Replies

Embedded in your multi-paragraph rant, are a couple of questions, which I will answer:

Spare me the posturing, please; that this be as if I came to yourself asking for you to instruct me.

There is nothing wrong in and of itself with writing out multiple paragraphs either...or else all the mitre-hatted Lucys of the Church of Rome, including additional persons such as the author of the article at the heading of this thread, AND the OP of this thread, have some 'splainin' to do ----like why it's A-OK for any of them to be long-winded, and even to "rant" upon occasion, yet when anyone else near-approaches doing so (or does so in reply) all of a sudden it's a bad thing to do. Phfft. [spit].

There, there's a little bit of rant for you. You asked for it, you got it Toyota. Happy now?

The previous gamesmanship you had just engaged in -- turning towards accusing me of embracing heresy ---utterly failed. I suppose I could otherwise thank you for (by default) acknowledging that in the central portions of remainder of your here latest reply...

Mary, being a creature, is not the source or origin of the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity.

Yes, as I asserted.

The eternally-existing Second Person of the Trinity did not, from eternity, have a human nature. He began to have a human nature when he took flesh, and this occurred at the moment Mary conceived him in her womb.

Yes again -- as I both suggested (if there was any actual real question) and had also more and less asserted.

We can both see there that there was a time (from our own, human, thus limited in time & space perspective) when God did not have what could be referred to as human nature.

Adam was created in the image of God, not God 'made' by man in man's own image...

We do not 'divide Christ' when recognition is made of Christ's own existence prior to the time that He came to earthly realm in form of a man, born of the virgin, Mary. Of that, apparently we have sufficient amount of agreement.

This also, you will (I assume) not have much disagreement toward;

Christ's existence prior to physical birth in the form of a man was what he (Jesus, as a man) was referring to when He (Jesus, while in form of a man) said;

Before Abraham, I am

in that way also telling the listeners that He was whom Moses encountered at the burning bush.

In response, they picked up rocks to stone Him. (John 8:57-59)

It is troublesome to many minds even unto this day how it is that God, the Eternal and immutable Creator, can become (if but for a time and season?) a man -- an actual physical human being.

This is just about where many Jewish, and even more Muslims stumble when hearing of/thinking of Jesus.

How can God (they ask themselves) who is Himself The Creator (accept no substitutes!) become what is generally understood (thanks to the Jews) to be a created being?

Going by what is frequently raised in objection to the concept that the one known of in English language as Jesus Christ was; truly the Only Begotten Son of God and thus fully God -- while also -- in that human form was fully human at the same time, is of course is precisely where proper teaching of who Mary was, and how it was that she was conceived (made pregnant) that Emmanuel, God with us is of great importance, for it was in being born in form of a man that He entered into sharing with us our own form of existence, including contemplation towards ourselves being 'created' beings.

That makes Mary to be mother of Christ's earthly & human Incarnation -- still just a wee tad short (and 'different' from) Mary being unreservedly Entitled "Mother of God", the various reasons for that having already been touched upon, if not discussed in some detail.