(1) The phrase is “came to be from a woman,”just as I have explained above in order that in “from a woman,” “came to be” might be fulfilled, and that the eternal Logos might be shown clearly to all. And if “he will not thirst” is a word [said] concerning God, but concerning the Son, that he “hungered and thirsted,” then there is need for this to be treated by us
(2) For how was the economy to be found in truth, if he was not having the necessary custom of the incarnate state? In this it [the Scripture] showed us the solutions to all the questions of the heretics.
(3) For straight away it destroyed the opinion of the Manichaeans: for in the saying “to eat” and “to drink,” it indicates true flesh. It destroyed the way of the Lucianists and the power of Arius:
(4) for Lucian and all Lucianists deny that the Son of God has assumed a soul, and they say he has had only flesh, in order that they might actually attribute human passion to the God-Logos, thirst and hunger, labour and weeping, pain and distress and as much as pertains to his incarnate parousia. But it would be foolish to reckon these things to the divinity of the Son of God.
(5) But, they say, “flesh” existing in accordance to itself neither eats not drinks nor labours nor does any of these things. And I myself agree that flesh in accordance to itself does not have these things.
(6) But the Logos who can was possessing the entire economy, both flesh and soul and as much as is in a man. part of the soul and of the flesh was hunger and labour, thirst and pain, and the other things.
(7) For he weeps, in order that he might put to shame the error of the Manichaean, because he has not been clothes with the body in appearance, but in truth. And he thirsts, in order that he might show that he was possessing not only the flesh, but also the soul. For his divinity did not thirst anywhere, <but in the flesh> and in the soul he thirsted and wearied from the journey because of the ordering of the flesh and the soul.
(1) Next they [heretics] say that “(If) it has been written concerning him that he is a creature, it is necessary to confess also that he is a creature.” Behold, I describe a certain part of the sayings, which have been fulfilled for us through the mysteries concerning him. Let them say to us what is useful in saying, “He is a creature”?
(2) Reasonably he has been said figuratively a “door” that he might become our entrance and aid, and “path”, in order that, walking through him, we might not be led astray. On what account does he become a “creature” for us? As what does he help us?
(3) “Yes,” the vainglorious one says, being contentious: “for if you would not say that he is a creature, you would attribute passion to the Father. For all who beget have been encompassed with passion: for either one is contracted or widened or spread out or decays or is raised up or any such thing.”
(4) Alas for such thinking, which is wicked and not at all true! Who will think such things concerning God? What sort of opinion will dare such things? Clearly no one, not [even] demons, will think such a thing.
(5) And if someone confesses the Father, he believes that he as begotten the Son in truth. For the divinity is not carried about in measurable quantities, nor is it a pregnant body, in order that it might admit of what has been said before.
(6) “For if God is spirit,” and spirit does not submit to flux, not cutting, nor contraction, nor lessening, nor simplification, nor any such thing. Therefore, insofar as the Father is spirit, he as begotten the Son, God-Logos, spiritually, timelessly, incomprehensibly, and without beginning.