The Virgin Mary

[apophasis]

Where was Christ’s divine nature, when Mary was carrying Him in her womb and giving birth to Him, and nurturing Him and raising Him?

This is already covered in all the answers.

 

[mikeledes]

:yup:

You’re doing it again, Mike.

I’m flattered. You like me… you really really like me!

Mary gave birth to A PERSON—Jesus—who is fully God, and fully Man.

This is from a Reformed website:

(3) We must take into account that a divine person assumed a human nature. “If the Logos had obtained personality by uniting with a human nature, [then] he must have previously been impersonal. The incarnation would then have made an essential change in the Logos, and thereby in the Trinity itself.”[33] If the second person of the trinity had united with an individual human person then the Mediator would be two persons and not one.
(4) If the Mediator was two persons and not one then with regard to the ontological trinity there would be three persons; but, with regard to the economic trinity there would be four persons. The Bible teaches that the two natures in one person continue forever (Heb. 13:8; 4:14-15; Col. 2:9; Rom. 9:5). “A finite glorified human nature is now eternally united with the second Trinitarian person, and a God-man is now the middle person of the Trinity.”[34] If the incarnation involved two separate persons then there would be two Sons on the throne in heaven and not one. Instead of one harmonious work of redemption accomplished by the trinity as it works in creation, there would be a partnership between the triune God and a distinct human person—Jesus. Such a view of course is unbiblical and absurd.
(5) The all controlling self consciousness in the Mediator was the divine person and not the human nature. This was true regarding the power of the God-man as well as the knowledge of the theantropic person. The Logos determined when and where the divine power was demonstrated. “If the Logos so determined, Jesus Christ was all-powerful. When the divine nature withdrew its support from the human, the latter was as helpless as it was in an ordinary human creature.”[35] The Son’s divine power knocked the soldiers who came to arrest Him to the ground and then permitted them to arrest Him and lead Him away to torture and the death of the cross (Jn. 18:6). When our Lord was dead and in the tomb, the Logos preserved the human body and kept it from decay (Ac. 2:27). The Logos also united Jesus’ human soul with His body, glorified it and raised it from the dead.

reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Incarnation.htm

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Agreed. But it was His humanity that needed the milk from her breasts, to grow in strength and wisdom [Lk. 2:40), and to learn obedience from the things He suffered (Heb. 5:8), not His deity.You’re stating the obvious and not making a new point.As to the part that humanity did not take on divinity, I already stated and emphasized that.

But now THINK about what you just said. Deity took on humanity. For what purpose??? To be born, suckled, and raised to adulthood and function on earth as deity? No, my friend, but as A MAN

.

Catholics long ago lost sight of this wonder by putting undue emphasis on Mary. As Sandusky pointed out, you put undue emphasis on His divinity to the overshadowing and exlcusion of His humanity - the very purpose for which the Son came into this world.

The wonder of it all is not that He was deity (amazing as that is), but that He was fully man (not a hybrid), and functioned on earth in all ways perfect as fully man; and as the perfect man surrendered in obedience His fully human body over to suffering and death: God’s perfect blood sacrifice for the eternal redemption of imperfect, sinful mankind.

This is true Christianity. It is not a Mother/Child religion. The nonbiblical title of “theotokos” robs from the glory of Christ’s humanity. Yes! His humanity. God accomplished eternal redemption through Christ’s humanity. True, an infinite redemption because of His deity, but accomplished in space and time through His humanity.

And your undue emphasis on Jesus’s humanity is dividing Christ in two. Mary gave birth to the God-man. She gave birth to a divine person who took upon a human nature and thus became the God-Man. But He continues to be God and God was in Mary’s womb and it was God that came out of it.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[jmcrae]

This is already covered in all the answers.

If Christ’s divine nature was with Him from the moment of His conception, then Mary is the mother of that divine nature, as well, since it, too, was being carried in her womb, and when she gave birth, it, too, came forth from out of her body.

Thus, Mary is Mother of God. (Theotokos)

 

[sandusky]

For mikeledes:

from Chalcedon, 451 ADTherefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; 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; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.Jesus did not simply add a human nature to His divinity, but, as Chalcedon states, the two natures came together to form ONE PERSON, who is not merely a divine person, with a human nature, BUT, is a person who is fully divine, and fully human.

(I think that the reformed people who you cite, are being sloppy in their statements; and
I like Schwertly.)

 

[mikeledes]

You forgot to highlight the following:

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; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

You forgot to highlight the following:

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; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him…

God Bless,
MichaelI didn’t forget anything, Mike; it’s all there; the gist of Chalcedon was not simply the addition of a nature to Christ, but of the divine nature of Christ, and the nature of man, coming together to form one person.

That’s the teaching of the early Church, and one with which I agree.

 

[apophasis]

Mikeledes:

Jesus is a divine person who took a human nature, not a human person who took a divine nature.

The Son is the divine Person of the triune God who took on humanity (human nature: body soul and spirit) and was named Jesus.

But Jesus was not born with a divine body, but a fully human body (the whole purpose of the incarnation). It wasn’t a divine body that grew up into adulthood. It wasn’t a divine body through which He ministered for three years to the lost sheep of Israel. It wasn’t a divine body He surrendered over to death on a cross as a blood sacrifice. It wasn’t a divine body that was subsequently resurrected and glorified three days later. It wasn’t a divine body that ascended to heaven.

The Son is not now sitting at the right hand of the Majesty on high in a divine body - but a resurrected, glorified, fully HUMAN, finite body. The reason He is called the “first fruits” of those who are asleep (1 Cor. 15:20).“For since by A MAN came death, by A MAN also came the resurrection of the dead (vs. 21). And for this reason the ever present hope of every true believer is the promise that He will (by the power of His divinity, not His humanity) transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory…” (Phil. 3:21)

Our living hope is that our humble (human) bodies will one day be as His resurrected, glorified (human) body. We don’t hope to become divine. Our hope is not to receive a divine body.

It is through the humility of His humanity that He leads men to redemption, justification, sanctification and ultimate glorification. He incarnated into this world to become the “second MAN,” the Last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45-47).

“Come home” to the glory of this truth.

 

[jmcrae]

The Son is the divine Person of the triune God who took on humanity (human nature: body soul and spirit) and was named Jesus.

Yes, but it was not only His body to which Mary gave birth - it was His whole self - his body, his soul, his spirit, and his divinity. These are now indivisibly united in Heaven, as you have pointed out - Jesus (God) is in His body, right now, while ruling over the entire Universe.

 

[apophasis]

Yes, but it was not only His body to which Mary gave birth - it was His whole self - his body, his soul, his spirit, and his divinity. These are now indivisibly united in Heaven, as you have pointed out - Jesus (God) is in His body, right now, while ruling over the entire Universe.

United but not blended. They never were!

 

[davidv]

United but not blended. They never were!

I don’t understand the distintion your making here with respect to the topic. Please explain further.

 

[mikeledes]

I didn’t forget anything, Mike; it’s all there; the gist of Chalcedon was not simply the addition of a nature to Christ, but of the divine nature of Christ, and the nature of man, coming together to form one person.

That’s the teaching of the early Church, and one with which I agree.

Yes, two distinct natures in united he person of God the Son. The point is still that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. Mary carried God in her womb and gave birth to God the Son. That makes her His mother. Now that does not mean that Mary is the source of His divinity.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ginger2]

jm, "Yes, but it was not only His body to which Mary gave birth "

Perhaps the problem here is that Catholics apply a very narrow meaning of the word “birth”

The term “birth” is not limited to an instance of being born, or carried in a womb.

But it also refers to lineage. Only the human nature of Jesus connected to Mary, not His divine nature.

Birth also refers to any coming into existence or origin. As you have acknowledged Jesus’ origin did not begin with Mary. In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God.

The same is true for the word “mother”. Look it up in the dictionary. The troubling thing with this doctrine is it infers Mary has influence and control over God. This is false, yet Catholics take it to that level.

 

[jmcrae]

The troubling thing with this doctrine is it infers Mary has influence and control over God. This is false, yet Catholics take it to that level.

We all have influence and power over God; otherwise, why bother to pray?

It is not because God is weak that we have this power, though - it is because He loves us. It is not the power of a tyrant over a slave, but the power of a baby girl over her Daddy.

 

[mikeledes]

jm, "Yes, but it was not only His body to which Mary gave birth "

Perhaps the problem here is that Catholics apply a very narrow meaning of the word “birth”

The term “birth” is not limited to an instance of being born, or carried in a womb.

But it also refers to lineage. Only the human nature of Jesus connected to Mary, not His divine nature.

Birth also refers to any coming into existence or origin. As you have acknowledged Jesus’ origin did not begin with Mary. In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God.

The same is true for the word “mother”. Look it up in the dictionary. The troubling thing with this doctrine is it infers Mary has influence and control over God. This is false, yet Catholics take it to that level.

Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ginger2]

“Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God.”

Yes! Mary is the mother of Jesus But Mary is not the mother of God!!!

 

[Ginger2]

jm,

We have power from God thru prayer. We have NO power over God.

 

[jmcrae]

“Mary is the mother of Jesus and Jesus is God.”

Yes! Mary is the mother of Jesus But Mary is not the mother of God!!!

If Jesus is God (and if there is only one God) then yes, she is.

Jesus and God are not two separate things. They are one and the same. Remember, it is Jesus who created the world, who gave the Ten Commandments, and who spoke to the prophets of the Old Testament. There was no one else there.

 

[LilyM]

United but not blended. They never were!

Christ’s two natures resided togther in Him ‘without division, without separation’ as Chalcedon states. If that’s not total blending it’s near enough. To say otherwise is to subscribe to the roundly condemned heresy of Nestorianism.

A mother is never mother of part of you, but of the whole of you as a person. Your mother, if you’re a lawyer, can be called ‘mother of a lawyer’ even though her giving birth to you is only tangentially related to your choice of profession.

 

[jmcrae]

jm,

We have power from God thru prayer.

This is what Mary had.