[adiaireton8]

But, at the same time, that second person in the Trinity preexisted Mary and everything else, and Mary was not the beginning of that preexistent second person (the Son).

Of course.

See, I was once called a Nestorian on this forum by a Roman Catholic for phrasing things just the way you did.

I don't know about that incident, so I can't evaluate what you said then. But to deny that Mary is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity is to imply that Mary is the mother of either a mere nature or another person (besides the Second Person of the Trinity) in Christ. Both of those are Nestorianism.

-A8

[redgolum]

I don't know about that incident, so I can't evaluate what you said then. But to deny that Mary is the mother of the Second Person of the Trinity is to imply that Mary is the mother of either a mere nature or another person (besides the Second Person of the Trinity) in Christ. Both of those are Nestorianism.

Which was what I was saying at the time! After we went round and round for a while, we both realized that we were trying to say the same thing, but not speaking in the same terms. Jo kus was on that thread (I think it was the massive Justification/Sanctification thread, but I can't find where), and he might remember who it was.

It was actually rather funny in a way.