Originally posted by natters:
Doubting Thomas said "Mary is the mother of God in the sense that the one--Jesus Christ--she conceived and bore in time was from eternity, God. It does not mean that she's the source of Christ's divinity." and "Mary is indeed the Mother of God because the one she conceived , bore and gave birth to is in fact truly God. However, she obviously is not the source of Christ's divinity, since He had that from eternity."
I said "Mary gave birth to his divinity as well, but that doesn't mean that's when his divinity began." and " "mother of" does not require the meaning "origin of"."
If that wasn't clear to you, how do you suggest we have said it?
Could you find out your contradiction in your statements?
Mary gave birth to the Divinity, but that doesn't mean that's when his divinity began?
Consult with your dictionary : originate !
This is why you should not use the word " Mary gave birth to God" !
You are evolving from your master peices below!
Followings excerpts posted by natters
Bunyon, again you're playing the martyr.
As I have said before, it is the meaning and not the title that is important to me. I also believe that it was not the title itself that was the cause of the schism, but disagreement about what it was intended to declare - that the flesh that Mary bore was not just "the human part" of Jesus or "the physical vessel" for his divinity, but rather the flesh itself was God - the Word became flesh, not the Word filled up or joined some flesh. The flesh Mary bore was God himself, not just some "human part" of the incarnation.
I think that despite the negative aspects of this thread, there has been a huge benefit - some people needed to be aware of this important difference in understanding what the flesh of Jesus actually was.
natters
2,000 Posts Club
Member # 9084 posted December 09, 2005 08:52 PMDecember 09, 2005 08:52 PM
Eliyahu,
If you want to discuss soul sleep, start a new thread. If you want to speculate about who is doing what or feeling what or calling whomever what in places we cannot see right now, go ahead but don't expect me to speculate with you.
As for Mary being his mother, he still has flesh (Luke 24:39) and is still man (1 Tim 2:5) as well as God.
As for your question about James, I'm not sure if he was a true brother and not just a relative (cousin, etc.). However, if he was a true brother, he would be a half-brother of Jesus, and I would have no problem with the term "half-brother of God" if used in the same way I accept/use the term "mother of God".
My last answer about James didn't give you enough info? Again, I would have no problem with a term like "forefather of God" if used in the same way I accept/use the term "mother of God".
