Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: redgolum; adiaireton8
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

2,013 posted on 12/18/2006 3:20:25 PM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1991 | View Replies ]


To: jo kus
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 ...

So then ... why wouldn't the scriptures do so ?

Certainly there was ample opportunity for the Apostles to include such a title in their writings ...

2,015 posted on 12/18/2006 3:24:59 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2013 | View Replies ]

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

LOL! Sorry. At the time, I think it was that I wasn't spending a lot of effort defining what I meant by "Jesus Christ preexisted everything", which is true in regards to Jesus is the second person in the Trinity, but doesn't really say what happened in the Incarnation. I was (at the time) taking the Incarnation as a common assumption, which the other RC FReeper didn't understand because it was not stated that way.

We went round and round for a few pages until we both realized that we were on the same side.

2,016 posted on 12/18/2006 3:25:26 PM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2013 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson