[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.

[jo kus]

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.

I am currently in therapy from that thread, so I try not to think much about it!

I don't remember who called you a Nestorian, Redgolum. That was a 14,000 plus thread, so many things were said there! I imagine, though, that you believe that Mary was the mother of the person that we call Jesus Christ (although this person pre-existed the incarnation), and you were probably misunderstood.

I believe adiaireton8 is correct in saying that Mary gave birth to a unique being - a person with two natures, one of these natures which already pre-existed. But since the person is a combination of natures (via the hypostatic union), it is more proper to call Mary the Mother of God, rather than just the Mother of Christ. The Council of Ephesus was merely clarifying who CHRIST was with this definition.

Regards