Replies

FK: "Oh, I never intended to dismiss His divine nature, I just meant to distinguish it against His human nature. I don't think it subtracts anything from Christ or Mary if the pregnancy was as it goes with us, and if Mary felt normal birth pains. Since divine Christ was never born, I associate the birth with His human side."

Oh, FK, no, no, no! That's heresy. Its very, very close to Arianism.

Uh-oh. :) I'm almost sure that whatever you are worried about I don't actually believe. I must just be clumsy about what I am saying. If it helps, I fully agree with everything in the quote you posted from +Gregory of Sinai. :) What is sounding off the sirens?

"The Word" was never born. Jesus the Christ was born. We all agree these are both true. I'm just acknowledging that distinction. When Jesus literally forgives sin, or performs miracles, those acts are associated with His divine nature or self. When Jesus prays, that act is associated with His human nature or self. Both natures and "selves" are fully contained and united within the one man Jesus Christ. I don't know why that would be controversial.

I looked up Arianism and found nothing appealing in it at all. I also couldn't discern why someone might think I did believe in it. :)

What is sounding off the sirens?

This is what is sounding off the sirens:

"Since divine Christ was never born . . . "

And this:

"The Word" was never born.

And this:

Both natures and "selves" . . .

That's Nestorianism.

-A8