Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:I use the name echo on another site

Face it rick, its just two great minds thinking alike.

RickD wrote:

Storyteller wrote:I use the name echo on another site

Face it rick, its just two great minds thinking alike.

You used to say that when you and I agreed. I feel so betrayed.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

The implications are profound Rick. Forget the Marian doctrine and Catholicism in general with all its nuances, forget all that. Scripture shows and therefore Christian orthodoxy demands that Jesus is considered one person with two nature. The one-personhood is just as important as the two natures. To deny such is to deny who Christ is (see what I mean when I say the Marian doctrine is Christ-centered?). Personally I don't care one way or the other if you affirm or deny what the term Mother of God means. But if you affirm Christ's one-personhood with two natures then you are explicitely (not implicitly) affirming that Mary IS the Mother of God, whether you want to admit or not. The converse, of course, is that if you do not (at least implicitly) affirm that Mary is the Mother of God, then you are explicitly denying the one-personhood and two natures of Christ. It's one or the other, there is no in between.

Not sure how if I'm not at least implicitly affirming Mary is the mother of God, how I'm explicitly denying the one personhood, and two natures of Christ. You are making the same wrong assumption that Jac made. As of now, I don't at least implicitly affirm that mary is the mother of God. Yet I explicitly, not sure how more explicit I can be , in affirming the one person and two natures of Christ.
It's just not accurate.

Now you could say, and I may agree, that I can explicitly affirm the one person/two natures, while not at least implicitly affirming Mary is the mother of God, BECAUSE I HAVENT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD THEOTOKOS. And I've already said that is a possibility.

If the rest of what you said is true, then I have all the confidence in the world that I will eventually agree, and come to that conclusion myself.

But then the opposite is true also. If I can hold to Christ being one person with two natures, and don't necessarily have to agree that "mother of God" means that, then I may never come to agree.

While it's something that I'm going to keep looking into, it's not something that's going to keep me up at night. While it's a possible disagreement regarding what "Mother of God" means, it's not a disagreement on who Christ is.

I honestly don't see a way to reconcile the two, they are mutually contradictory positions. If Jesus is one person and Jesus is God, to state Mary is not the Mother of God is to deny Jesus is God. I'm not sure how else to state it.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote: I honestly don't see a way to reconcile the two, they are mutually contradictory positions. If Jesus is one person and Jesus is God, to state Mary is not the Mother of God is to deny Jesus is God. I'm not sure how else to state it.

Would that mean that God is the father of God?

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote: I honestly don't see a way to reconcile the two, they are mutually contradictory positions. If Jesus is one person and Jesus is God, to state Mary is not the Mother of God is to deny Jesus is God. I'm not sure how else to state it.

Would that mean that God is the father of God?

If the topic were the Trinity and not Theotokos, would you have asked the same question? If not, why not? But if yes, then you tell me what you think the answer is.

swordfish7 wrote:If you look at the doctrine (teaching) of the church, they will say you need both works and faith to be saved. This is why the protestants do not unite with the Catholics, this being the chief point.