Hi MaricoG,

Quote:

It never occurred to me that Jesus was not always the Son of God, as the Second Person of the Godhead....but then I got to thinking (that is usually trouble!) that His flesh has not always been, and I wondered if that is where the rub comes in...



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:

Yes, I believe Jesus is eternal, but His flesh had a beginning, and it began with Mary. Did it not? His flesh was created, was it not? After He ascended into heaven, He states He is not flesh and blood, but flesh and bone....as flesh and blood cannot inherit heaven. So what are your thoughts regarding these two passages.



Yes, Jesus is eternal but his flesh had a beginning. About those two passages, I'm basically in agreement with you. 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:

Yeah, but that is Roman Catholic, is it not? And they would like Him to be eternally begotten, because then Mary wouuld have had to have been around eternally too. I do not find eternally begotten in the Scriptures. I don't believe the Second Person of the Trinity, God's Son was made...but I am just not seeing that His flesh was not made. Wow...this is difficult.



I'm not sure it's "Roman Catholic" in that sense. Certainly the Roman Catholics hold to the Nicene Creed (and rightly so, in my opinion), but so do so many other denominations. The Creeds were written mostly in response to early heresies, to define how orthodox Christianity was distinct by the heretical ideas put forth at those times.

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:

Okay...I believe that too, totally. What I was getting at about the Mormon understanding, is they believe that God, while also being a Spirit, also has a human body in heaven. That He is a man, with arms and legs, beard and such. It is almost like they took our conversation further...or not.... do you see what I mean?



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".

Great discussion! :)