Placido,
We believe that the Son is eternally the Son. He is eternally begotten; he does not become the Son at any point in time. He is; and He was, is, and ever shall be the Son of God. And that makes Mary the Mother of God. To deny that she is the Mother of God is really a denial of the true union of the Son’s human and divine natures.
Yes, He was, and He is…that’s why Mary could not have given birth to Him.
The Incarnation is a mystery and a miracle, but it is most certainly true. I don’t think I follow you.
Using ‘mystery’ to excuse the reasonings for the assumption is not facing the truth.The Incarnation is a mystery and a miracle, but it is most certainly true. I don’t think I follow you.
And yet God found a way.
Excellent response!And yet God found a way.
I am certainly facing the truth. There’s nothing wrong with calling it “mystery,” because we cannot fully understand or comprehend how profound this truth is. God took on flesh and dwelt among us. The Son was fully man, but at no time and in no sense did He ever cease to be fully God. The infant Christ was God at his conception, and the taking on of human flesh is how He was able to be carried in Mary’s womb. Calling Mary the “Mother of God” or the “God-bearer” is ultimately a Christological statement, affirming the union of the divinity and humanity of the Son. It does not exalt Mary to an improper place; rather, it shows that she was exactly what God called her to be.
Who did Jesus pray to at the Jordan River or at Gethsemane? To Himself?And yet God found a way.
I am certainly facing the truth. There’s nothing wrong with calling it “mystery,” because we cannot fully understand or comprehend how profound this truth is. God took on flesh and dwelt among us. The Son was fully man, but at no time and in no sense did He ever cease to be fully God. The infant Christ was God at his conception, and the taking on of human flesh is how He was able to be carried in Mary’s womb. Calling Mary the “Mother of God” or the “God-bearer” is ultimately a Christological statement, affirming the union of the divinity and humanity of the Son. It does not exalt Mary to an improper place; rather, it shows that she was exactly what God called her to be.
Yes, and was He referring to His humanity or His Divinity?
Yes, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. If the Word BECAME flesh and was named Jesus at birth (Lk. 1:31), then the Man Christ “Jesus” did not exist before Mary. The MAN Christ Jesus had a beginning. God the Son does not.
BINGO. His humanity but not His divinity. Mary is connected to His humanity, not His Divinity. You’re getting closer, JL.
He spoke with the Father in prayer. And we see in 1 Cor. 2:10 that the Holy Spirit searches the depths of God - presumably speaking of the Father. The Persons of the Trinity - one God - commune with each other in ways beyond our understanding.
But aren’t the two inseparable? He is One Person with two perfectly and completely united natures, is He not?
You’re a little confused here, SX. God the Son is not “begotten.” He has no beginning. The phrase “eternally begotten” is senseless. John wrote:John 1:14* "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.*"The Man Jesus Christ is the “ONLY” begotten from the Father. It refers to the incarnation, His humanity.
No, she became the mother of the “only begotten,” not the eternal.
Completely united??? Even Jesus Himself did not make this statement. I don’t think anyone should make that statement.But aren’t the two inseparable? He is One Person with two perfectly and completely united natures, is He not?
I am not confused. We cannot separate the inseparable.
The humanity and the divinity of the Son are united. If they are not, then Christ is not fully God (who is eternal and whose attributes are immutable), and we are placing our hope of salvation in a mere man or superman or demigod of sorts. We know that this is not true; we know that the Son and Christ are one and the same. And we know that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. That Word, the Son, the Christ, is one Person. His humanity is part of that person, but it makes no sense to speak of it apart from his divine nature. Both natures are inseparably joined in what we call the Hypostatic Union. To separate them can lead to dangerous Christological conclusions such as envisioning “two sons” - the Second Person of the Godhead and Jesus of Nazareth. This is certainly not something that we want to do!Either his natures are united, or else he is more than one person (or only one person and not divine at all). God doesn’t become God, he is God eternally. God became flesh; man did not become God. And we don’t want to pull Philippians 2:6 out of context, since it obviously speaks of the humiliation of the Incarnation that the Son willingly bore for our sakes. And Phil. 2 says a few more things about Christ that don’t exactly help your case.
The two natures are not blended. His divinity did not take on humanity, nor did His humanity take on divinity. Else He was not truly human nor truly divine. The two nature are united in one Person but not blended. Through the incarnation the Son took on true humanity. He did not walk among us in a divine body. But He became like us in all things:Heb 2:17 "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."Except sin. However, on the cross, as a substitutionary sacrifice, He “became sin” (our sins), so that we who believe in Him would become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Cor. 5:21). That is, in the resurrected, glorified Christ. He being another “Adam,” but with a posterity of men made righteous in Him through faith (Rom. 5:19).But aren’t the two inseparable? He is One Person with two perfectly and completely united natures, is He not?
This one post of yours shows you have never really read the Bible. Mary is the virgin spoken of by Isaiah and she gave birth to Jesus who is God. That makes her Mother of God.
Either Jesus has no mother and the Bible is a bunch of lies, or Jesus has a mother and you are mistaken.
Jesus did not only come to earth “through Mary” (like water going through a pipe). Mary is Jesus’s mother: That is what the Bible says and that is what the Church teaches: “But the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and GIVE BIRTH TO A SON, and you are to give him the name Jesus” – Luke 1:30-31, NIV.
The Bible says Mary is mother of Jesus. It tells us how Mary “conceived” and where and when Jesus was “born”. Yet you expect us to believe not what the Bible says, but rather what you say.
Christ’s natures are perfectly united but not blended or confused. I firmly believe the definition from Chalcedon, which reads in part: “one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ…”
So, according to you, the Bible is wrong is saying the virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus … and we MUST believe what you say instead of what the Bible says. Is that what you expect from us?