Is that to mean that Jesus, incarnate, is not truly "in the flesh?" That He did not truly share in our humanity by having a real mother? And how is your statement not Gnostic or otherwise heretical?
It can only mean one thing, that it wasn't her egg. All that we know about His being human still applies. It only means that though He is through her, He is not of her.
posted on 04/14/2003 1:17:45 PM PDT
(Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
Then He was not of truly human form. When one is concieved one takes on the nature of one's mother: the Lord did just that when He was concieved. It is in fact one of the crucial elements of His coming- He took on our very nature, He shared in man-kind's flesh, was of "the descent of David". To suggest that He was merely "through" Mary is really untenable. It suggests that He was somehow of "special" flesh, of angelic or superhuman flesh.
Jesus did not merely "pass through" Mary; He became very flesh of mankind's flesh, having a real mother: He truly came in the flesh, though through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Even in birth we see His complete Godhood and complete Manhood- of Mary and of God. Thus is His salvific work, which continues in Him: True God and True Man, glorified, uniting us men unto God through Him.
posted on 04/14/2003 8:36:02 PM PDT
(...and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man...)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson