I have devised a test to quickly determine whether someone holds to a Nestorian Christology. Ask, “What would have happened to Jesus’ body if the Spirit would have departed from it prior to Jesus’ death on the cross?” If they answer that Jesus would have continued to live and function, they hold to a Nestorian Christology. Here’s why:
The presence of a person is required for a human body to live and function. If the divine person has departed, necessarily there must be a second person who co-existed alongside the divine person that remains, and continues to be the source of life and function. Who would that second person be? Presumably the human person of Jesus. But if there was a human person co-existing alongside the divine person in Jesus, then Jesus is not a single person, but two persons = Nestorianism.
If Jesus is a single person—the person of God incarnate—then Jesus could not have continued to live if the Spirit of God departed from His body, in the same way that you and I could not go on living if our spirits departed from our bodies. If the Spirit of God had ever departed from Jesus’ body prior to His death on the cross, Jesus would have never even made it to the cross! That’s why we can be confident that when Jesus says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”, Jesus did not mean God had literally and physically forsaken Him. If He had physically forsaken Jesus, Jesus could not have even asked the question because Jesus would no longer be alive.
Thinking to Believe 
August 17, 2010 at 8:16 am
Great point Jason. Thanks for posting. How do you comment on these verses?
Luke 18:18-19 LEB
“18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, “Good Teacher, by* doing what will I inherit eternal life?” 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” http://ref.ly/Lk18.18-27
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 9:53 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
I do not dispute against Nestorianism contending that within that body or flesh called the Son of God/Son of man existed two lives the breath of God which existed within the nostrils of the Son of God and the eternal Spirit or God the Father which granted it the ability to do great works, wonders, or preach and teach the holy word. Therefore, I dispute with your concept of Christology from a Chalcedonian paradigm which I consider to be a gross departure from scriptural monotheism.
Peace be unto you!
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 11:15 am
Or just ask the question that prompted this particular controversy in the first place: “Is it accurate to refer to Mary as the mother of God?” Anyone who seriously and thoughtfully answers “no” has a Nestorian Christology.
Luke 18:18-19 seems pretty straightforward to me. Jesus knew that the ruler did not believe that He was God. He did not say (or imply), “You should not call me good;” He simply asked (rhetorically), “Why do you call me good?”
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Jason, this post reminds me of Genesis 2:7
7then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
According to Genesis, a person (or a living being) is basically when life enters the body. Of course no one is formed in this particular manner anymore (God breathing into “adult” bodies), but as the sperm meets the egg and life grows, we have a person – an embodied spirit. I liken this to what God did in the incarnation. No, God did not simply become “robed in flesh”, but as a result of the incarnation, God Himself was the “breath of life” that came upon and overshadowed Mary in the conception, causing a living being to form (Jesus). Yet it was God “limited” by the human nature.
Now, something did cross my mind. I am an embodied spirit – a person. Yet the Spirit of Christ lives in me two. This would mean that there are two persons coexisting in me, correct? Yet I am still considered one person. What if someone had the same perception of Jesus? Jesus had a human person, and alongside was the divine person when He received the Holy Spirit (just like us). So if the divine person left Jesus (literally), Jesus would remain – just like if the Holy Spirit left us, we would remain (naturally, but dead spiritually). What are your thoughts on that?
******
Hmmm, something else just crossed my mind, lol. God is Spirit. He breathed into the nostrils of Adam and He became a living being. The breath of life that God breathed was an extension of God’s essence, right? God is life, and He breathed life into the man to become a living being. With that said, why wasn’t Adam considered the first “God-man”…? I do realize that the scripture shows the connection between Adam and Jesus as it relates to their contribution to humanity (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15) but only Jesus has the recognition of being a “God-man”… I guess it’s because Adam was not God AS man, but rather God who formed man — from His own breath. Perhaps I answered my own question…or perhaps not…lol
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 7:40 am
Jason & Aletheist
I now have a problem, for I would contend in Jason’s question to say that Jesus would have died had the Spirit left, but I would argue that Mary is NOT the mother of God, but the mother of the Son of Man.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 9:58 am
Greetings! Friends
I would disagree with the saying, “Mary the mother of God” considering that our God and Saviour has no mother neither was begotten nor made. I would contend that Mary was the mother of the Son not the Father yet I am an advocate of the oneness of God.
Peace be unto you!
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 10:20 am
The argument for referring to Mary as the mother of God is a very simple syllogism:
P1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
P2. Jesus is God.
C. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
This is perfectly valid, so if both premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows. The Nestorian would presumably deny P1 and claim that Mary is only the mother of the human part of Jesus, thus effectively separating Him into two persons – the human one who has a mother, and the divine one who does not.
Scott Speight comes dangerously close to this view by saying that Mary is “the mother of the Son of Man,” but “NOT the mother of God.” This actually implies that she is not the mother of Jesus, the one Person who was both the Son of Man and God incarnate.
Marquest Burton also gets into trouble by saying that “our God and Saviour has no mother neither was begotten nor made.” This entails that Jesus – who certainly had a mother (Mary) and is the only begotten Son of the Father – is not our God and Saviour. And by the way, no one is claiming that Mary is the mother of the Father.
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 10:56 am
Greetings! Friends and Enemies
Those whom affirm that Mary is the mother of God do not know the one true God of all grace for the holy scriptures teaches against calling Mary the Mother of God. For Mary was the mother of the Son of God/Son of man not the mother of the eternal Spirit or God the Father.
Therefore, I will mourn and pray for you whom affirm that God has a mother which is contrary to holy scripture.
May the God of all grace continue to have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Marquest Burton: Please show me exactly where (chapter and verse) “the holy scriptures teaches [sic] against calling Mary the Mother of God.” Just to be clear – since you seem to affirm that Mary is the mother of Jesus, do you deny that Jesus is God? And again, no one is claiming that Mary is the mother of the Father.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 2:09 am
Aletheist:
“no-one is claiming that Mary is the mother of the Father”
P1 – Mary is the mother of Jesus
P2 – Jesus is God
C – therefore Mary is mother of God
Given those premises and conclusion and the following premise
P3 – the Father is God
gives
C2 – Mary is Mother to the Father
Obviously there is something in there that would nullify the logic but I would think the same would be true between P1, P2 and C1?
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 2:11 am
I would contend that Mary is Mother to the flesh but not the Spirit, and that you cannot have had one without the other, and that Mary is not mother to the Spirit so I would argue that the concusion is wrong since premise 2 is more complicated.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 6:14 am
Sorry, need to correct that last paragraph since I believe “The Son” (as Logos) existed prior to Jesus (of Nazarene) and that Mary is the mother to the host body of which Logos inhabited thereby becoming Jesus Christ.
I think I can answer Aletheist’s logic puzzle (for no better word) in that P2 is incorrect.
Jesus is 100% Human (Mary mother of this part)
Jesus is 100% Deity (Mary is not mother of this part)
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 10:44 am
Greetings! Friends and Enemies
Again! I reiterate that holy scriptures condemns anyone saying that Mary is the mother of God which means that those whom are fond of using it are in gross error and if they do not repent they shall end up in hell for eternity.
May the God of all grace continue to have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 11:01 am
Jesus is one person with two natures, human and divine. The whole point of the Nestorian controversy was that you cannot separate the two natures without dividing the one person. Mary is the mother of the person Jesus; it makes no sense to say that she is only the mother of the human “part” of Jesus. Jesus is still 100% human and 100% divine today, and will remain so for all eternity.
The problem with your P3 and C2 is that “God” is not the proper name of a single person. The same mistake occurs if you derive from P2 and P3 the conclusion that Jesus is the Father, which obviously is also false. When we say that Jesus is God and the Father is God, we are not saying that Jesus and the Father are the same person. Thus Mary is the mother of God the Son, but not of God the Father.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 11:10 am
Marquest Burton: Again! I reiterate – Please show me exactly where (chapter and verse) “the holy scriptures condemns [sic] anyone saying that Mary is the mother of God.” As my comment #7 shows, if Mary is NOT the mother of God, then either Mary is NOT the mother of Jesus, or Jesus is NOT God. Which is your position? Either way, you would be the one denying what Scripture clearly teaches.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Here is my two cents worth. Mary is the mother of God. But the divine nature of Jesus wasnt created in her womb, but the human nature was created in her womb. When the Holy Ghost came and impregnated Mary, thats when the two natures intertwined and created the person named Jesus. So the divine nature was preexistant and the human nature wasnt.
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I never would have figured this post would have occasioned so many comments! I hope to read through them and respond over the next couple of days.
Jason
LikeLike
August 20, 2010 at 5:08 pm
James,
I understand Jesus to be prodding the young man to see if he truly understands the implications of what he is saying. If only God is good, and yet Jesus is good, then Jesus must be God. It’s as though Jesus is asking the young man, “Are you able to connect the dots?”
Jason
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 8:25 am
I agree with jesse. This is the mystery of God. It is my belief that this is where the proper placement of the mystery should be, the incarnation. Mary was the mother of God, in his manifest form.
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 10:03 am
Greetings! Friends and Enemies
Again I say that Mary is not the mother of God but only the mother of the Son of God/Son of man. Those whom affirm such foolishness as to say that Mary is the mother of God do not know the one true God of all glory.
May the God of all grace have mercy upon all those whom affirm falsehood such as Mary is the mother of God. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Marquest Burton: You continue to assert your position over and over, but stubbornly refuse to support it with Scripture or logic. If you cannot show me why I am wrong, what reason do I have to accept your correction? The fact is, I do know the one true God of all glory – His name is Jesus, and He has a mother named Mary.
LikeLike
August 24, 2010 at 6:28 am
This is interesting arguments. The truth is both groups are using word mother differently. No one has defined the terms, and it is what is causing confusion. Here is the 2 terms being used her for mother.
Mother (mother of God view) – the term mother here is a reference to to the person who gives birth to you and contributes your DNA.
Mother (none mother of God view) – This word is a reference to ones originator. This would be a more cosmic use of the word mother in which people who believed in Goddesses had in mind. Hence terms like Mother Earth.
What is biblically true. Mothers and Fathers contribute to our DNA, but they are not responsible for the creation of a human/soul or Spirit. That is a sovereign and divine act of God. While people may have been “accidents” to their parents, their actual human spirit was never an accident.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 11:21 am
Greetings! To all
Holy scripture never affirms nor supports the confess of some people that Mary was the mother of God consider that scripture declares that God Almighty neither has a beginning nor an ending. Scripture declares that only the Son of God Jesus Christ had a mother considering that he had an beginnning (in the womb) and an ending (on the cross) which means those whom advocate calling Mary the mother of God do not have an acurate understanding of the oneness of God.
May the God of all grace continue to have mercy upon your souls. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
August 29, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Luke 1:32 and 35 “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” and “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” (King James)
and
Luke 2:48 and 49 “And when they [Joseph and Mary] saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, Child, why have You treated us like this? Here Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You [distressed and tormented]. And He said to them, How is it that you had to look for Me? Did you not see and know that it is necessary [as a duty] for Me [n]to be in My Father’s house and [occupied] about My Father’s business?” (Amplified)
Here is how I see it: there is a clear separation. Mary was His biological/earthly mother, but Jesus knew (and I belief she knew too) what here role was and that He now had to start with the work from His real Father – which is God. Mary was a means to an end and apart from the fact that she was chosen to carry the unborn baby Jesus there is nothing else special about her.
LikeLike
August 30, 2010 at 8:15 am
“Holy scripture never affirms nor supports the confess of some people that Mary was the mother of God”
Thank you for acknowledging that your previous statement – that Scripture CONDEMNS anyone saying that Mary is the mother of God – was incorrect. However, Scripture certainly affirms that Mary is the mother of Jesus, and that Jesus is God. When we call Mary the mother of God, we are simply acknowledging the conjunction of these two truths.
“Scripture declares that only the Son of God Jesus Christ had a mother”
Exactly. God the Father does not have a mother, and God the Holy Spirit does not have a mother. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God the Son in human flesh, has a mother. Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God the Son in human flesh; i.e., Mary is the mother of God.
LikeLike
August 30, 2010 at 8:29 am
“Here is how I see it: there is a clear separation.”
Separation of what? The point of this discussion is that you CANNOT separate the humanity of Jesus from His divinity. He IS (not just was) one person with two natures, fully God and fully human.
“Mary was His biological/earthly mother”
Right, Mary is the mother of the person Jesus. The person Jesus is God (the Son) in human flesh. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
“Mary was a means to an end and apart from the fact that she was chosen to carry the unborn baby Jesus there is nothing else special about her.”
On the one hand, I agree with this – Mary was a sinful human being, just like the rest of us. Jesus is her Lord and Savior just as much as He is ours. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to characterize her as nothing more than “a means to an end” and make it seem like being “chosen to carry the unborn baby Jesus” (and raise Him to adulthood) is no big deal. Sure, “there is nothing else special about her,” but that by itself makes her VERY special.
Consider what Mary’s relative Elizabeth said to her: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:41-43) Why did Elizabeth – while “filled with the Holy Spirit” – refer to Mary as “the mother of my Lord”? How is this meaningfully different from calling her the mother of God?
LikeLike
August 30, 2010 at 9:14 am
@aletheist – “Separation of what?” Well, let me put it this way. From the quoted scriptures you will see that He understood that there was a difference between His Earthly parents and His Heavenly Father. He might be two “kinds” (man/God) rolled up into one body, but He definitely acknowledge the different roles of His Earthly and Heavenly “parent(s)”.
I agree Mary was blessed to have the privilege to be Jesus’ mother, but she still remains a normal human like any other. There is absolutely no reason to make something special out of her as in the end we are all very much equal before the Lord. Having said that, I’m sure she will receive favor in abundance in Heaven – but that is part of her blessing.
Personally I think it must be hard for God to see people paying more attention to Mary than to Jesus. I’m sure that was never the intention.
Deuteronomy 6:13-15 “Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.”
LikeLike
August 30, 2010 at 8:48 pm
“Personally I think it must be hard for God to see people paying more attention to Mary than to Jesus. I’m sure that was never the intention.”
I completely agree. I am not advocating that we venerate Mary, much less worship her or even pray to her – that is going way too far – but we should certainly honor and admire her, along with all of the other saints who have gone before us and set an example of godly living.
Here is the bottom line: Calling Mary the mother of God does not really say anything about HER; rather, it says something very important about HIM. The person Jesus is God; so if you deny that Mary is the mother of God, you deny that Jesus is God; and if Jesus is not God, then He cannot be our Savior.
LikeLike
September 1, 2010 at 8:58 am
Aletheist
Sorry, have been busy of late to have replied.
I think that Coral J Cook has it correct in which we are using “mother” in different ways.
My main problem seems to be with going from “Mary is mother to Christ” (agree) to “Mary is mother to God” (disagree) even though logically it seems feasible to do so.
The DNA of Jesus is inherited from Mary (with I would imagine some random other DNA that God invented) but the Spirit of Christ is not inherited from Mary (the same is true with our own spirit/soul). It is my contention that since we use the word God in multiple senses (Son, Father, Spirit), it would be incorrect to state that “Mary is the mother of God”.
I disagree with your last paragraph of course, since I believe
1. Jesus is God,
2. Mary is mother of Jesus and
3. Mary is NOT the mother of God
I would also claim to NOT be Nestorian.
LikeLike
September 1, 2010 at 2:42 pm
“My main problem seems to be with going from ‘Mary is mother to Christ’ (agree) to ‘Mary is mother to God’ (disagree) even though logically it seems feasible to do so.”
This entails denying that Christ is God. In fact, calling Mary the mother of Christ, but not the mother of God, is precisely what Nestorius himself proposed.
“The DNA of Jesus is inherited from Mary (with I would imagine some random other DNA that God invented) but the Spirit of Christ is not inherited from Mary (the same is true with our own spirit/soul).”
I am not sure about this. For one thing, I highly doubt that any DNA contribution from God in the conception of Jesus was “random.” Also, it seems like flirting with Nestorianism to say that Jesus is physically human but does not have a human soul, which presumably He did inherit from Mary. Or are you suggesting that all humans inherit their souls only from their fathers? Or do you believe that God specifically creates a new soul for every human at conception, rather than it being inherited “naturally” from the parents?
“It is my contention that since we use the word God in multiple senses (Son, Father, Spirit), it would be incorrect to state that ‘Mary is the mother of God’.”
And it is my contention that it is correct to state that Mary is the mother of God, as long as we understand that we are using the word God in the specific sense of God the Son – not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. God the Son (Jesus) is both fully divine and fully human; the same cannot be said of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. Thus God the Son (Jesus) has a mother, but God the Father and God the Holy Spirit obviously do not.
“I disagree with your last paragraph of course, since I believe
1. Jesus is God,
2. Mary is mother of Jesus and
3. Mary is NOT the mother of God”
This position is untenable. Again, the key is to recognize that the word God in this context simply means God the Son. Jesus is God (the Son), Mary is the mother of Jesus, and therefore Mary is the mother of God (the Son).
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 1:22 am
Agreed – Phew! 🙂
I would think that all souls are from God rather than inherited, but only on a random thought I had.
I think I was rash and used “random” incorrectly. Rather, I meant that God would have implanted a specific DNA to mingle with Mary’s in order to create Jesus. So random was completelty the wrong word to use!
LikeLike
September 4, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I think a lot of this back and forth can be avoided if we would stick to more Biblical language.
“Jesus is God” is not a Biblical statement, even if it His divinity can be ascertained through the Scriptures. However, saying Jesus is the Son of God is an accurate Biblical statement that does not need to be inferred or interpreted.
Therefore we can say that Mary is the mother of the only begotten Son of God, which is Biblical, but not that Mary is the mother of God, which is not Biblical.
LikeLike
September 5, 2010 at 9:15 am
Aaron, while I agree with most of your post I do not think we have to forfeit saying “Jesus is God”. I think that Jesus’ self-understand of Himself being God and that God was elsewhere is clear. Even His speaking with divine perrogative assert His understanding of Himself. There is also the messianic secret. Jesus was selective as to who he revealed Himself until the Resurrection. The Resurrection then did more than merely words could ever do.
LikeLike
September 7, 2010 at 8:29 am
Hi, James
I’m not exactly asking for a forfeiture, just a narrowing, perhaps, of how we approach the subject. There is so much confusion on the topic, as evidenced by this post, and many other millennia-long fights regarding theology and Christology that I think it would help us all to not go beyond the bounds of Scripture, especially in terminology.
Jesus did know and understand Who and What He was (and still is); that is not denied, but the phrase “Jesus is God” is often confusing, lacking in specifics, and can even mislead a person. I’m not saying that it’s dangerous, just that I think there is a better way to go about determining Christ’s person, and in this post, the relationship He had with and to His mother, Mary.
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 1:54 am
Michael,
Regarding #4, my thoughts on the idea that Jesus is like us in that he is a human person who has the Spirit of God living in Him as well, is that this makes Jesus no different than us. On this conception, He cannot be God, and an incarnation did not occur.
As for Adam receiving the breath of God, yes. And perhaps that is part of the reason we can be said to be in the image of God. Jesus, however, is not just in the image of God, but He is the image of God. He is not just a son of God, but the Son of God. Why? Because unlike us, Jesus’ person is not some entity ontologically distinct from the divine person, but rather the divine person Himself “humanized.”
Jason
LikeLike
September 24, 2010 at 1:55 am
All,
I want to weigh in on the issue of calling Mary the “mother of God.” Such a designation is often dismissed by non-Catholics because of its association with what some would call the Catholic Church’s “Mariolatry.” We must understand, however, that the original phrase/concept was not intended to bring Mary honor. Rather, it was intended to say something about the identity of Jesus Christ (as Aletheist noted in #28).
As Coral J. Cook noted, there are different senses in which we can speak of someone being a mother to someone else. Minimally, it means some woman X made a genetic contribution to child Y, carried child Y in her womb, and gave birth to child Y. “Mother” can also connote the one who brings a person, or soul, into existence (if you hold to a traducian perspective on the origin of the soul). Clearly Mary was not the mother of God in the sense of origination. She did not bring God into existence. But if God became a man in Jesus Christ, then the person Mary carried in her womb and gave birth to was none other than the person of God Himself (in human form). And that would make her the mother of God. She was not the mother of a human person who is ontologically distinct from God, but the mother of the divine person Himself in human form.
Jason
LikeLike
September 26, 2010 at 8:30 pm
“But if God became a man in Jesus Christ, then the person Mary carried in her womb and gave birth to was none other than the person of God Himself (in human form). And that would make her the mother of God. She was not the mother of a human person who is ontologically distinct from God, but the mother of the divine person Himself in human form.”
Hence, Son of God, n’est pas? So why not just say Mary is the mother of the Son of God? Otherwise we will always need the qualified of “in human form” when referring to the Father incarnated. The Biblical writers gave us the appropriate language. let’s just use it.
LikeLike
September 29, 2010 at 2:59 am
Aaron,
I have no problem affirming that she gave birth to the Son of God, but the immediate question arises: Who is the Son of God? Is he the divine person incarnate, or an ontologically separate human person? If the answer is the former (and I think it is), then the person Mary gave birth to is the divine person. He is the subject who experienced the birthing process.
Jason
LikeLike
October 8, 2010 at 10:52 am
I just discovered the additional comments here.
“So why not just say Mary is the mother of the Son of God? Otherwise we will always need the qualified of ‘in human form’ when referring to the Father incarnated. The Biblical writers gave us the appropriate language. let’s just use it.”
You need to heed your own advice in that last sentence. The Father was NOT incarnated; ONLY the Son was incarnated. The Father did NOT assume a human nature; ONLY the Son did, and He continues to have it for all eternity. The Father did NOT die for our sins and rise again; ONLY the Son did. As Martin Luther put it: “The Father is God only; likewise the Holy Ghost. But the Son is true God and true man; He died for me and shed His blood for me.”
LikeLike
October 8, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Aletheist,
Remember, there will be differences of opinion on this point since there are both Oneness and Trinitarian commentors on this blog. I think we can all affirm, however, that Mary was the mother of God in the generic sense.
Jason
LikeLike
October 8, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Understood, and I try to respect that as much as I can – this is, after all, your blog. However, where does it state in Scripture that the Father was incarnated? That would entail that Mary is the mother of the Father, which is clearly false.
LikeLike
October 8, 2010 at 3:20 pm
I don’t mind that you raised the issue. I just brought up the distinction to help explain the reason for such comments.
Nowhere, just like it never says the “second person of the Trinity became incarnate” or “God the Son became incarnate,” and yet you would still say it is appropriate to say “the 2nd person was incarnated” because you know that the terms “second person” and “Son” refer to the same person–the person who in fact did become incarnate. Similarly, if Oneness theology is correct, then the divine person who was incarnate is personally identical to the one called “Father” in Scripture, and thus it would be metaphysically appropriate to say “the Father was incarnated” even if the Bible does not use these terms (which it doesn’t, and for good reason).
Personally, I would not say the Father became incarnate because that uses a Biblical term in an unbiblical way. I don’t have time to go into the details, but as I read Scripture, I see both “Father” and “Son” as terms arising as a result of the incarnation to explain the new distinction between God’s cosmic and human modes of existence. I would simply say that YHWH/God became incarnate.
As for Mary being the mother of the Father, while I would not use the terminology myself, how would that be any different from saying she is the mother of “God the Son”? If she could appropriately be said to be the mother of one divine person, then in principle there is no reason she could not be the mother of another divine person. Of couse, you wouldn’t say she gave birth to the Father, but the reason is not because this is somehow metaphysically impossible, but because you don’t believe it is historically accurate since on the Trinitarian view it was the second rather than the 1st person who became incarnate.
Jason
LikeLike
October 26, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Jesus is God the Father (who is Spirit) manifested in flesh and blood as a Man, for Jesus said: The Father is IN me (Joh 14:11). There is no distinction of persons in God, for God is ONE, and He only refers to Himself as “Me” and “Ï”. A trinity is not an I, and the catholic trinity is a human (Athanasian/Tertullian) invention finally imposed on the church by 381 AD.
Mary is NOT the mother of God because she is not biologically related to Jesus Christ. For the Bible says; The Word was made flesh and not Mary (generated any) flesh. The body of Christ is of a heavenly origin, and not from the dust, for the Bible says: my flesh is the bread from heaven, and the church was saved by the blood of God (Acts 20:28). I am from above He said, and The Son (God in flesh) came from where He was before.
Jesus is therefore 100% God in the Form of a Man, having real flesh and blood but no corrupt DNA from Adam, the first man who sinned. Jesus was without any sin, and this is because He is without any human (dead) flesh and blood, but only has a glorious flesh and atoning blood. If you believe Jesus body is incorrupt and not a dust body you are ready to be baptized in Jesus Name for the remission of sins. Amen.
LikeLike
April 10, 2013 at 3:14 pm
This post shows that Jason Dulle is an Apollonarainist. Jesus ws preteding to be a man.
LikeLike
April 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm
Manuel, this post shows no such thing. Anyone familiar with my writings knows I do not believe Jesus was God pretending to be man. Jesus was God become man.
LikeLike
April 11, 2013 at 6:42 am
Manuel, please help us understand that statement better. Why do you believe this means Jesus was pretending to be a man in this view? Besides you saying so doesn’t really make it so. An example, please?
LikeLike
July 22, 2013 at 8:23 am
Hello All,
There is clearly a vast misunderstanding of what the word Christos or Mashiach even means on this blog. For someone or something to be anointed, either with oil or with the Spirit of God, the object can not be the subject doing the anointing.
1Sa 16:12ff And he sent and brought him in. And he was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and good form. And YHVH (subject) said, Rise up, anoint him (object), for this is he. And Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of YHVH (subject) came upon David (object) from that day and onward.
Isa 42:1 Behold My Servant (one person); I will uphold Him; My Elect in whom My soul (one person) delights! I have put My Spirit (subject) on Him (object); He shall bring forth justice to the nations.
Mar 1:9ff And it happened in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And going up from the water, immediately He saw the heavens being torn, and the Spirit (subject) coming down as a dove upon Him (object). And there was a voice out of the heavens, You are My Son (object), the Beloved, in whom I (subject) have been delighting. Psa. 2:7; Gen. 22:2; Isa. 42:1
Act 3:22 For Moses indeed said to the fathers, “The Lord your God (subject) will raise up to you a Prophet (object) from among your brothers (human seed), One like me; you shall hear Him according to all things,” whatever He may speak to you. See Deut. 18:15-16, 19
Isa 11:1ff And a Shoot goes out from the stump of Jesse, and a Branch will bear fruit out of his roots. And the Spirit of YHVH (subject) shall rest on Him (object); He will have the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHVH. And He is made to breathe in the fear of Jehovah. But He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, nor decide by the hearing of His ears.
God does not fear himself. Whatever human being was anointed with Spirit of God was the person that feared YHVH, not just a mere human nature. Human nature in itself is not personal, it is just the characteristics that make up man.
For someone to say Christ is ontologically God in the flesh, is to say God anointed himself. Messiah was born 100% human being, He became a living soul at his birth and not before — and died a human death.
Mat 1:18 And the birth (beginning) of Jesus Christ was this way (for His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph) before the coming together of them, she was found having babe in womb by the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:20 And as he was thinking about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord was seen by him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For that in her is generated (caused to come into existence) by the Holy Spirit.
Luk 1:35 And answering, the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, and for this reason that Holy One being born (caused to come into existence) of you will be called Son of God.
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, having come into being out of a woman, having come under Law,
God the Father anointed Jesus the Human being with His Spirit (his operational presence and power)
Luk 4:18-21 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me. Because of this He anointed Me to proclaim the gospel to the poor ……. And He began to say to them, Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your ears.
Act 2:22 Men, Israelites, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man from God, having been approved among you by works of power and wonders and miraculous signs, which God did through Him in your midst
Act 10:38 Jesus the One from Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all those having been oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.
God was in Christ, NOT God was ontologically Christ.
2Co 5:19 as, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not charging their deviations to them, and having put the Word of reconciliation in us.
Do you believe in Re-incarnation? If you say No, then you cant possibly believe in the incarnation. In the DOT, a divine Spirit being, God the Son, or as Modalists say, God the Father, came down out of heaven and flew in Mary’s womb and assumed or combined or took on human nature. So, instead of being born ‘of ‘ Mary, this divine Spirit being was born ‘through’ Mary, like water through a pipe, as Justin Martyr puts it.
On the cross, because God the Son is impassible and immortal, the divine Spirit being flew away from the shell of the man Jesus and left the impersonal human nature alone to suffer and die on the cross as Tertullian puts it. Im not quite sure if all Modalist agree on what happened at the cross.
At the Resurrection, this same Spirit being came from outside of the impersonal shell and flew back into Jesus. Thus Re-incarnation is supported by the Doctrine of the Trinity. If at first the procedure is called incarnation, and there is a “de”-carnation at the death, then there has to be a Re-incarnation to reach the first status again. This is pure Gnosticism and is anti-Christ. John refutes this Gnosticism in his epistles.
If His person is not found within His being a human soul, then nobody died on the cross.
Act 2:31 foreseeing, he spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, “that His soul (person) was not left in Hades (death/gravedom), nor did His flesh (human DNA) see corruption (decay).” LXX-Psa. 15:10; Mt-Psa. 16:10
The human person Jesus died on the cross, not impersonal human nature. To say that Jesus was not a human being, but merely appearing to be, is Docetic. To say that a Divine being flew away from Jesus on the cross, leaving the impersonal shell of a man to suffer and die empty and alone is Gnostic.
Act 2:30 Being a prophet, then, and knowing that God swore with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loin (procreative power), as concerning flesh (human DNA), to raise the Christ (anointed Human) to sit on his throne, see Psa. 132:11
Rom 1:1ff Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God, which He promised before through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son who came (into existence) of the seed (direct DNA offspring) of David according to flesh (human DNA), who was marked out the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord;
The Man Jesus is the mediator between God and Men.
1Ti 2:5 For God is one, also there is one Mediator of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus
His person is found in his humanity, otherwise you have an impersonal nature as a mediator.
Heb 2:16ff For indeed He does not take hold of angels, “but He takes hold of” “the seed of Abraham.” Isa. 41:8, 9
For this reason He ought by all means to become like His brothers, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the things respecting God, in order to make propitiation for the sins of His people.
God the Father is not his own mediator or His own High Priest.
Heb 7:14 For it is clear that our Lord has risen out of Judah, as to which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.
God is one person, Jesus is one person, therefore Jesus cant be his own mediator. A mediator doesnt mediate for one only, but God is one person, and there fore it is the Man Jesus that mediates between God and the rest of humanity.
Gal 3:20 But the Mediator is not of one, but God is one.
1Ti 2:5 For God is one, also there is one Mediator of God and of men, the Man Christ Jesus
The Man Jesus is subordinate to God the Father period.
1Co 15:24ff Then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.
For it is right for Him to reign until He puts all the hostile ones under His feet; Psa. 110:1 the last hostile thing made to cease is death. For “He subjected all things under His feet;” but when He says that all things have been subjected, it is plain that it excepts Him who has subjected all things to Him. Psa. 8:6 But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all things in all.
I could say so much more but the Scripture speaks for itself. To deny Jesus was 100% human being anointed with 100% God Spirit is Anti-Christ.
Col 2:9 For in Him (100% human) dwells (anointed) all the fullness of the Godhead (Deity) bodily (human body)
100% of God the Father is in the Resurrected Man Jesus
To say you believe in the Deity of Christ, is to say Christ has a God. The word Deity is a noun — The Deity of Christ ie The God of Christ
Rev 3:12 The one overcoming, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall not go out any more. And I will write the name of My God on him, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem which comes down out of Heaven from My God, and My new name.
Repent and believe the Good News.
LikeLike
July 22, 2013 at 9:59 am
I forgot one more thing:
God is one person, Jesus is one person, therefore Jesus cant be his own mediator. A mediator doesnt mediate for one only, but God is one person, and there fore it is the Man Jesus that mediates between God and the rest of humanity. Jesus is one witness and God the Father is one witness (Jn 8:16ff). The Father has a Son (Acts 13:33) , The one God has a mediator (1 Tim 2:5), The one Almighty has a high priest (Heb 5:1), and the one YHVH has a prophet (Acts 3:22).
Joh 8:16ff
” But even if I judge, My judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent Me.
And in your Law it has been written that the witness of two men is true. Deut. 19:15
I am the One witnessing concerning Myself, and He who sent Me, the Father, witnesses concerning Me.”
God is one person and Jesus is one person. Jesus said “HE” is not ALONE, if the ‘HE’ of Jesus is the identity of the Father, then HE is alone! There has to be two persons or Jesus said himself, his testimony is NOT TRUE. If Jesus identity, as you say, is ontologically identical to the Father, then there would be one person, one being alone, testifying about himself. Jesus is ONE witness (person) concerning himself and the Father is one witness (person) concerning Jesus. You cant have it any other way.
LikeLike