BobRyan said:
Yes the 2nd person of the God head was zero-human prior to incarnation "by nature". But then after the incarnation is the "God-man" (by nature) but is still the same PERSON.
So yes - I see a distinction between nature and person in that case.
Actually, after the Incarnation we have One Person with Two Natures and the Logos is the same pre or post-Incarnation. Remember, God is Immutable, He cannot change, merge or co-mingle thus the distinction of 'Two Natures in unity, undivided yet not-confused or co-mingled'.
According to the the doctrine of the Incarnation, the eternal Logos assumed a 'complete' human nature and was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Ghost (i.e. Spirit). While the Incarnation is itself a work of the Holy Trinity acting together, only the Second Person of the Trinity is united with a human nature. The resulting union is nonetheless a substantial one, traditionally designed as "hypostatic," in which the divine and human natures are joined in the one Person (hypostasis) of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is 'more' than just the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, He is the Theanthropos (God-Man).
This Theanthropos (God-Man) was 'born'. You are conflating and confusing the Second Person of the Holy Trinity with the Word Incarnate Jesus Christ. In doing this you are ignoring the Humanity of our Lord and making His humanity of none effect to our Salvation nor to the unique and salvific personality of Jesus Christ.
But God-the-Son was not "born then" He already pre-existed from eternity past.
The Logos pre-existed but when that Logos took upon itself the hypostatic union with humanity Jesus Christ was Born!
That is "The difference" between a true procreation event AND a true INCARNATION event.
No, you are assuming that there was not Hypostatic Union in Jesus Christ as if the Logos simply possessed a shell without a soul or a will of it's own working in 'union' with the will of the Holy Trinity.
In the incarnation - the God nature is not "born" it is not "procreated" it is pre-existing!
This is correct, you're not going to get an argument out of me concerning this but your error isn't in recognizing the eternal nature of the Godhead... you're error is in assuming that not 'real' hypostatic union occurred in the humanity of Jesus Christ and the Logos that only the Logos existed controlling a Shell of human form with no soul, or will of it's own. The Biblical testimony doesn't bear this out. Jesus Christ is 'fully Man' and 'fully God' (Anthropos). There was not being like this before the Incarnation. This new being Jesus Christ is the hypostatic union of God and Man (One Person) born of a woman, the Virgin Mary.
God the Son - the "person" has no "Mother" has no one "Wiser than him" no one "correcting Him".
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself ~ 2 Cor. 5:19
Notice the distinction be 'God and Christ' in this verse? Jesus is a 'real' man with 'real' distinctiveness, due to the hypostatic union with His Humanity, from the personhood of the Godhead.
He is God - and God alone!
No, Jesus is Theanthropos (Completely Man... Completely God) in a hypostatic union....
By the two-nature hypostasis, Christ is distinguished both from other human persons and from the other persons of the Trinity:
"On the one hand, He is joined to the Father and the Spirit by His divinity, while on the other He is joined by His humanity to His Mother and to all men. However, because of the fact that His natures are united, we say that He differs both from the Father and the Spirit and from His Mother and other men" ~ John of Damascus
On the Orthodox Faith
The equivocation that is attempted between the God nature incarnate and the human nature PROCREATED results in the procreation terms being used such as
"Wiser than God"
"instructor of God"
"Stronger than God"
"Mother of God"
Nope again. Christ's humanity is inescapable throughout the Biblical testimony. His distinctiveness from the Divine Nature is evident.
He grew in wisdom
He grew in the strength of the Holy Spirit
He grew sleepy
He grew hungery
etc, etc
It was not the Logos that lacked wisdom or strength in the Holy Spirit it was the Anthropos which did in it's unique hypostatic union.
But regarding your point "Mary the mother of God" in terms of Biology and parental role of the "person" -- when that specific subject is raised in Luke 11 and that statement is made that Mary is blessed in that role Christ says "ON THE CONTRARY" -- and I would say with Christ "ON the CONTRARY".
Augustine begs to differ...
From a sermon by Augustine, Bishop of Hippo:
Stretching out his hand over his disciples, the Lord Christ declared: Here are my mother and my brothers, anyone who does the will of my Father who sent me is my brother and my sister and my mother. I would urge you to ponder these words. Did the Virgin Mary, who believed by faith and conceived by faith, who was the chosen one from whom our Saviour was born among men, who was created by Christ before Christ was created in her... did she not do the will of the Father?
Indeed the blessed Mary certainly did the Father's will, and so it was for her a greater thing to have been Christ's disciple than to have been his mother, and she was more blessed in her discipleship than in her motherhood. Hers was the happiness of first bearing in her womb him whom she would obey as her master.
Mary isn't the Mother of God because of flesh and blood but of faith
'do unto me what you have said'. Mary's Fiat (i.e. her participation) was to His Glory and her reward.
In ascribing to Mary the term theotokos, "bearer of God," there has never been intended the slightest implication that Mary gave birth to the Godhead, but only to the incarnate Son (Council of Ephesus, NPNF 2 XIV, pp. 348-57)
"We do not, however, say that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the unity of this Trinity, but only to the Son who alone assumed our nature" (Eleventh Council of Toledo, CF, p. 170). The intention is accurately stated by John II (A.D. 533-535), that Mary is "truly the one who bore God, and the Mother of God's Word, become incarnate from her" (Epist. 3, SCD 202, p.83). "We do not say that God was born of her in the sense that the divinity of the Word has its beginning of being from her, but in the sense that God the Word Himself... did in the last days come for our salvation to dwell in her womb" (John Damascus,
On the Orthodox Faith; Cyril of Alexandria,
Third Letter to Nestorius, LCC III)
