As a devout Jewish woman, Mary must have prayed for the safety of her pregnancy. If Jesus was fully man & fully God; was he (in his divine nature) the one answering Mary's prayers, when she prayed for the safety of her (fully human) foetus?
-
1The answer to your question is found in phillipians 2.7 New Living Translation "Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form," now you have to decide did he take on human form at conception...thats the real question for the pro and neg abortion groups to thrash out for you– adamCommented Jul 25 at 20:32
-
1Asking such questions as this is not the way to understand divine mysteries. We must patiently assimilate what is revealed in the word of God (in the way in which it is stated) in order to, eventually, (with prayer and meditation) arrive at a spiritual understanding of invisible things. The answer to your question in the header (fully man/fully God) is Yes. This can be clearly seen in the wording applied by both Matthew and Luke - a 'begetting' in the womb (an eternal begetting) which is also 'holy' (that which is separated from Mary but devoid of sin and holy.– Nigel JCommented Jul 25 at 22:34
-
1When the Father is sought in prayer, does the Son answer?– Mike BordenCommented Jul 25 at 23:00
-
1@SoFewAgainstSoMany by "fully man", I mean what I believe everyone means "a human in all respects". I don't mean, and I don't think Christians refer to "muscular chest and other manhood features (like beards)"– user68393Commented Jul 26 at 12:48
-
3In a word, yes, he was fully God and fully man from conception.– Andrew ShanksCommented Jul 26 at 15:02
|
Show 3 more comments
1 Answer
Asking such questions as this is not the way to understand divine mysteries. We must patiently assimilate what is revealed in the word of God (in the way in which it is stated) in order to, eventually, (with prayer and meditation) arrive at a spiritual understanding of invisible things.
The answer to your question in the header (fully man/fully God) is Yes. This can be clearly seen in the wording applied by both Matthew and Luke - a 'begetting' in the womb (an eternal begetting) which is also 'holy' (that which is separated from Mary but devoid of sin and holy.
Matthew 1:20 γαρ εν αυτη γεννηθεν εκ πνευματος εστιν αγιου [Stephanus 1550]
'in her begotten is out of spirit holy' [Literal]
Luke 1:35 και το γεννωμενον αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου [Stephanus 1550]
'the begetting holy shall be called son of God' [Literal]
The separate words in Matthew 'begetting' and 'holy' are then brought together in Luke 'begetting holy' indicating the two separate natures joined in one. An eternal begetting of the Father (the Son) and that which is from Mary, devoid of sin, an holy humanity.
-
How was he fully man inside the womb when he hadn't even grown a beard? I think OP meant fully human and fully God Commented Jul 26 at 8:39
-
4@SoFewAgainstSoMany The word 'man' is idiomatically synonymous with 'human' within the context of this specific question.– Nigel JCommented Jul 26 at 8:47
-
A child is human but not a man, a man has characteristics a child doesn't like a beard and muscles. He had to grow up to be a man like the rest of us but his divine side was fully realized because he had wisdom surpassing that of a normal human being Commented Jul 26 at 8:56
-
It's not just idiomatic, it's actually an archaism. The word 'man' in English originally meant any human being regardless of age or sex, and that usage is preserved in senses like "Jesus is fully man and fully God". The linguistic shift towards narrowing the meaning of "man" should not be mistaken for a redefinition of the Incarnation. Commented Sep 19 at 11:25