Let’s review some basic Christian understanding

[OldRegular]

:thumbsup:

This is what I have been saying all along!!!! This statement only shows that you believe there is a dichotomy at Jesus Conseption that the cells which will grow into the man Jesus were seperate from Jesus himself within his mothers womb and you will end up believing the Nestorian heresy that DHK has espoused when he said. as if the Divinity nature of Christ possessed the physical body of Christ at the moment of birth.

Can you show me where I said anything that resembles what you said above?

The fact of the matter is at the moment of his conception both divinity and humanity are present in Jesus Christ

I believe that to be true. I also believe that what actually took place at the conception is beyond the mind of man to understand.

The fact of the matter is at the moment of his conception both divinity and humanity are present in Jesus Christ which is why Mother of God is used to begin with. As I've said countless times. Not that Mary created the Divinity of Christ or God but that God coming into our realm (time/space) was born of the Virgin Mary (conduit for the incarnation).

Yes! But by calling Mary the Mother of God you are teaching something that is not only misleading but false! The fact that Mary has supplanted Jesus Christ in the mind of many, if not most, Roman Catholics, shows the gross error of that term and the heresy that has arisen because of it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Let’s review some basic Christian understanding

Why?..............................

 

[evangelist-7]

KJV “the Word was made flesh”

NKJV “the Word became flesh”
NASB “the Word became flesh”
AMP “the Word became flesh”
NIV “the Word became flesh”
ESV “the Word became flesh”
ASV “the Word became flesh”

Barnes:

And the Word was made flesh - The word "flesh," here, is evidently used to denote "human nature" or "man."
See Matthew 16:17; Matthew 19:5; Matthew 24:22; Luke 3:6; Romans 1:3; Romans 9:5.
The "Word" was made "man." This is commonly expressed by saying that he became "incarnate."
When we say that a being becomes "incarnate," we mean that one of a higher order than man,
and of a different nature, assumes the appearance of man or becomes a man.

Here it is meant that "the Word," or the second person of the Trinity, whom John had just proved to be equal with God, became a man, or was united with the man Jesus of Nazareth, so that it might be said that he "was made flesh."
Was made - This is the same word that is used in John 1:3; "All things were made by him."
It is not simply affirmed that he was flesh, but that he was made flesh, implying that he had pre-existence,
agreeably to John 1:1.

This is in accordance with the doctrine of the Scriptures elsewhere.
Hebrews 10:5; "a 'body' hast thou prepared me."
Hebrews 2:14; "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same."
1 John 4:2; "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."
See also 1 Timothy 3:16; Philippians 2:6; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Luke 1:35.

The expression, then, means that he became a man, and that he became such by the power of God providing for him a body.
It cannot mean that the divine nature was "changed" into the human, for that could not be; but it means that the λόγος Logos, or "Word," became so intimately united to Jesus that it might be said that the Logos, or "Word" "became" or "was"
a man, as the soul becomes so united to the body that we may say that it is one person or a man.
.

 

[evangelist-7]

Why (da OP)?..............................

Why? ... To see where you boys and gals are comin' from.
Why? ... To see if we have any basic differences.
Why? ... To see if our differences can be resolved.
.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Can you show me where I said anything that resembles what you said above?

Yes

Mary was the mother of the Human Nature of Jesus Christ, not the mother of the divine nature, not the mother of God

This speaks to Mary only baring Jesus' human nature not his divine nature. Thus what you said can only be understood as Mary only mothering Jesus' human nature apart from his divinity dichotomizing Jesus' natures as at some point being seperate from each other when within Mary and during the birth of Jesus. I know what you want to say which is Mary is not the Cause of Jesus' divinity and I agree. But by specifically putting it that Mary only mothered Jesus human nature necissarily splits apart Jesus' human nature from his divinity taking away from the hypostatic union. Rather Mother of God indicates that from conseption Jesus' natures are both present within Mary whom becomes the mother of Jesus who is not seperate from his divinity. So once again Mary is not the Cause of Jesus' Divinity but certainly The Mother of Jesus who at all times from his conception is both human and divine. Thus mother of God.

I believe that to be true. I also believe that what actually took place at the conception is beyond the mind of man to understand.

I certainly agree with you here.

Yes! But by calling Mary the Mother of God you are teaching something that is not only misleading but false!

I disagree of course which is why 3rd and 4th councils emphasised this title for Mary to pull away from the Nestorian Heresy and the Monophysite Heresy. Its is important to the understanding of the nature of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.

The fact that Mary has supplanted Jesus Christ in the mind of many, if not most, Roman Catholics, shows the gross error of that term and the heresy that has arisen because of it.

It certainly shows lack of proper Catachesis where those people are conserned. But the title itself isn't the issue.

 

[DHK]

If you can show anything in the above posts that is not orthodox Christianity I will repent in sackcloth and ashes!

I am simply saying that the Second Person of the Triune Godhead did not become a human being. John Gill says it as follows: and when he is said to be "made" flesh, this was not done by the change of one nature into another, the divine into the human, or the word into a man; but by the assumption of the human nature.

To you it may be semantics, but not to me.
I do not believe in the eternal sonship of Christ. Before his incarnation He was Christ, the Word, the second person of the trinity (1John 5:7)
The designation of "the Son" was given to him at his incarnation.
Hebrews says: "a body thou has prepared for me."
Christ always was deity and at his incarnation became flesh; he was not always flesh. He assumed a human nature and retained his deity. He never gave up his deity. He was fully God and fully man at the same time. However, in eternity past he was not the Son; He was the Word.
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the only begotten of the Father."
I can't argue with Scripture.

 

[OldRegular]

Yes This speaks to Mary only baring Jesus' human nature not his divine nature. Thus what you said can only be understood as Mary only mothering Jesus' human nature apart from his divinity dichotomizing Jesus' natures as at some point being seperate from each other when within Mary and during the birth of Jesus. I know what you want to say which is Mary is not the Cause of Jesus' divinity and I agree. But by specifically putting it that Mary only mothered Jesus human nature necissarily splits apart Jesus' human nature from his divinity taking away from the hypostatic union. Rather Mother of God indicates that from conseption Jesus' natures are both present within Mary whom becomes the mother of Jesus who is not seperate from his divinity. So once again Mary is not the Cause of Jesus' Divinity but certainly The Mother of Jesus who at all times from his conception is both human and divine. Thus mother of God.

Mary carried both the human nature and the divine nature of the person, Jesus Christ, in her womb. She was the biological mother of the human nature of the person, Jesus Christ. She was in no way the mother of the divine nature of the person, Jesus Christ. I have no problem understanding the role of Mary in the Incarnation. I have no problem with the way Chalcedon defines the two natures of the person Jesus Christ other than their use of the term Mother of God for Mary!

 

[evangelist-7]

I do not believe in the eternal sonship of Christ.
Before his incarnation He was Christ, the Word, the second person of the trinity (1 John 5:7)

I thought everyone taught that 1 John 5:7 (starting with "in heaven ...") is NOT trustworthy!

"Only 4 or 5 very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek" (NKJV comment)

Note:
The NU manuscripts (NIV, etc.) are quite a bit older than the Textus Receptus manuscripts (KJV, etc.).
Were the NU manuscripts altered, then not used much, enabling them to survive intact longer?
(These have thousands of fewer words, such as: only "Jesus Christ".
Or ...
Have the Textus Receptus manuscripts been added to (the worst case being 1 John 5:7)?
(These have thousands of extra words, such as: "the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

P.S. Many years, ago the Lord told me to NOT be involved in this "Which version is best?" controversy.
.

 

[OldRegular]

To you it may be semantics, but not to me.
I do not believe in the eternal sonship of Christ. Before his incarnation He was Christ, the Word, the second person of the trinity (1John 5:7)
The designation of "the Son" was given to him at his incarnation.
Hebrews says: "a body thou has prepared for me."
Christ always was deity and at his incarnation became flesh; he was not always flesh. He assumed a human nature and retained his deity. He never gave up his deity. He was fully God and fully man at the same time. However, in eternity past he was not the Son; He was the Word.
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the only begotten of the Father."
I can't argue with Scripture.

I am not arguing with Scripture either. I have said nothing about the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ. I repeat:

I am simply saying that the Second Person of the Triune Godhead did not become a human being. John Gill says it as follows:

and when he is said to be "made" flesh, this was not done by the change of one nature into another, the divine into the human, or the word into a man; but by the assumption of the human nature.

I don't understand why that is so hard for people to understand. That statement by Gill is perfectly consistent with the Scripture I quotes and the one you repeated: "a body thou has prepared for me."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Mary carried both the human nature and the divine nature of the person, Jesus Christ, in her womb. She was the biological mother of the human nature of the person, Jesus Christ.

Yes we are in agreement here.

She was in no way the mother of the divine nature of the person, Jesus Christ.

However, this statement is problematic in that Mary is the mother of Jesus in his totality not partially. She didn't just carry Jesus' human nature for nine months or give birth to just his humanity but the totality of Jesus Christ which includes his divinity. Mary is not the Cause of Jesus divinity. But Jesus Christ chose to have a mother and Mary is that mother of him who is not seperated from his divinity.

I have no problem understanding the role of Mary in the Incarnation. I have no problem with the way Chalcedon defines the two natures of the person Jesus Christ other than their use of the term Mother of God for Mary!

And we are in agreement how that comes about however we are not in agreement about the title which is important in making the case for the hypostatic union of Jesus' natures.

 

[DHK]

I am not arguing with Scripture either. I have said nothing about the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ.

I suppose I was trying to correct terminology. It was the Word that became man, not the Son. Basically we agree.

I don't understand why that is so hard for people to understand. That statement by Gill is perfectly consistent with the Scripture I quotes and the one you repeated: "a body thou has prepared for me."

Why introduce Gill. He is in error in many things. He may not be in error here. Stick with the Word.

 

[OldRegular]

I suppose I was trying to correct terminology. It was the Word that became man, not the Son. Basically we agree.

Why introduce Gill. He is in error in many things. He may not be in error here. Stick with the Word.

I used Gill in this instance because I thought he was able to say what I meant better than I could.

 

[12strings]

It makes less sense to say that the divine became human. Jesus Christ [one person] was fully God [one nature] and fully human [second nature].

So you're saying Jesus Christ "was...fully human." but you deny that he "became human"?

If you are going to insist that the Second Person of the Triune Godhead became human then God the Father and God the Holy Spirit became human because Scripture tells us:

Colossians 2:9,
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

That's an empty argument, if your logic held up you would also have to say that the Father and the H.S. walked on the earth, and died on the cross. You can't use that verse to say that if the Son did something that the other two automatically did it as well...If so there would be no trinity.

 

[12strings]

I do not believe in the eternal sonship of Christ. Before his incarnation He was Christ, the Word, the second person of the trinity (1 John 5:7)
The designation of "the Son" was given to him at his incarnation.
Hebrews says: "a body thou has prepared for me."
Christ always was deity and at his incarnation became flesh; he was not always flesh. He assumed a human nature and retained his deity. He never gave up his deity. He was fully God and fully man at the same time. However, in eternity past he was not the Son; He was the Word.
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the only begotten of the Father."
I can't argue with Scripture.

Hebrews 1:2 - "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."
-This verse says "his son" is the one through whom the world was created...Therefore I hold to the eternal sonship of the son/word/Jesus.
Because...I can't argue with Scripture.:thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

It is only opinion unless you can back it up with Scripture. I don't put much value in opinion.

Jesus said in John 17 that he would go back to heaven and receive back his full glory that he had with the Father, ansd the Father in John also verified/testified he was His beloved Son, and John stated that jesus was the only begotten Son of the father, paul stated that he was the Son by nature etc

before His Incarnation, it was God the father/Son/Spirit, not father/Word/Spirit!

 

[Yeshua1]

To you it may be semantics, but not to me.
I do not believe in the eternal sonship of Christ. Before his incarnation He was Christ, the Word, the second person of the trinity (1John 5:7)
The designation of "the Son" was given to him at his incarnation.
Hebrews says: "a body thou has prepared for me."
Christ always was deity and at his incarnation became flesh; he was not always flesh. He assumed a human nature and retained his deity. He never gave up his deity. He was fully God and fully man at the same time. However, in eternity past he was not the Son; He was the Word.
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the only begotten of the Father."
I can't argue with Scripture.

he was the Word/Angel of the Lord/Lord in the OT, and the Father eternally generated his own Son, thiose other "names" are what he was in various times/situations before His Incarnation...

 

[Yeshua1]

Hebrews 1:2 - "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."
-This verse says "his son" is the one through whom the world was created...Therefore I hold to the eternal sonship of the son/word/Jesus.
Because...I can't argue with Scripture.:thumbs:

How about:
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder. And His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Guess he knew what was hapening, Eh?

 

[12strings]

before His Incarnation, it was God the father/Son/Spirit, not father/Word/Spirit!

Well, I think you have to say He was both Son AND Word for all eternity.

And if all the rest of this doesn't blow your mind, the "Son" who is refered to in Isaiah 7 is called the "Everlasting Father"!

So the Son, Word, Messiah, is also the Everlasting Father....:laugh:

 

[12strings]

Just to throw another kink in this discussion, Read 1 Cor. 15:24-28...
Then comes the end, when he [CHRIST, SEE CONTEXT] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

So here we have the Future Eternal sonship and even subjection of the son to the Father...The Father puts all things under the son...except himself.

 

[DHK]

Hebrews 1:2 - "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."
-This verse says "his son" is the one through whom the world was created...Therefore I hold to the eternal sonship of the son/word/Jesus.
Because...I can't argue with Scripture.:thumbs:

The author of the Book of Hebrews refers to the Son in the present, as He is now. It is that person, who was not known in the past as the Son, who created all things, though he was the same person.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The WORD created all things; without him was not any thing made that was made.

I know a person in the air force. He is a captain. It is perfectly acceptable English (or grammar) to say: "The captain, when he was young, was mischievous..." (referring to childhood days).

Again, the author of Hebrews is using Son, in the present, referring to the past. It is a title.