ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 758
Nov 22 06 10:04 PM
Lover of the Word
Quote:Yes, that is perhaps the point of confusion in this issue. You are right that his human flesh did not always exist. For some reason, some people see his flesh as the defining point of his being "Son", but that is not orthodox thinking. Rather, the Son was sent and made flesh.
Quote:His body now is still of flesh, but of a glorified, resurrected flesh - not of the corruptible flesh we have in our pre-resurrected state.
Quote:But "eternally begotten" has nothing to do with Mary. Notice the Creed says "eternally begotten from the father". This is not about his human body, but about the relationship as Father and Son between the first two persons of the Trinity. In other words, he was "eternally begotten" as the Son of the Father, even before he had human flesh. Everyone (even Catholics) realize his flesh and Mary had a beginning.
Quote:Yes, I see what you mean. Certainly, it is difficult for our minds to understand the eternal God. But the orthodox position is there was no human body involved until the incarnation. We are made in his image, so maybe there's an aspect of physicalness to Father that is hard to define and understand (the OT talks of his face, etc.), but if so, that physicalness was/is not "human".
Share This