Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper
Since divine Christ was never born, I associate the birth with His human side.

I don't see how that is not either Nestorianism or Docetism. What was born was not a "side" or a "nature" but a person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity.

-A8

1,592 posted on 12/16/2006 5:50:08 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1588 | View Replies ]


To: adiaireton8; Forest Keeper
A8 to FK: I don't see how that is not either Nestorianism or Docetism. What was born was not a "side" or a "nature" but a person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity

Exactly. We can't separate Christ's humanity from His divinity.

1,595 posted on 12/16/2006 6:05:24 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1592 | View Replies ]

To: adiaireton8; kosta50
FK: "Since divine Christ was never born, I associate the birth with His human side."

I don't see how that is not either Nestorianism or Docetism. What was born was not a "side" or a "nature" but a person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity.

I don't know what you both are talking about. Christ the Word was never born. Jesus the Christ was born to Mary. Both are true. How do you explain this without distinguishing the divine from the human?

2,075 posted on 12/19/2006 1:54:46 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1592 | 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