So you believe in one God yet part of that God died on the cross and another part of that God raised the part of God that died from the dead? Have I got the right?
Would you please refer to my post 784, where I wrote the following, and stop saying I believe God died? Your comments prompted to rethink that, okay?
No I don’t have it down pat. That’s why I have so many questions. And it is by no means intended to be an inquisition. Your response: “The Son, the second Person of the Trinity, left the body He temporarily inhabited on Earth, but His divine nature did not die, nor could it,” gives me something to ponder. It was necessary for Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory, but maybe it was sufficient for Christ to die in his human form to redeem us from our sins.
>>For this reason only can Mary be called the mother of God.<<
If Mary is the "mother of God" and that Son died on the cross and the man/God persona cannot be separated then God the Son died on that cross. Now, we only have two options. Either the "one true God" can be separated or the man/God nature of Jesus can be separated.
We also have another consideration. Jesus said "my God, my God why have you forsaken me". If the man/God nature of Jesus cannot be separated was God forsaking part of God?
Are you getting a sense of how the term "mother of God" can not be used without coming into problems with the rest of scripture?
Like metmom keeps showing. Scripture uses the term "mother of Jesus" and does so for a reason.
Well, here in post 770, you did say that thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3250321/posts?page=770#770
I believe Christ is at once God and man. And I believe that it was necessary for Christ to die in His divinity in order to redeem us from our sins.