To: Forest Keeper
Since divine Christ was never born, I associate the birth with His human side. I don't see how that is not either Nestorianism or Docetism. What was born was not a "side" or a "nature" but a person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity.
-A8
1,592 posted on
12/16/2006 5:50:08 AM PST by
adiaireton8
("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
To: adiaireton8; Forest Keeper
A8 to FK:
I don't see how that is not either Nestorianism or Docetism. What was born was not a "side" or a "nature" but a person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity Exactly. We can't separate Christ's humanity from His divinity.
1,595 posted on
12/16/2006 6:05:24 AM PST by
kosta50
(Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
To: adiaireton8; kosta50
FK: "Since divine Christ was never born, I associate the birth with His human side."I don't see how that is not either Nestorianism or Docetism. What was born was not a "side" or a "nature" but a person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity.
I don't know what you both are talking about. Christ the Word was never born. Jesus the Christ was born to Mary. Both are true. How do you explain this without distinguishing the divine from the human?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson