeper into Scripture to see if this holds up.
In his encyclical letter “Inneffabilis Deus,” where the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was solenmly defined, the main Biblical text that Pope Pius IX focused on was what’s known as the Proto-Evangelium, where God says to the Serpent “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:15)
All Christians understand that the seed of the woman refers to Christ who triumphs over Satan, but few Protestant scholars are willing to admit the fact that the woman in this Scripture refers to Mary. As to that we must jump ahead to the Apostle John, who was entrusted with Mary as his mother, to see that the woman in this passage really is Mary.
There are two times in the Gospel of John where Mary is mentioned: first at the wedding feast of Cana (2:1-11) and second at the Crucifixion (19:26-27). In both these cases, Jesus addresses her as “Woman,” a title which, I should add, was not used in a derogatory manner back then as it is now. As for Jesus saying to Mary “What have I to do with thee,” Biblical studies show that this phrase is a Hebrew idiom which can at one time express disagreement, but at the same time express consent. So it should not be considered as a rebuke in any way.
So why does John call Mary “Woman”? Because John was very concerned with showing the Jewish roots of Christianity. The Gospel of John is full of such instances where he is more concerned with showing the fulfillment of the Old Testament than he is with expressing historical truth. Consider how the Gospel begins. “In the beginning . . .” That comes straight from the first words of Scripture. What about where he talks about being born again of water and the Spirit? He’s referring to the second verse of Genesis chapter one where it says “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” So the world came into being through water and spirit; so also the believer is born again of water and spirit.
How about this one? Why do all the Synoptic Gospels say Simon of Cyrene helped Christ to carry his Cross, but the Gospel of John says “and he went out, bearing the cross for himself”? (19:17) The answer is because John wants to point back to Genesis 22:16 where “Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son.” He’s showing how Christ is the fulfillment of Isaac, who also carried the wood on which he was to be sacrificed.
Why does the Gospel of John say that Christ was crucified on the day of preparation of the Passover (John 19:14), but the other Gospels say he died the next day? Matthew tells us that it was “the day after the preparation” (Mat. 27:62), and the other two Gospels say it was the day of preparation of the Sabbath (Mark. 15:42 & Luke 23:54). Now the first three Gospels make sense together for saying that Christ died on a Friday, but what about the Gospel of John? Again, John is concerned with Spiritual truths. He says that Christ was tried and crucified of the day of preparation of the Passover, “and it was about the sixth hour.” (19:14) Now the sixth hour was the traditional time the Temple Priests would have begun slaughtering the lambs for the Passover. Remember, the Gospel of John is the only Gospel which actually calls Jesus the “Lamb of God.” (1:29,36) The phrase otherwise also appears in the book of Revelation, which John also wrote, but it is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. So John is emphasizing the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Pascal lamb.
I could talk even more about the Gospel of John, but I think that’s enough to show my point. That’s how John’s Gospel works. He’s constantly taking things from the Old Testament and showing what they correspond to in the New.
So what then is the significance of Jesus calling Mary “Woman”? John is setting Mary up as the woman mentioned in Genesis 3:15. Let’s delve deeper into Scripture to see if this holds up.
R
reluctant_saint
Guest
In the Book of Revelation, John gives us the fulfillment of the Proto-Evangelium. In chapter twelve of Revelation we see “A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.” (12:1) He goes on to say, “she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto his throne.” In this same chapter he writes “And there was seen another sign in heaven; and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven diadems. . . . the great dragon was cast down, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.”
Remember how John writes. He’s always referring to the Old Testament. Here in this chapter we see everything spoken of in the Proto-Evangalium: a woman, her seed, and the ancient serpent (i.e. The one in the Garden).
So who is the woman? The woman is no other than the one whom Jesus called “Woman”: his mother, Mary. Indeed, I can’t think of anybody else that gave birth to “a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron.” Mary is the only figure who fits the character of the women spoken of in Revelation 12.
But suppose you think the women referred to in Revelation is only a symbol for something else, say, the Church. Although Catholics recognize that the women does refer to the Church, it also refers to Mary for one important reason. If the Proto-Evangelium was referring to a real man when it said “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed,” that is, if the seed of the woman was a real man, (and we believe it was a real man, Jesus Christ) then why would the “woman” also mentioned here not be a real women? Eve was a real person. Adam was a real person. The seed of the woman was a real person. Why not the woman herself? Do you now see why the Early Church Fathers referred to Mary as the New Eve? Christ was the New Adam; Mary the New Eve.
So back to “Ineffabilis Deus,” Pius IX says that since Scripture says there is enmity between the woman and the serpent, the women cannot be defiled by sin. The woman is an enemy of the serpent in the same why that her seed is the enemy of the serpent’s seed. This does not mean that the women conquers the serpent. It’s her seed that does that. But it does mean the serpent cannot touch her. Indeed, if you look again to Revelation 12, that’s exactly what you’ll see.
Rev. 12:13-16
“And when the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. And there were given to the woman the two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness unto her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman water as a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the stream. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river which the dragon cast out of his mouth.”
The woman, Mary, cannot be touched by the serpent. This also shows the woman is sinless. No attack of the serpent can reach her. So what does the serpent do?
Rev 12:17
“And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus.”
This is also why we call Mary our mother. Yes, I believe that when Jesus gave her to John, he was giving her to all of us. In fact, in his Gospel, John refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” In effect, Jesus gives his mother not to John but to “the disciple whom he loved.” And I think its fair to say that all we who follow Christ are his beloved disciples.
That’s my Biblical defense of the Immaculate Conception.
Remember how John writes. He’s always referring to the Old Testament. Here in this chapter we see everything spoken of in the Proto-Evangalium: a woman, her seed, and the ancient serpent (i.e. The one in the Garden).
So who is the woman? The woman is no other than the one whom Jesus called “Woman”: his mother, Mary. Indeed, I can’t think of anybody else that gave birth to “a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron.” Mary is the only figure who fits the character of the women spoken of in Revelation 12.
But suppose you think the women referred to in Revelation is only a symbol for something else, say, the Church. Although Catholics recognize that the women does refer to the Church, it also refers to Mary for one important reason. If the Proto-Evangelium was referring to a real man when it said “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed,” that is, if the seed of the woman was a real man, (and we believe it was a real man, Jesus Christ) then why would the “woman” also mentioned here not be a real women? Eve was a real person. Adam was a real person. The seed of the woman was a real person. Why not the woman herself? Do you now see why the Early Church Fathers referred to Mary as the New Eve? Christ was the New Adam; Mary the New Eve.
So back to “Ineffabilis Deus,” Pius IX says that since Scripture says there is enmity between the woman and the serpent, the women cannot be defiled by sin. The woman is an enemy of the serpent in the same why that her seed is the enemy of the serpent’s seed. This does not mean that the women conquers the serpent. It’s her seed that does that. But it does mean the serpent cannot touch her. Indeed, if you look again to Revelation 12, that’s exactly what you’ll see.
Rev. 12:13-16
“And when the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. And there were given to the woman the two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness unto her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman water as a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the stream. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river which the dragon cast out of his mouth.”
The woman, Mary, cannot be touched by the serpent. This also shows the woman is sinless. No attack of the serpent can reach her. So what does the serpent do?
Rev 12:17
“And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus.”
This is also why we call Mary our mother. Yes, I believe that when Jesus gave her to John, he was giving her to all of us. In fact, in his Gospel, John refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” In effect, Jesus gives his mother not to John but to “the disciple whom he loved.” And I think its fair to say that all we who follow Christ are his beloved disciples.
That’s my Biblical defense of the Immaculate Conception.
S
st_lucy
Guest
Hello justasking4, this statement was brought up by you not only here but a little bit before. Why is it that you feel that you have the need to judge what these non-Christians are feeling as well as what catholics are feelings. Are you so comfortable in your salvation that now you have made it your own personal duty to push my Lord off of His throne to judge what is going on? If someone says they are praying to God with help of someone else ie the saints or Mary, than since I don’t have the ability to see in their heart I suppose the Christian thing to do would be to believe them.
S
st_lucy
Guest
why is it that you want us to summarize for you a tradition that has been happening for 2000 years but you wont take the time to study it for yourself? If you are really interested in finding out the truth than read up on it. It has been made very easy for you because you have been given the links, unlike most of us who had to actually search for the information ourselves.
Z
zemi
Guest
Will all due respect, I must second st lucy on this, Justasking.
S
st_lucy
Guest
A few really quick answer are:
1: Because the Church says so and my Lord gave to His people His Church to guide us until His return and the never world shall not prevail.
- If God would raise up Moses and Enoch, than think of what He would do for His own mother. The one person who cared for Him when He was sick, the one person who feed Him when He was unable to, the one person who held Him when He was scared, the one person who wiped away His tears and kissed His cheeks. Do think that a loving God who would become human and was brutally murdered for such lowly unappreciative creatures would not give His own mother, the first creature who truly followed Him and obeyed Him unrelentingly, the honor of entering heaven body and soul?
- Mary, being the a true Christian who is an example to all of us on how we should live our lives was also given the ability to enter heaven body and soul, to give us an example what awaits each and everyone of us if we obey.
God Bless you and God Speed.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
But you can’t have it both ways. This confuses me. First catholics say ‘Hey Jesus is God so Mary is the Mother of God!’ but then I now hear that you say ‘Jesus may have died but God did not.’ Why is one terminology accepted but the other isn’t?
R
reluctant_saint
Guest
You totally ignored the key sentence of my post. Here’s what I said.But you can’t have it both ways. This confuses me. First catholics say ‘Hey Jesus is God so Mary is the Mother of God!’ but then I now hear that you say ‘Jesus may have died but God did not.’ Why is one terminology accepted but the other isn’t?
I was actually saying the exact opposite of what you thought I said.
I’m afraid you misunderstood even what I said about not misunderstanding me. As I was saying, Nietzsche said “God is dead,” as if to imply that the very being of God was dead. Jesus did die, and during that time between his death and his resurrection he “went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:19)
Yes, God did die, but even in his death he was still working. When I say Jesus died, I wish to make it clear that it was God who died, but that death must not be understood in such a way as to mean that there was a death TO his divinity. A divine person, Jesus, died, but his death did not bring about any corruption of his divinity. Just as we also believe that a divine person (not just his human form) was born of a woman, though the woman did not bring about his divinity.
E
ElizabethPH
Guest
What you don’t know and cannot know if a saint, angel or mary can hear you. You may believe it but that does not make it true. The Scriptures do not teach this. What this is based on is the opinion of men and not God.
in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”
in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”
H
heisenburg
Guest
You cannot separate the natures of God…
Jesus has had, always had, and always will have a Human nature, and a Divine nature. He had his human nature at the creation of the world, he had his divine nature when he was born.
When Jesus Died, he died completely as a perfect sacrifice. A perfect sacrifice to all.
Now, it has been implied by some here that Christ did NOT have his human nature before being borne of Mary, but did after. This is in essence the Arian heresy. Arian Heresy believe Christ always had a divine nature, but did not receive his human nature until his birth, thus implying he was less than perfect before hand and Less than the Father. That is why it was a heresy. Christ cannot be a lesser part of the Trinity, and Christ can never need perfecting…
So,
When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she didn’t just give birth to Jesus the body, She gave birth to Jesus in its totality. All Natures, incarnate.
She Gave birth to our lord, so, yes, she is the Mother of God. If you claim she only gave birth to the physical, you are separating the two natures, and thus, saying Arius was right. If you are saying Mary was just a uterus for Christ, then you are agreeing with a Heresy that is accepted as heresy by Catholics and Protestants alike.
Christ is Born
Christ is Died
Christ is Risen
Christ will come again
In Christ always
Jesus has had, always had, and always will have a Human nature, and a Divine nature. He had his human nature at the creation of the world, he had his divine nature when he was born.
When Jesus Died, he died completely as a perfect sacrifice. A perfect sacrifice to all.
Now, it has been implied by some here that Christ did NOT have his human nature before being borne of Mary, but did after. This is in essence the Arian heresy. Arian Heresy believe Christ always had a divine nature, but did not receive his human nature until his birth, thus implying he was less than perfect before hand and Less than the Father. That is why it was a heresy. Christ cannot be a lesser part of the Trinity, and Christ can never need perfecting…
So,
When Mary gave birth to Jesus, she didn’t just give birth to Jesus the body, She gave birth to Jesus in its totality. All Natures, incarnate.
She Gave birth to our lord, so, yes, she is the Mother of God. If you claim she only gave birth to the physical, you are separating the two natures, and thus, saying Arius was right. If you are saying Mary was just a uterus for Christ, then you are agreeing with a Heresy that is accepted as heresy by Catholics and Protestants alike.
Christ is Born
Christ is Died
Christ is Risen
Christ will come again
In Christ always
A
Axion
Guest
Jesus gained His human body and human nature at the Incarnation. He took His humanity from Mary. He did not have humanity before this. If He had had a “human” nature earlier, it would not have been truly human but counterfeit.
The Arian heresy was not to do with Jesus’s human nature, but His Divine nature, saying that it was lesser than the Father.
The heresy that tried to separate the two natures of Jesus was the Nestorian heresy.
AS Irenaeus said in 190 AD:
The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verities, saying: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name,” -foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: “Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know ye therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist.”
The Arian heresy was not to do with Jesus’s human nature, but His Divine nature, saying that it was lesser than the Father.
The heresy that tried to separate the two natures of Jesus was the Nestorian heresy.
AS Irenaeus said in 190 AD:
The Gospel, therefore, knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again, as John, the disciple of the Lord, verities, saying: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have eternal life in His name,” -foreseeing these blasphemous systems which divide the Lord, as far as lies in their power, saying that He was formed of two different substances. For this reason also he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: “Little children, it is the last time; and as ye have heard that Antichrist doth come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know ye therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist.”
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
When in doubt or confusion, go directly to the CCC:
Here:
The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.
465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God’s Son “come in the flesh”.87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father”, and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God “came to be from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father.88
466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."89 Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh."90
467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity."93 Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."94
469 The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:
Here:
The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.
465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God’s Son “come in the flesh”.87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father”, and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God “came to be from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father.88
466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."89 Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh."90
467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
Code:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.91
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.92469 The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother:
"What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed", sings the Roman Liturgy.95 And the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: "O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!"96
H
heisenburg
Guest
Well… i may need to do a little more digging… I was always taught that he always had always had his human nature. He could not gain it or loose it because to do so would mean an aspect of God changed, something that is impossible. He gained a human BODY, but he always had the human nature. that being said, I will research the matter further so that I do not proclaim falsehoods
In Christ
In Christ
R
reluctant_saint
Guest
Well, I think you do touch upon a certain important point.
We say that the Son was begotten of the Father before all time, and he was begotten of Mary in time.
When John says in his Gospel “the Word became flash” he’s referring to just that act of the incarnation. So we must say that before the incarnation, the Word of God was not flesh: was not human.
However, we must keep the eternity of God in mind. God is not bound to time as we are. He is outside of time.
In Revelation 13:8, John tells us that the Lamb [Jesus] was “slain from the foundation of the world.” Now we know that Jesus was crucified in time. It was somewhere around 30 A.D. How then does John say he was slain from the foundation of the world? Because God is eternal, and everything he does is in essence eternal. Inside time, Christ was crucified at a certain point in time, but outside time, Christ always was crucified.
The same can apply to the incarnation. In time, before the incarnation, there was a point when the Word was not flesh. But since the incarnation of Christ is the action of an eternal being, it is in a way also eternal.
Though please, don’t let mine be the last word. Do your studying. Read what smarter people than I have to say. I’m not an expert, and this is something I myself would like to understand better.
God bless
J
justasking4
Guest
The church of the NT is not the same as the catholic church.
The issue is not what God could do but did He raise Mary bodily to heaven? Where is the evidence for that?
Huh? If Mary was the supreme example, why don’t we see the apostles using her as an example in their letters?
i don’t “poo poo” your comments but ask you to support your claims. This is about the truth. Your church makes many claims that it cannot support by the scriptures and are the claims of fallen men.
- Status