If you do Not believe that Blessed Mary is the Mother of God, than who do you believe Jesus Christ is?

[tester]

The Trinity through John, and Genesis has always existed in Bible, Prophets etc. Yet we have the when and how this comes into reality through the “Human Body” thats where we are at in this topic. No?

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”, In Jesus Christ through Mary this bodily form comes to be. Were not talking Old Testament referrence here. I get that. We are talking Mary and New Testament here…Mother of God.

yes or no:

was Christ ALWAYS the Son of God?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The answer is in your quotes not sure what you are looking for my friend, thats Paul I quoted from the Bible BTW.

Maybe the King James version would be better?

 

[tester]

The answer is in your quotes not sure what you are looking for my friend, thats Paul I quoted from the Bible BTW.

Maybe the King James version would be better?

you have stated that

*"God existed before Christ "

"Christ didn’t pre-exist, "

“There was no Son before Mary! There was God and the Holy Spirit before Christ? No?”*

so I am asking you a direct question : please answer:

From all eternity past; was Christ ALWAYS the Son of God?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Your getting hung up on “Time” that is the problem here. Thus BC/AD as we use today.

 

[JackVk]

HOLD ON NOW! Who here has ever said that the Son did not exist until He was born of Mary? I’ve never heard such a preposterous thing. This thought is a heresy and a strawman.

 

[tester]

Your getting hung up on “Time” that is the problem here. Thus BC/AD as we use today.

no I am not:

i think you are confused with the relationship in the Trinity…

let me help you with the CORRECT answer ( that the Catholic Church would agree with )

The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son.** In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. **This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God.

The eternal Sonship is biblical and is a view that is widely held among Christians and has been throughout church history.

**The ECF recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world. **

seems to be the opposite of what you claimed.

 

[Rocket_Man]

The last paragraph would be a referrence to Christs words on the Cross. Specifically Christ in His human feelings that His Father had forsaken Him? And Jesus makes this comment on the Cross.

Rightfully so, I’m sure He suffered more than anyone would ever know.

But I’m not understanding where the human nature is left behind and only the Divinity moves foward?

[human and divine; and therefore what was passible and mortal remained passible and mortal; while what was impassible and immortal, that is, His Divine Nature, continued impassible and immortal.]

What was passible and mortal “remained” passible and mortal. So Christ still has this quality He doesn’t leave it behind. Remained means it remained with Him, not on earth when He left from the Cross.

His divine nature continued impassible and immortal. Correct, but this also was happening here on Earth. He didn’t become devine when He left Earth from the Cross. He was Divine and from the Presentation to the Wedding of Cana, the Nativity, the Conception through Mary “Annunciation” all of this shows Christs Divinity?

I believe theres just a misconception here. Or where you taught this?

There is no misconception in the manner you are suggesting. I’m only hoping to understand His human nature that is passible and mortal in the context of His suffering and death. You had previously stated that His human nature did not suffer or die but only His tangible body; “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:” The “body” in death from the human nature that remains is still separation.

 

[tester]

HOLD ON NOW! Who here has ever said that the Son did not exist until He was born of Mary? I’ve never heard such a preposterous thing. This thought is a heresy and a strawman.

Gary Taylor (Catholic with 1000 plus posts)stated it in post #90

*"God existed before Christ "

"Christ didn’t pre-exist, "

“There was no Son before Mary! There was God and the Holy Spirit before Christ? No?”*

and it is a Heresy

thank you

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not really the debate, I’m interested in seeing where this is going? And how tester is relating this to OP topic? I fail to see the significance.

The question did the Trinity always exist. We know the Bible. The issue becomes when does the Trinity become the Human Form and how? The Word became Flesh? Thats Flesh was Jesus Christ. The Flesh of Jesus Christ did not exist before Mary. Thats the point. And relates to OP topic.

I

 

[tester]

Not really the debate, I’m interested in seeing where this is going? And how tester is relating this to OP topic? I fail to see the significance.

The question did the Trinity always exist. We know the Bible. The issue becomes when does the Trinity become the Human Form and how? The Word became Flesh? Thats Flesh was Jesus Christ. The Flesh of Jesus Christ did not exist before Mary. Thats the point. And relates to OP topic.

I

it relates to the debate as to when Christ became “The Son” as part of the rebuttal you offered in post 90.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And when did the Word become Flesh and How? No matter how you flip the script it comes back to Christ in the Flesh and Mary being Gods plan in real time BC/AD? And Luke in Scripture?

“FOR IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY” Theres KJV version as I quoted above. by the Apostle Paul.

 

[benidict]

In the beginning was the Word. and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. the same was in the beginning with God. all things were made by Him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN THE DARKNESS, AND THE DARKNESS DID NOT COMPREHEND IT. does this clear things up, dear friend tester? sorry for any delays. i just had alot of visitors, and my computer is real slow over here. lol! Peace

 

[benidict]

He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew him not. He came unto His own, and His own received him not. But as many received Him, He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in His Name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[tester]

In the beginning was the Word. and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. the same was in the beginning with God. all things were made by Him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN THE DARKNESS, AND THE DARKNESS DID NOT COMPREHEND IT. does this clear things up, dear friend tester? sorry for any delays. i just had alot of visitors, and my computer is real slow over here. lol! Peace

No need to clear it up for me:

I understand that from all eternity past, Christ (the second person in the Trinity) was always the Son of God, begotten, not born, not created from of the Father, and same substance as the Father

I was offering my perspective of what the issue is in post 88.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7403817&postcount=88

please take a look at it

I’ll state it again :
I as a Protestant I agree with the concept of Theotokos.
But Protestants feel the phrase “Mother of God” somehow conflicts with the pre-existence of Christ.

Just offering the Protestant perspective

But , Gary felt the need to tell me I am “confused in catholic teaching… “
And then starts to list heresies that seem to be part of his understanding.

 

[PattiDay]

Actually it is Gary who is confused with Catholic teaching

allow me to correct his false statements:

"God existed before Christ "

"Christ didn’t pre-exist, "

“There was no Son before Mary! There was God and the Holy Spirit before Christ? No?”

catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp

The Eternal Sonship of Christ

“The Church Fathers who wrote the creeds had a different view. They recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.”

wow Gary , over a thousand posts and you didn’t know that?


wow Catholics: no one corrected him on that?

Tester, Thank you. I was just saying to my DH, this is one of the first things a child learns in CCC:The Eternal Sonship of God, although they might not be able to explain it quite so eloquently. They know God was and is and ever shall be, three persons in One God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is no misconception in the manner you are suggesting. I’m only hoping to understand His human nature that is passible and mortal in the context of His suffering and death. You had previously stated that His human nature did not suffer or die but only His tangible body; “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:” The “body” in death from the human nature that remains is still separation.

I’m following you all the way till that last sentence. [The “body” in death from the human nature that remains is still seperation.]

Anyway, Christs human nature and his human body suffered together. I’m saying his human nature doesn’t seperate his divine nature because of the death of the human body? Why would that be?

 

[GaryTaylor]

as a Protestant I agree with the concept of Theotokos.
But Protestants feel the phrase “Mother of God” somehow conflicts with the pre-existence of Christ.

Yes and we arrive at the same point. How? Jesus Christ is born of Mary through Bible in Luke?

When you say, “this somehow conflicts?” Either “you” are stating it, or someone is missing here to speak for themself?

Is Mary NOT the Mother of Christ?

What do you believe?

 

[benidict]

No need to clear it up for me:

I understand that from all eternity past, Christ (the second person in the Trinity) was always the Son of God, begotten, not born, not created from of the Father, and same substance as the Father

I was offering my perspective of what the issue is in post 88.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7403817&postcount=88

please take a look at it

I’ll state it again :
I as a Protestant I agree with the concept of Theotokos.
But Protestants feel the phrase “Mother of God” somehow conflicts with the pre-existence of Christ.

Just offering the Protestant perspective

But , Gary felt the need to tell me I am “confused in catholic teaching… “
And then starts to list heresies that seem to be part of his understanding.

with all due respect my friend. i see the heresy too. are you offering a protestant perspective, or an adventist perspective. if you believe that Christ ceased to be when he died, and that he was not active, then yes. i can see why Gary would find this to be a heretical statement. i dont say this to be mean spirited. just to let you know where we are coming from. most protestants would not say, Christ was inactive, while his body lay in the tomb. Peace

 

[tester]

with all due respect my friend. i see the heresy too. are you offering a protestant perspective, or an adventist perspective. if you believe that Christ ceased to be when he died, and that he was not active, then yes. i can see why Gary would find this to be a heretical statement. i dont say this to be mean spirited. just to let you know where we are coming from. most protestants would not say, Christ was inactive, while his body lay in the tomb. Peace

i do not beliieve Christ ceased to exsist when he died: that is just one defintion of death.
my deifintion of death (human death ) is when the soul is seperated from the body.

 

[benidict]

i do not beliieve Christ ceased to exsist when he died: that is just one defintion of death.
my deifintion of death (human death ) is when the soul is seperated from the body.

ahhh. thank you my friend. would you then like to clarify, or recant post 86, on alphaandomegas thread then? apparently Cat herder, saw it the same way i did. i invite you to come clarify. thank you in advance. Peace