Search results

But, can you not see (or are you so blind?!) that there is no difference - other than degrees of time - between saying that Jesus assumed His deity after His birth (classic Adoptionism) and your belief that He assumed His deity at some point after His conception (Biblicist's Adptionism)? I just...

Agreed, apart from the rather tiresome continued misspelling of 'deity'. But no-one here is saying that Mary conceived Christ's deity, just that all of Christ - His humanity and His deity - was present in Mary's womb from the moment of His conception by the Holy Spirit. You can see the...

This statement utterly denies the Incarnation and is rank heresy. And so does this. With that I can agree.

Completely agreed! :thumbsup:

I think you'll find that it took two individuals to result in your conception. But I didn't ask what your mother did to conceive you; I asked what she did for you after you were conceived. Please answer the question.

What exactly did your mother do for you from when you were conceived? The resort of one who has no argument: insults. How very mature!

Please stop dodging the question: did Mary bear Jesus' divine as well as His human nature in her womb? Yes or no?

In what way? Just as well that I haven't then!

Thanks for trying to lable me! Divine life does not have a conception, however Jesus' divine nature co-existed with His human nature from the moment of His conception.

You're tilting at straw men again - please re-read my qualifiers on the previous page. I'm afraid for you that it is a fully accurate use of words to avoid falling into several heresies which have already sadly been put forward on this thread by (evidently poorly-taught) Christians.

Any doctrine that denies that Christ's divine nature existed from the moment of His conception but was put on Him at a later point is adoptionism. Well, since we believe that all human life begins at conception (unless you're a pro-abortionist) and since Jesus was 100% human as well as 100%...

I'm not Catholic and I don't engage in 'Mary worship' as you put it. But I can't deny that she was Mother of God (as qualified by me above) - that much is as plain as day.

I'm fine with both of those statements. That doesn't alter the fact that His pre-existent divine state (as correctly stated by you) wasn't borne by Mary along with His human nature in her womb.

Anyone who says Mary wasn't Mother of God is saying that Jesus wasn't God. I really can't see why there is this logical disconnect with some people. So, no it's not a straw man, it's a potentially damnable heresy! If you're happy saying that Mary was Mother of God (with the usual qualifiers: no...

Correct - and? And God the Son Jesus was fully God and fully Man so you can't separate out His natures in that way.

...and Him in His divine nature....hence 'Mother of God' Agreed (although the Biblicist would apparently disagree with you in his neo-adoptionism), hence 'mother of God' Correct (although it's spelt 'deity' in English) - but no-one here is putting forward either of those points.

How is that in anyway different then from your statement that "deny that conception is when that [hypostatic] union occurred. It occurred sometime before birth as deity was never "conceived" by even God much less Mary", apart from an issue of time? It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Walter answered this @ post #74

That's a form of Adoptionism - another damnable heresy. How many more are we going to see today? I'm really quite shocked to see these old heresies put forward on a Christian discussion board.

Then you're saying that Jesus isn't God - and that most certainly is a damnable heresy. However, I am sure that you don't really believe that....:smilewinkgrin: