Well, here in post 770, you did say that thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3250321/posts?page=770#770
I believe Christ is at once God and man. And I believe that it was necessary for Christ to die in His divinity in order to redeem us from our sins.
Somewhat in his defence he did say he was rethinking that but then keeps insisting on calling Mary “the mother of God” as if the man/God nature of Christ is inseparable which indicates he’s not rethinking that at all. The “re thinking” comment seems to just be a screen to hide behind.
I said that thing in 770. I backed off that thing in 784. That thing about the Son in His divinity leaving the body made sense. The spirit lives on when the body dies.
To say that Jesus did not die in his divinity is different from saying Mary is the mother of God. Matthew 1 and Luke 1 both tell us that the child that Mary conceived and bore in the womb, Jesus, is God. In Matthew, He is called Emmanuel, which means “God is with us,” and in Luke, He is called the Son of the Most High and the Son of God.
The child that Mary conceived and bore was not the Father. The child that Mary conceived and bore was not the Holy Spirit. So, no, Mary is not the mother of the Triune Godhead. But Matthew and Luke both tell us that she conceived and gave birth to the Son of God.
I have a better understanding of why you have a problem with the concept of Mary being the mother of God, but how do you contradict what Matthew 1 and Luke 1 tells us? How can the child that the angel calls the Son of God not be the Son of God?
that statement is correct...God the Father required a lot more than the death of a man for the redemption of mankind...His Son, Jesus Christ, all man and ALL GOD was the only sacrifice acceptable...none other would do.