Posted on 12/09/2005 11:58:25 PM PST by HarleyD
The Son is begotten, uncreated, one in being with the Father. He has two natures, human and divine. His entire person was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy spirit; she did not give birth to a nature (which would be the nestorian error), but to a person. The incarnation of the Son is a miracle, which, of course, does not have a physiological explanation (your second error, which Nestorius, unaware of scientism that crushes our thought today, may or may not have made). Nestorian views were condemned at the Council of Ephesus (AD 431), from which proceedings I quote:
So then he who had an existence before all ages and was born of the Father, is said to have been born according to the flesh of a woman, not as though his divine nature received its beginning of existence in the holy Virgin, for it needed not any second generation after that of the Father (for it would be absurd and foolish to say that he who existed before all ages, coeternal with the Father, needed any second beginning of existence), but since, for us and for our salvation, he personally united to himself an human body, and came forth of a woman, he is in this way said to be born after the flesh; for the was not first born a common man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word came down and entered into him, but the union being made in the womb itself, he is said to endure a birth after the flesh, ascribing to himself the birth of his own flesh.This is Canon I, containing the anathema directed at you:
I.IF anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Qeotokos), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, "The Word was made flesh">: let him be anathema.
This is the full literally translated text of the Nicene Creed currently proclaimed; later additions in the West are in brackets.
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."For detail on the history of the Creed see The Nicene Creed
[1]she did not give birth to a nature (which would be the nestorian error), but to a person.
Sheesh, you would think you would know what the putative Nestorian error entailed. The putative error was not their belief that Christ had two natures, which of course they did believe, but that Christ was two persons. Of course you didn't let the facts get in the way of defending your idolatry you simply just rearranged them.
[2]The incarnation of the Son is a miracle, which, of course, does not have a physiological explanation (your second error, which Nestorius, unaware of scientism that crushes our thought today, may or may not have made).
BAWAHAHAHA!!! You people are rich. Never let a good superstitution get upset by science. Poor Galileo tried that and I'm still not sure if the Vatican has made a determination on whether the earth circles the sun. You people are so clouded by your idolatry and superstitutions that even the fact that your religous leaders are consumed with sexual immorality because of this heinous idolatry it fails to open your eyes.
Sure, the Western Papist tries to rationalize Mariology idolatry but in most third world countries this idolatry is unabashedly polytheistic and unapologetic.
In addition to that I have Chalcedon on my side when it reitirates what I said,
Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.
which is read in the more logical and God-fearing manner of Christotokos.
But what should be of more concern to you, besides all the other idolatries and superstitutions, is your pernicious error of Monothelitism. Your denial of the two wills is especially heinous in that it leads to pantheism. Even your own Pope Agatho condemns you in the Third Council of Constantinople when he declared,
… we assert that all things are double in the one and the same our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ according to the Evangelical tradition, that is to say, we confess his two natures, to wit the divine and the human, of which and in which he, even after the wonderful and inseparable union, subsists. And we confess that each of his natures has its own natural propriety, and that the divine has all things that are divine, without any sin. And we recognize that each one (of the two natures) of the one and the same incarnated, that is, humanated (humanati) Word of God is in him unconfusedly, inseparably and unchangeably, intelligence alone discerning a unity, to avoid the error of confusion. For we equally detest the blasphemy of division and of commixture. For when we confess two natures and two natural wills, and two natural operations in our one Lord Jesus Christ, we do not assert that they are contrary or opposed one to the other (as those who err from the path of truth and accuse the apostolic tradition of doing. Far be this impiety from the hearts of the faithful!)[Emphasis mine]
So I’ll stand with Galileo and defend the truth against the institutional idolatry of modern Romanists.
Can you please clearly explain where your position differs from Nestorianism, authoritative references to which I posted? Then it will be easier to discuss my remarks. At this point your post looks like avoidance of the charge. I would be, of course, happy to discuss Galileo when an appropriate opportunity presents itself, Monothelism, why Chalcedon does not negate Ephesus, or anything else.
Easy, I don't claim Christ was two persons as was putatively Nestorius' position. Clearly my post was not an avoidance of the charge although your coyness of my clear presentation seems an obfuscation.
So, was Christ, a single person, born of the Virgin Mary?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.