[BibChr]

Yes; "Jesus is Lord" is kind of a common belief among Christians.

By definition, anything that had a mother isn't God.

Jesus has two natures. The one that had a mother isn't God. The one that is, didn't.

Dan

[dangus]

>>Jesus has two natures. The one that had a mother isn't God. The one that is, didn't. <<

COme on, now, think... "That the mother of my LORD should come to me?" DO you really think Elizabeth was a servant on Jesus' plantation? The Greek NT records her using the same word that the Greek OT uses for God. She probably even said "Adonai" in Aramaic/Hebrew. She wasn't calling Jesus her lord in the Earthy sense, she was calling Jesus GOD! And she called Mary the mother of him.

[Taliesan]

Jesus has two natures. The one that had a mother isn't God. The one that is, didn't.

I know this is a thread about a movie, but this sort of superficiality won't do.

Of course, the New Testament does not teach "two natures in one person". The church used that nomenclature to articulate the implications of the NT, in a process dominated by the Greek static concept "nature", by people who also had beliefs neither you nor I would consider biblical christianity.

That said, your statement illustrates why we protestants should read more creedal theology.

Those who articulated "two natures in one person" would also hold "without separation, without confusion".

It is inaccurate to speak of two natures as if they inhabited Jesus side by side, and one slid through Mary as if through a receptacle, except that the other, the human, was grafted onto the divine and out popped a bicameral being. The church rightly rejected that heresy, and its opposite. Any premise resembling this will always end in heretical dualism.

"Quod non assumpsit, non sanavit"...whatever was not assumed, was not saved. His kenosis allowed his divine "nature" to assume all the characteristics of our humanity. There was no thing that happened to the humanity which did also happen to the divinity, and vice versa, IN THE INCARNATION. sO, the divine nature of Christ was born of Mary, as was the human. To say that she was the mother of God is not to diminish God, nor to imply that she added anything to His divinity, nor to to imply that she caused God. She was His mother in His incarnate divinity, not in His pre-incarnate divinity.

Of course, the divinity is not an identity with the humanity; it (He) pre-existed Mary and was unoriginate, but still born of the Theotokos. In so far as He is God: Unoriginate, yet He proceeds from the Father and was born of a virgin -- not just as Jesus of Nazareth but also as the 2nd person of the Trinity.

The language of the creeds is always "this, yet that" and this rhythm of thought is always the mark of the mind baptised by orthodoxy. Commentary on the two natures or the triune God which does not preserve this patristic and poetic, careful quality is inevitably rationalistic.

In other words, I believe your comment on Jesus' natures is incorrect. (whew.)

[aruanan]

Yes; "Jesus is Lord" is kind of a common belief among Christians.

You're arguing anachronistically. Elizabeth stated this before there were any Christians, just followers of Yahweh. This statement by her is an unambiguous statement of the divinity of Jesus and her identification of the unborn child with the Master of the Universe. You know, Immanuel, meaning, God with us; or Yeshua, meaning, the Lord saves, for he shall save his people from their sins.

By definition, anything that had a mother isn't God.

Your definition is faulty because it assumes things neither in evidence, let alone proved. 1. That someone was divine and pre-existent to his birth doesn't at all negate the fact that he took on flesh at conception, lived and grew in utero, was born to and nursed by a woman who, by what she was and what she did, was his mother. 2. "Mother" doesn't have an exclusive meaning of "sole origin of, before which nothing said to have been begotten through her existed."

Jesus has two natures. The one that had a mother isn't God. The one that is, didn't.

Be careful, Dan. What you just stated above is a species of dynamic monarchianism. It's only a step from there to saying that it was the human nature of Jesus that suffered and died while the divine nature, Christ, remained distant from the corrruption of human sin.