Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:From the last paragraph:

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply ...

I've already mentioned that. What I've added, was that according to the Nestorian theology site I linked, nestorians don't even believe what is nestorianism, according to the Catholic site you linked. So, do I take the word of the Catholic site when it comes to what Nestorianism teaches? Or do I take the word of the Nestorian site?

What I'm getting at, is that the accusations against Nestorian may be false. In addition, nestorians don't even believe what they're accused of believing.

If that's true, then what was the real reason for the Nestorian controversy?

jac wrote:
Just want to affirm that Byblos is absolutely correct--and every Protestant should give assent--on what he is saying about Mary with respect to his two points about the essence of the doctrine. Protestants ought to regard her as the mother of God--to deny that is to be either Nestorian (and this regardless of whether the man Nestorius was a Nestorian (cf the debate about whether Calvin was a Calvinist in the sense of adhering to the TULIP) or some form of Arian, and that whether you intend it or not or know it or not--and Protestants ought to affirm the communion of the saints (and they do, whether they intend it or not or know it or not). Protestants ought NOT critique the Marian doctrine on the basis of its abuses but rather on the basis of the formal teaching.

For the same reasons I mentioned in my last post to Byblos, I'm not sure your argument is sound. If Nestorianism isn't what nestorians believe, in other words, if it's a straw man heresy, then one doesn't necessarily have to be Arian or Nestorian, if one doesn't agree with "mother of God".

If neither Nestorius nor nestorians believe that Christ's two natures are separate, then that means by logical conclusion, Nestorianism doesn't teach that.

Or in other words, Nestorius didn't use the term "mother of God", and he wasn't Nestorian( in the understood sense you are using) nor Arian.

RickD wrote:

jac wrote:
Just want to affirm that Byblos is absolutely correct--and every Protestant should give assent--on what he is saying about Mary with respect to his two points about the essence of the doctrine. Protestants ought to regard her as the mother of God--to deny that is to be either Nestorian (and this regardless of whether the man Nestorius was a Nestorian (cf the debate about whether Calvin was a Calvinist in the sense of adhering to the TULIP) or some form of Arian, and that whether you intend it or not or know it or not--and Protestants ought to affirm the communion of the saints (and they do, whether they intend it or not or know it or not). Protestants ought NOT critique the Marian doctrine on the basis of its abuses but rather on the basis of the formal teaching.

For the same reasons I mentioned in my last post to Byblos, I'm not sure your argument is sound. If Nestorianism isn't what nestorians believe, in other words, if it's a straw man heresy, then one doesn't necessarily have to be Arian or Nestorian, if one doesn't agree with "mother of God".

If neither Nestorius nor nestorians believe that Christ's two natures are separate, then that means by logical conclusion, Nestorianism doesn't teach that.

Or in other words, Nestorius didn't use the term "mother of God", and he wasn't Nestorian( in the understood sense you are using) nor Arian.

Whatever it is called or who holds it, the heresy is the separation of Jesus the God from Jesus the man in any way. If nestorianism doesn't espouse that position then I see no difference whatsoever between 'Mother of Christ' and 'Mother of God', they mean exactly the same thing and, therefore, nestorianism is not only NOT a heresy, it is not a position at all.

But if nestorianism (or whatever other position) holds that Christ is somehow different than Jesus the God then it is a heresy and ought to be condemned as such.

On that basis, what is your objection?

Byblos wrote:Wow. I'm absolutely blown away Jac. To think where we were a decade ago and where we are now, just mind boggling. I know you well enough to know you put a tremendous amount of effort as well as pride in studying subjects and formulating your positions. If you will indulge me the fantasy of having a tiny influence on the above stance.

Haha, yes, we've come a long way. And you may feel free to indulge. Between our conversations directly and those that we've all been a part of, I've been forced to consider things I had not before. And that's the beauty of a community of believers. Since none of us have all truth, then those of us who are willing to be honest with ourselves have a huge asset in those sincere believers around them who hold sincere disagreements.

RickD wrote:

jac wrote:
Just want to affirm that Byblos is absolutely correct--and every Protestant should give assent--on what he is saying about Mary with respect to his two points about the essence of the doctrine. Protestants ought to regard her as the mother of God--to deny that is to be either Nestorian (and this regardless of whether the man Nestorius was a Nestorian (cf the debate about whether Calvin was a Calvinist in the sense of adhering to the TULIP) or some form of Arian, and that whether you intend it or not or know it or not--and Protestants ought to affirm the communion of the saints (and they do, whether they intend it or not or know it or not). Protestants ought NOT critique the Marian doctrine on the basis of its abuses but rather on the basis of the formal teaching.

For the same reasons I mentioned in my last post to Byblos, I'm not sure your argument is sound. If Nestorianism isn't what nestorians believe, in other words, if it's a straw man heresy, then one doesn't necessarily have to be Arian or Nestorian, if one doesn't agree with "mother of God".

If neither Nestorius nor nestorians believe that Christ's two natures are separate, then that means by logical conclusion, Nestorianism doesn't teach that.

Or in other words, Nestorius didn't use the term "mother of God", and he wasn't Nestorian( in the understood sense you are using) nor Arian.

And for the reason that I said in my above post, it doesn't matter if Nestorius or even those who claim the term "Nestorian" hold to the offically termed Nestorian Heresy. To say it matters is a genetic fallacy. Call it the Bladdenfalts Heresy for all I care. The Bladdenfalts Heresy--the idea that in Christ are two persons, one human and one divine--or else some form of Arianism, is behind the refusal to admit Mary as the Mother of God. I simply do not care and am not capable of caring less about the argument from historical theology over the relation between Nestorius and modern Nestorians to the formally identified Nestorian Heresy. What I am interested in is the Nestorian Heresy.

If you don't like labels, then remove "Nestorian" and "Arian" from my previous post and replace it with the words "the idea that in Christ there are two persons" and "Christ's nature is an admixture of both divine and human natures such that it is neither one," respectively.

edit:

beaten by byblos!

Byblos wrote:
Whatever it is called or who holds it, the heresy is the separation of Jesus the God from Jesus the man in any way. If nestorianism doesn't espouse that position then I see no difference whatsoever between 'Mother of Christ' and 'Mother of God', they mean exactly the same thing and, therefore, nestorianism is not only NOT a heresy, it is not a position at all.

But if nestorianism holds that Christ is somehow different than Jesus the God then it is a heresy and ought to be condemned as such.

On that basis, what is your objection?

From the Nestorian site, I see that they believe Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God. Specifically the second person of the Trinity. The Word incarnate.

I've never heard the term, "Jesus the God", so I don't even know what that means. The meaning of Christ, is Messiah, or anointed. And that's not the same meaning as God. While Jesus Christ is both Christ and God.

So, getting back to Nestorius and Nestorianism. Jac said if one won't use the term "mother of God", one has to be either Arian or Nestorian. Apparently Nestorius was neither , yet he didn't use the term. According to the Nestorian site, Nestorius didn't like the term, because (rightly or wrongly) he felt it didn't give enough emphasis on the humanity of Christ. Nestorius would've preferred a term that meant both God-bearer, and Man-bearer. Which he thought, gave equal emphasis to both natures, while not separating them in the person of Jesus Christ. Hence the term "Christotokos". Which means Christ-bearer. Which shows Christ is both human and divine, in one person.

I'm one of those 'Bible' people. It's a lot less confusing. Because then God is The Authority -- Church hierarchy are all human like the rest of mankind. So , when I have a question -- the Bible is a good place to go. It's Also true that every born-again believer receives a spiritual gift from the Holy Spirit. So, some people Are more gifted than others in making Scripture more understandable. But those people / men/ the husband of one wife/ are referred to as pastor, teacher, elders. Have not seen 'pope' listed. And we are Also Encourage to check out what a pastor is saying / does it agree with what God's Word is saying, And, of course, that would be done privately.

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ -- God was in the beginning -- a spirit -- no parent involved. The 2nd person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ Did come into this world through a virgin woman called Mary and earthly father called Joseph. And we are Also told that Jesus' brother was James / he had other brothers and even a sister who is not named in Scripture.

Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and mankind. Every person has direct access to God through Jesus Christ.

Mary acknowledges her own need for a Savior.

Again Jac. Your argument just doesn't hold water. Nestorius didn't use the term mother of God, and he (at least as far as I can see from the site) didn't believe in Christ there are two persons. And as I'm still uncomfortable with the term, so for now at least, I won't use it either. And I'm not Nestorian nor Arian, nor do I believe:

the idea that in Christ there are two persons" and "Christ's nature is an admixture of both divine and human natures such that it is neither one.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Whatever it is called or who holds it, the heresy is the separation of Jesus the God from Jesus the man in any way. If nestorianism doesn't espouse that position then I see no difference whatsoever between 'Mother of Christ' and 'Mother of God', they mean exactly the same thing and, therefore, nestorianism is not only NOT a heresy, it is not a position at all.

But if nestorianism holds that Christ is somehow different than Jesus the God then it is a heresy and ought to be condemned as such.

On that basis, what is your objection?

From the Nestorian site, I see that they believe Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God. Specifically the second person of the Trinity. The Word incarnate.

I've never heard the term, "Jesus the God", so I don't even know what that means. The meaning of Christ, is Messiah, or anointed. And that's not the same meaning as God. While Jesus Christ is both Christ and God.

So, getting back to Nestorius and Nestorianism. Jac said if one won't use the term "mother of God", one has to be either Arian or Nestorian. Apparently Nestorius was neither , yet he didn't use the term. According to the Nestorian site, Nestorius didn't like the term, because (rightly or wrongly) he felt it didn't give enough emphasis on the humanity of Christ. Nestorius would've preferred a term that meant both God-bearer, and Man-bearer. Which he thought, gave equal emphasis to both natures, while not separating them in the person of Jesus Christ. Hence the term "Christotokos". Which means Christ-bearer. Which shows Christ is both human and divine, in one person.

Rick, if "Christotokos" affirms that Jesus is one person with 2 natures, one divine and one human, then it ought to be considered identical to "theotokos" and you are free to use whichever one your heart desires.

On the other hand, if "Christotokos" implies any difference, however immaterial you may believe it is, than "theotokos" then that's a heresy and you are free to call it whatever you want, it is still a heresy.

It really is as simple as that.

I'd just assume use neither. Up until now I've done ok without either, so...

crochet1949 wrote:I'm one of those 'Bible' people.

Really? Why did you feel the need to encase it in quotes then? Come on, you can be prouder than that, I would say I am one of those BIBLE people.

Just messin' with ya, crochet.

RickD wrote:I'd just assume use neither. Up until now I've done ok without either, so...

Certainly your prerogative.

But what if a Muslim asks you who Mary was, what would you say?

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:I'd just assume use neither. Up until now I've done ok without either, so...

Certainly your prerogative.

But what if a Muslim asks you who Mary was, what would you say?

The Mother of Jesus Christ. Are we assuming I've already discussed who Jesus Christ is with this Muslim?

Either way, Mary is Christ's mother.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:I'd just assume use neither. Up until now I've done ok without either, so...

Certainly your prerogative.

But what if a Muslim asks you who Mary was, what would you say?

The Mother of Jesus Christ. Are we assuming I've already discussed who Jesus Christ is with this Muslim?

Either way, Mary is Christ's mother.

Lol, ok. So now they ask: who is Christ?

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:I'd just assume use neither. Up until now I've done ok without either, so...

Certainly your prerogative.

But what if a Muslim asks you who Mary was, what would you say?

The Mother of Jesus Christ. Are we assuming I've already discussed who Jesus Christ is with this Muslim?

Either way, Mary is Christ's mother.

Lol, ok. So now they ask: who is Christ?

First, if they ask who is Mary, before they ask who is Christ, I'd assume they were Catholic, not Muslim.

If they ask who Christ is, I'd tell them. Do you really want me to go through it with you?

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:I'd just assume use neither. Up until now I've done ok without either, so...

Certainly your prerogative.

But what if a Muslim asks you who Mary was, what would you say?

The Mother of Jesus Christ. Are we assuming I've already discussed who Jesus Christ is with this Muslim?

Either way, Mary is Christ's mother.

Lol, ok. So now they ask: who is Christ?

First, if they ask who is Mary, before they ask who is Christ, I'd assume they were Catholic, not Muslim.

If they ask who Christ is, I'd tell them. Do you really want me to go through it with you?

You know where this is going Rick, the logical syllogism necessarily entails Mary being the Mother of God. There is no way around it.