OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I believe so!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Let’s review some basic Christian understanding
- Thread starter evangelist-7
- Start date
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The argument that the Second person of the Trinity became a man is similar to the monophysitism heresy of the 5th and 6th century. Monophysitism insisted that Jesus Christ had only one nature which is what you get if God became a man.
From: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Monophysitism
From: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Monophysitism
Monophysitism (from the Greek monos meaning "one" and physis meaning "nature") is the christological position that Christ has only one nature, in which his divinity and humanity are united. The opposing Chalcedonian ("orthodox") position holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. Monophysitism also refers to the movement centered on this concept, around which a major controversy evolved during the fifth through sixth centuries C.E.
Monophysitism grew to prominence in the Eastern Roman empire, particularly in Syria, the Levant, Egypt, and Anatolia, while western church, under the discipline of the papacy, denounced the doctrine as heresy. Monophysitism was rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, and repressed as a result. However, it continued to have many adherents. The controversy reemerged in a major way in the late fifth century, in the form of the Acacian schism, when Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople and Emperor Zeno sought to reconcile Monophysite and Chalcedonian Christians by means of the Henotikon, a document which sought to avoid the debate over the question of Christ's "natures."
Monophysitism received new life again during the reign of Justinian I, who sought to heal the breach in the eastern churches by achieving a universal denunciation of the so-called Three Chapters—ideas particularly offensive to the Monophysites—by holding the Second Council of Chalcedon, to which Pope Vigilius was successfully pressured to submit.
Today's miaphysite churches of the Oriental Orthodox tradition, such as the Coptic Orthodox Church and others, are related historically to Monophysitism and honor saints condemned in Catholic tradition as heretics, but are generally accepted as authentically Christian by other communions.
I don't get it OR.I am not saying I am right and everyone else is wrong. Gill is right., Lloyd-Jones is right. Chalcedon is correct except for the nonsense about Mary being the Mother of God. Webster almost gets it and I am right!
Your human sources are right, so you say?
But the Bible is wrong??
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Word is the second person of the Triune Godhead, Jesus Christ. He became flesh, that is man. John says: "we beheld him," that is Christ the man, the One that became "human." He wasn't looking at a chunk of flesh; he was looking at a human. He was beholding Christ, the man, when he wrote this. Christ became man. This verse cannot be understood in any other way. You are denying the Scriptures at this point.
No one here denies that Christ was completely deity and completely man at the same time. But the great mystery of the incarnation is that God so humbled himself to become man and die for our sins. That is a precious truth in Christianity.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I don't get it OR.
Your human sources are right, so you say?
But the Bible is wrong??
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Word is the second person of the Triune Godhead, Jesus Christ. He became flesh, that is man. John says: "we beheld him," that is Christ the man, the One that became "human." He wasn't looking at a chunk of flesh; he was looking at a human. He was beholding Christ, the man, when he wrote this. Christ became man. This verse cannot be understood in any other way. You are denying the Scriptures at this point.
No one here denies that Christ was completely deity and completely man at the same time. But the great mystery of the incarnation is that God so humbled himself to become man and die for our sins. That is a precious truth in Christianity.
You simply are misinterpreting John 1:14! Saying that the Word was made flesh does not mean that God became a human. What you are arguing is counter to what Chalcedon teaches and that is considered the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation [again omitting the remarks regarding Mary].
If you want to put "Chalcedon" over and above the Word of God, that is your choice. I know what John 1:1 means. I have yet to hear how your explanation contradicts mine.You simply are misinterpreting John 1:14! Saying that the Word was made flesh does not mean that God became a human. What you are arguing is counter to what Chalcedon teaches and that is considered the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation [again omitting the remarks regarding Mary].
I have not brought into this discussion Mary, nor do I care to. That is not the discussion here. Why should I fear the RCC doctrine. I used to be one. I know what they teach, and it isn't the Bible.
evangelist-7
New Member
I see it as simple as this ...... God did not become a man. He took on the form of a man. The two are not the same!!
God is (a) Spirit.
God's Spirit comes inside us when we are born again >>> man's body + man's soul + God's Spirit.
God the Word(Logos) came inside the Baby Jesus.
Baby Jesus was fully human and fully God >>> man's body + God's soul + God's Spirit.
I.E. God the Word(Logos) clothed Himself with a human body.
Note: man's soul is comprised of another trinity ... mind, will, emotions.
(And it sure seems that God has a soul also!)
Yup, this should be good for another 100 posts.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
True.:thumbs:
One God, but within thwt One being are 3 seperate and distinct persons, Father/Son/Spirit!
God became a man as jesus, yet the Holy Spirit and tha Father still were also God...
cannot say God did not become a Human, as that would be heresy!
Apsotle john stated it best, that whoever denied the God became flesh, a man as Jesus, was of antichrist spirit!
NOT saying that you are, but that if you do NOT hold to God became a full Man, that jesus was BOTH fully God and Fully man, that denies the Incarnation!
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I see it as simple as this ...
God is (a) Spirit.
God's Spirit comes inside us when we are born again >>> man's body + man's soul + God's Spirit.
God the Word(Logos) came inside the Baby Jesus.
Baby Jesus was fully human and fully God >>> man's body + God's soul + God's Spirit.
I.E. God the Word(Logos) clothed Himself with a human body.
Note: man's soul is comprised of another trinity ... mind, will, emotions.
(And it sure seems that God has a soul also!)
Yup, this should be good for another 100 posts.
.
Your analysis is incorrect. It is incorrect to say that the Word became the soul of the human ! You need to study what Chalcedon says about the Incarnation.
Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.)
This creed was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, located in what is now Turkey, in 451, as a response to certain heretical views concerning the nature of Christ. It established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) that are unified in one person.
________________________
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, <snip>, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved,
and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Chalcedon says it well: "to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons."
There are two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, the divine nature which is the Second Person of the Trinity, and the human nature which is the seed of the Virgin Mary, the seed of David, the seed of Abraham.
evangelist-7
New Member
God is (a) Spirit.
God's Spirit comes inside us when we are born again >>> man's body + man's soul + God's Spirit.
God the Word(Logos) came inside the Baby Jesus.
Baby Jesus was fully human and fully God >>> man's body + God's soul + God's Spirit.
I.E. God the Word(Logos) clothed Himself with a human body.
Note: man's soul is comprised of another trinity ... mind, will, emotions.
(And it sure seems that God has a soul also!)
It could be that man's spirit controls his human soul >>> so his inherited sinful nature makes him sin.
But, Jesus' spirit (i.e. God) controlled His human soul >>> so His sinless nature allowed Him to not sin.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
You repeat this over and over again, and yet no one has denied it.There are two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, the divine nature which is the Second Person of the Trinity, and the human nature which is the seed of the Virgin Mary, the seed of David, the seed of Abraham.
Christ became a man; God in the flesh. It took place by being born of a virgin. Even while still in the womb he retained his deity. He was fully man and fully God at the same time. What have we said that is anything different from the above? What are you arguing against? Even Chalcedon, for all intents and purposes agrees with us.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You repeat this over and over again, and yet no one has denied it.
Christ became a man; God in the flesh. It took place by being born of a virgin. Even while still in the womb he retained his deity. He was fully man and fully God at the same time. What have we said that is anything different from the above? What are you arguing against? Even Chalcedon, for all intents and purposes agrees with us.
You have denied it over and over by repeating that God became a man and that is incorrect. God did not become a man!
First Scripture says he became a man.You have denied it over and over by repeating that God became a man and that is incorrect. God did not become a man!
John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh" (human; a man)
The first man was Adam; The second Adam (man) was Christ.
God became man. If you don't believe this truth you deny Scripture.
Even Chalcedon, which you quote, states as much:
There are two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, the divine nature which is the Second Person of the Trinity, and the human nature which is the seed of the Virgin Mary, the seed of David, the seed of Abraham.
IOW Jesus Christ, the Second person of the Trinity became man (of the seed of Mary, the seed of David, the seed of Abraham--a man.)
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I don't deny Scripture. It is just possible that I understand Scripture better than you do! I am certain that Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Gill both understand Scripture better than either of us and they agree with me.First Scripture says he became a man.
John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh" (human; a man)
The first man was Adam; The second Adam (man) was Christ.
God became man. If you don't believe this truth you deny Scripture.
Even Chalcedon, which you quote, states as much:
From my post #10
John 1:14
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John Gill writing about John 1:14 states:
“The same word, of whom so many things are said in the preceding verses; and is no other than the Son of God, or second person in the Trinity; for neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, were made flesh, as is here said of the word, but the Son only: and "flesh" here signifies, not a part of the body, nor the whole body only, but the whole human nature, consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul; and is so called, to denote the frailty of it, being encompassed with infirmities, though not sinful; and to show, that it was a real human nature, and not a phantom, or appearance, that he assumed: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, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered; Christ remained what he was, and became what he was not; nor are they confounded, and blended together, and so make a third nature; nor are they separated, and divided, so as to constitute two persons, a divine person, and an human person; but are so united as to be but one person; and this is such an union, as can never be dissolved, and is the foundation of the virtue and efficacy of all Christ's works and actions, as Mediator:”
Notice that Gill says: 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,
From my post #59
In his book God the Father, God the Son Dr. Lloyd-Jones writes, page 257, more simple than Gill:
The next definition I put like this: we must never so state the doctrine of the incarnation as to give the impression, therefore, that we say that the Son of God was changed into a man.
The remainder of Martyn Lloyd-Jones' discussion of the Incarnation is perfectly consistent with Chalcedon!
And Chalcedon does not say that that God became a man"
I don't deny Scripture. It is just possible that I understand Scripture better than you do! I am certain that Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Gill both understand Scripture better than either of us and they agree with me.
And Chalcedon does not say that that God became a man"
IF Jesus was not fully God, then his death meant NOTHING towards saving us from our sins, IF he was not fully man, His death would NOT be as a substitute for us,as he was Not one of Us!
Bible CLEARLY teaches that he became AS one of us, fully humman, yet without any sin nature as we have!
You seem to confuse God becaming man with a kind of Modulaism, as you seem to imply that God while as jesus meant NO other God was any where else!
the second person of the Godhead was walking around as a human being on Earth, God the Ftaher stil in heaven, and the Holy spirit was in the earth!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
IF Jesus was not fully God, then his death meant NOTHING towards saving us from our sins, IF he was not fully man, His death would NOT be as a substitute for us,as he was Not one of Us!
Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man as I have repeatedly stated!
Just where does Scripture teach that God became a man?Bible CLEARLY teaches that he became AS one of us, fully humman, yet without any sin nature as we have!
That is nonsense. I implied nothing of the sort!You seem to confuse God becaming man with a kind of Modulaism, as you seem to imply that God while as jesus meant NO other God was any where else!
the second person of the Godhead was walking around as a human being on Earth, God the Ftaher stil in heaven, and the Holy spirit was in the earth!
It is you who are confused. Read my posts and then study the remarks I posted by Gill and Lloyd-jones. Next you might study the decree of Chalcedon. The truth is God did not become a man!
This is the same stuff that was posted some months back claiming that God died on the cross!
From Gill
The Son became human.
God became flesh. His mistake is trying to divide up God. The Son is still God. When the Son became human, as Gill says, then it is still God becoming flesh, even though Gill says it is not the Father or the Spirit that is included. This is a mystery for in one way the triune Godhead can never be divorced. Is Gill inferring that the Son lost his deity? Then he is a heretic! If the Son did not lose his divinity his belief is no different than mine. God became man. God the Son left the glories of heaven and became man. That is what Gill said.
... the Son only: and "flesh" here signifies, not a part of the body, nor the whole body only, but the whole human nature,...
The Son became human.
God became flesh. His mistake is trying to divide up God. The Son is still God. When the Son became human, as Gill says, then it is still God becoming flesh, even though Gill says it is not the Father or the Spirit that is included. This is a mystery for in one way the triune Godhead can never be divorced. Is Gill inferring that the Son lost his deity? Then he is a heretic! If the Son did not lose his divinity his belief is no different than mine. God became man. God the Son left the glories of heaven and became man. That is what Gill said.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
From Gill
... the Son only: and "flesh" here signifies, not a part of the body, nor the whole body only, but the whole human nature,...
The Son became human.
God became flesh. His mistake is trying to divide up God. The Son is still God. When the Son became human, as Gill says, then it is still God becoming flesh, even though Gill says it is not the Father or the Spirit that is included. This is a mystery for in one way the triune Godhead can never be divorced. Is Gill inferring that the Son lost his deity? Then he is a heretic! If the Son did not lose his divinity his belief is no different than mine. God became man. God the Son left the glories of heaven and became man. That is what Gill said.
[/I]
Strange but sad! You extract a clause from Gill's exegesis of John 1:14, call him a heretic and then then use him to prove your assertion. I am sure Gill won't mind you calling him a heretic but he likely will resent you claiming he said that God became a man. It is disingenuous to take Gill's comment out of context and then misuse it!
I presented his exegesis of John 1:14 where Gill clearly states that God did not become a man.
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, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered;
Notice Gill states that the Incarnation was NOT the change of the "divine into human, or the word into a man" which is what you are claiming. I would also note one more time what Lloyd-Jones says about the Incarnation.
From my post #59
In his book God the Father, God the Son Dr. Lloyd-Jones writes, page 257, more simple than Gill:
The next definition I put like this: we must never so state the doctrine of the incarnation as to give the impression, therefore, that we say that the Son of God was changed into a man.
From my post #10 I present all of Gill's comments on John 1:14:
John 1:14
14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John Gill writing about John 1:14 states:
“The same word, of whom so many things are said in the preceding verses; and is no other than the Son of God, or second person in the Trinity; for neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, were made flesh, as is here said of the word, but the Son only: and "flesh" here signifies, not a part of the body, nor the whole body only, but the whole human nature, consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul; and is so called, to denote the frailty of it, being encompassed with infirmities, though not sinful; and to show, that it was a real human nature, and not a phantom, or appearance, that he assumed: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, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered; Christ remained what he was, and became what he was not; nor are they confounded, and blended together, and so make a third nature; nor are they separated, and divided, so as to constitute two persons, a divine person, and an human person; but are so united as to be but one person; and this is such an union, as can never be dissolved, and is the foundation of the virtue and efficacy of all Christ's works and actions, as Mediator:”
If you would read Chalcedon you would see that there were two natures in the person Jesus Christ, the Divine nature being the Word and the human nature being the seed of Abraham, each nature kept distinct or preserved!
Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.)
This creed was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, located in what is now Turkey, in 451, as a response to certain heretical views concerning the nature of Christ. It established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) that are unified in one person.
________________________
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary,<snip>, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
I don't think you even understand what you read OR.
No one even inferred that there is a third nature.
What I quoted from Gill, Gill says. Or are you saying Gill contradicts himself?
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I marvel at your unbelief in this simple Scripture. God became man.
No third nature is involved. He became man. If he didn't he could not have died for our sins; he could not have paid the penalty that would satisfy God the Father. He was born of a virgin--a man: fully man and fully God at the same time. God became man. That is the incarnation. The word means "enfleshment." Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and Christ was born, a man with two natures: fully man and fully God.
No one even inferred that there is a third nature.
What I quoted from Gill, Gill says. Or are you saying Gill contradicts himself?
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I marvel at your unbelief in this simple Scripture. God became man.
No third nature is involved. He became man. If he didn't he could not have died for our sins; he could not have paid the penalty that would satisfy God the Father. He was born of a virgin--a man: fully man and fully God at the same time. God became man. That is the incarnation. The word means "enfleshment." Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and Christ was born, a man with two natures: fully man and fully God.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I don't think you even understand what you read OR.
No one even inferred that there is a third nature.
It has been claimed historically.
Gill did not contradict himself. You took a clause out of context and deliberately misused it. Gill clearly teaches that God did not become a man. To say otherwise is untruthful. I presented one more time that part of Gill's exegesis of John 1:14 where he clearly states that God did not become a man.What I quoted from Gill, Gill says. Or are you saying Gill contradicts himself?
From Gill
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, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered;
Gill clearly states above that the divine did not become human or the Word into a man. Yet you falsely say he did!
I believe the above Scripture. You are simply incapable of understanding it!John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I marvel at your unbelief in this simple Scripture.
That is false.God became man.
The idea of a third nature was debunked decisively by Gill:No third nature is involved.
so why are you harping about that? Introducing a red herring?From Gill on John 1:14
Christ remained what he was, and became what he was not; nor are they confounded, and blended together, and so make a third nature;
Repeating a falsehood does not make it true! Remember the old priests of BaalHe became man.
1 Kings 18:26,27.
26. And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.
27. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
If he didn't he could not have died for our sins; he could not have paid the penalty that would satisfy God the Father. He was born of a virgin--a man: fully man and fully God at the same time. God became man. That is the incarnation. The word means "enfleshment." Mary was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and Christ was born, a man with two natures: fully man and fully God.
I agree that Jesus Christ was one man with two natures, a Divine nature the Word, and a human nature, the seed of Mary and thus Abraham. I have made this statement numerous times. That does not mean that God became a man. The two natures were kept separate as Chalcedon says:
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved,
So have many things, like Jesus is an angel, or that he was born of fornication. But no one on this thread has made those claims, so your point is moot.It has been claimed historically.
I don't think you understand Gill properly.Gill did not contradict himself. You took a clause out of context and deliberately misused it. Gill clearly teaches that God did not become a man. To say otherwise is untruthful. I presented one more time that part of Gill's exegesis of John 1:14 where he clearly states that God did not become a man.
Nevertheless it is the Bible, not Gill that is my authority.
The Bible states that the Word became flesh. It is straight and to the point.
Why don't you accept it?
You are denying the Scripture at this point.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
I don't really care what Gill says at this point. What does the Scripture say?Gill clearly states above that the divine did not become human or the Word into a man. Yet you falsely say he did!
The Word became flesh. What does the word flesh mean? It refers to human. Search it out for yourself, without the commentaries.
You won't study the verse without the aid of commentaries.I believe the above Scripture. You are simply incapable of understanding it!
It is a red herring because no one here believes in a third nature, just like no one believes he was born of fornication or was an angel. Why bring these things up?The idea of a third nature was debunked decisively by Gill:
so why are you harping about that? Introducing a red herring?
Then why repeat the falsehoods (i.e. third nature) ?Repeating a falsehood does not make it true! Remember the old priests of Baal
That does not deny the fact of the virgin birth, that he was born of of a woman, and thus became a man like you and I. If he didn't he couldn't die for our sins. As a man he suffered and died. As God he suffered. What happened when God the Father turned his back on the God the Son, and God the Son cried out to God the Father: "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me"? How do you understand that passage?I agree that Jesus Christ was one man with two natures, a Divine nature the Word, and a human nature, the seed of Mary and thus Abraham. I have made this statement numerous times. That does not mean that God became a man. The two natures were kept separate as Chalcedon says: