Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: nanetteclaret

Yes, he is. But in saying “mother of God” when people are insisting that she was the mother of him in godly form as well as human form, and when there is much confusion on the trinity, “Mother of God” allows too much further confusion.


124 posted on 01/08/2008 9:05:07 AM PST by Terriergal ("I am ashamed that women are so simple To offer war where they should kneel for peace," Shakespeare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]


To: Terriergal

You are still separating Jesus, calling Him “godly form” and “human form.” This was the error of the Nestorians. You can’t separate the natures!

The phrase “Mother of God” is designed to tell us more about Jesus than about Mary. If she is the “Mother of God,” then Jesus, in the flesh, is God. The actual Greek word “Theotokos” literally means “God-bearer” as she bore God in her womb. Hence, she was not just the mother of a human being, but of God made Incarnate. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” John 1:14a

What is the confusion on the Doctrine of the Trinity?


128 posted on 01/08/2008 9:30:25 AM PST by nanetteclaret ("I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." Psalm 104:33b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | 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