Posted on 12/29/2013 12:56:58 PM PST by steelhead_trout
Jesus is God and Jesus had a mother.
**Jesus is the God-man.**
‘God-man’ is another unscriptural term.
**He is all God.**
Because of the Father IN him.
“For IN him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”. Col. 2:9
“Believest thou not that I am IN the Father, and the Father IN me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth IN me, he doeth the works”. John 14:10
**He is all man.**
Because he is the Son of man. Complete with the mind of a man. That’s why he could, and did, die. But the divinity in him (the Father) could not be destroyed. Matter of fact, the Father left him so he COULD die: “’Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani’ which is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matt. 27:46
Dying on the cross, the Christ found out, for the first time in his life, what it was like to not have the Father in him. But he arose: “..as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father..”. Rom. 8:4
Yes, Mary is the mother of God.
“‘God-man’ is another unscriptural term.”
“Bible” is another unscriptural term. “Trinity” is another scriptural term.
Mary is the mother of God for Christ is God.
The Roman "church" was created in Nicea in 325CE. Enoch and Elijah (YHvH is my G-d) for sure. Miriam not so much. All of the Apostles were Torah observant messianic Jews.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Oy
Remember that he is Eastern Orthodox. Mary was the mother of “God”, i.e., Jesus the Christ. God rules above all. In eastern churches you se Mary, welcoming over the altar but Christ looking down from the ceiling.
**Mary is the mother of God for Christ is God.**
Read Peter’s testamony to Cornelius. He never taught what you believe. And Mary did not create more divinity. That’s not possible, because, that would be saying that God was less than 100% complete without Mary’s help.
**Christ is God.**
Christ is God’s! (from 1Cor. 3:23; Paul fixed it for you))
**“Bible” is another unscriptural term.**
I haven’t used the word ‘Bible’ once in this discussion. I have given you direct quotes from Peter, Paul, and the Lord Jesus himself, to testify of how they define God.
I recall your comment from a couple of posts back:
**I am only one person. No person can be more than one person. There are three Divine Persons in the Godhead, but all of them are only One Person in themselves.**
At least you’re in agreement with the confusion found in these lines from the ‘Athanasian creed’:
17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.
18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.
Peter again: “..God hath MADE that same Jesus BOTH Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:36
Notice that God didn’t make him ‘God’. But, God the Father is in him.
Food for thought: John 15:1; A vine (Son) and a husbandman (the Father). The husbandman plants the vine and cares for it, etc. The ‘husbandman’ gave the ‘vine’ it’s start, provides all of it’s needs, and has the power to prune or even kill the vine. Of itself, the vine has no such power.
Or this: How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the 2nd and 3rd ‘persons of God’ don’t know??)?
“Read Peter’s testamony to Cornelius. He never taught what you believe.”
For that to be true that would mean that Peter taught that Jesus was not God and that Mary was not His mother. Peter never said anything of the kind. Also, I should point out, I have read Peter’s testimony to Cornelius and accompanying commentary as laid out in a number of Bibles and commentaries (including Protestant ones) in just the last few days because I made Acts the focus of my Advent/Christmas season Bible study.
“And Mary did not create more divinity.”
And who here is claiming that she did? I hope you have the courage to answer that question.
“That’s not possible, because, that would be saying that God was less than 100% complete without Mary’s help.”
No. God is God no matter what. Mary is still the mother of God because Jesus is God. Mary had no divinity to give to Jesus and she possessed none to begin with. But she still carried God in her womb for that’s where Jesus was. And Mary still gave birth to God for that’s who Jesus is - God.
You wrote:
“At least you’re in agreement with the confusion found in these lines from the ‘Athanasian creed’:”
There is no confusion in the Athanasian Creed.
“17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.”
No confusion there whatsoever.
“18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.”
Again, no confusion there whatsoever.
“19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord”
Again, no confusion there whatsoever.
“20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.”
Again, no confusion there whatsoever.
“I haven’t used the word ‘Bible’ once in this discussion.”
You don’t have to. My point stands no matter what you have or have not said.
“I have given you direct quotes from Peter, Paul, and the Lord Jesus himself, to testify of how they define God.”
Your interpretation is invalid.
“Or this: How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the 2nd and 3rd ‘persons of God’ don’t know??)?”
It is easy to explain: it’s called hyperbole. Jesus used it quite often: Matthew 5:34, 23:9; Luke 14:26. After all it can’t be a literal ignorance of the knowledge in question because the Son and Father share all knowledge: Matthew 11:27; John 3:35; 10:15: 17:25. It was not for Jesus to reveal when the end would come or when He would return. Such knowledge was not part of His mission.
As the Catechism explains:
472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”, and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.
473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person. “The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.” Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.
474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.
**For that to be true that would mean that Peter taught that Jesus was not God and that Mary was not His mother. Peter never said anything of the kind.**
Well, you’ve been reading Acts (although, using trinitarian commentaries is simply the blind leading the blind), so let’s go there..again. Peter speaking in Acts 2: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man APPROVED of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God DID by him...
You trinitarian interpretation: Jesus of Nazareth, a God-man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by the God-man.
More of Peter: Whom God hath raised up...This Jesus hath God raised up...Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted...
Your trinitarian interpretation: God raised up God, and God is at the right hand of God exalted.
I said: “And Mary did not create more divinity.”
You said: And who here is claiming that she did? I hope you have the courage to answer that question.
I say: By your term ‘mother of God’ you imply that God was mothered. God has no mother, obviously, since he has no beginning or ending.
**But she still carried God in her womb for that’s where Jesus was.**
By your logic, Elizabeth was mother of God as well, for a nine month span, since the Spirit was in her womb, in the body of John the baptist.
John the baptist spoke of God: “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”. John 1:18. ‘declared HIM’....(doesn’t sound like mutiple separate personalities to me, just singular. Don’t get me wrong, I know that because of God’s unlimited power, knowledge, and presense, He cannot be measured in numbers)
John 1:18 sounds a lot like: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son..”. Heb. 1:1,2. “by HIS Son’....(still a singular personality referring to God)
The Christ must be looked upon as divine in this context:
The omnipresent Father is in the Son (mentioned many times in the scriptures), and the Son is in the Father (also mentioned many times). All through the OT prophecy, and the NT testamony of the Christ and the apostles, ALL things divine proceed from the Father to the Son. Since the Father dwells in the Christ, he can (and has) given ALL power to him, including, to be the Judge (decision maker, if you will; giving the Holy Ghost to whosoever he will. Remember, the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father).
**And Mary still gave birth to God for that’s who Jesus is - God.**
While you are comfortable with it, your earthly reasoning (making a man, separate and distinct from the Father, to be God), is what the scribes and Pharisees went bonkers about. The Son had just told them that God was his Father, that the Father is in him, and he and his Father are one. Knowing that God is not an man, but is a Spirit (John 4:24), they were offended, saying : “Thou being a man, makest thyself God”. They just couldn’t grasp that the Son was prophecy fullfilled; miracle birth, sinless from the start (because God was his Father), and the Spirit given unto him without measure.
Mary didn’t make the indwelling Spirit that makes Jesus Christ divine, and she didn’t make the soul either. She was simply used to help make a living tabernacle for both, in the mission to save fallen man.
“Well, you’ve been reading Acts (although, using trinitarian commentaries is simply the blind leading the blind), so let’s go there..again.”
Christianity is Trinitarian. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you aren’t Christian.
“Peter speaking in Acts 2: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man APPROVED of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God DID by him...”
Jesus is a man. Jesus is God. And?
“More of Peter: Whom God hath raised up...This Jesus hath God raised up...Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted...”
The Father raised up the Son. And?
“I say: By your term ‘mother of God’ you imply that God was mothered.”
Mothered? Jesus was born. He had a mother - Mary.
“By your logic, Elizabeth was mother of God as well, for a nine month span, since the Spirit was in her womb, in the body of John the baptist.”
No. An indwelling of the Spirit does not make a human person a Divine Person. Thus, you’re not using my logic at all. You are, in fact, not using logic at all.
“God has no mother, obviously, since he has no beginning or ending.”
Actually Mary is the mother of God since Jesus is her son.
Jesus is divine. Nothing can change that. Mary is Jesus’ mother. Nothing can change that. Mary is the mother of God. Nothing can change that.
You claim there is no confusion in the Athanasian Creed.
Yet, none of these lines are even similarly found in the scriptures:
“17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.”
“18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.”
“19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord
“20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.”
**My point stands no matter what you have or have not said.**
I said; “I have given you direct quotes from Peter, Paul, and the Lord Jesus himself, to testify of how they define God.”
And, without going directly to those passages and addressing those testamonies, you just claim:
**Your interpretation is invalid.**
You use your catechism to explain an earthly/human understanding that the Son had, in order for him to say that only the Father knows the day and hour. So with your trinitarian concept, why was the Holy Ghost ALSO ‘out of the loop’?
**After all it can’t be a literal ignorance of the knowledge in question because the Son and Father share all knowledge: Matthew 11:27; John 3:35; 10:15: 17:25.**
Sharing knowledge?? Here’s a list of words and references, showing who was the original provider of knowledge (and all other things divine as well):
gave: 3:16, 10:29, 12:49, 14:31
gavest: 17:4,6,8,12,22, 18:9
give: 14:6, 15:16, 16:23
given: 3:35, 5:26,27,36, 6:39,65, 7:39, 13:3, 17:2(2),7,8,9,11,24(2)
received: 10:18
send: 14:26, 15:26, 17:8, Acts 3:20
sent: 3:17,34, 4:34, 5:23,24,30,36,37,38, 6:29,38,39,40,44,57, 7:16,18,28,29,33, 8:16,18,26,29,42, 9:4, 10:36, 11:42, 12:44,45,49, 13:16,20, 14:24, 15:21, 16:5, 17:3,18,21,23,25, 20:21
will (noun): 4:34, 5:30(2), 6:38,39,40, 7:17
will (verb): 5:20, 11:22, 12:26, 14:26, 15:26, 16:23
word and words (actually there are others that should be included, but the Son made it clear in the following ones whose ‘words’ they were): 3:34, 14:24, 17:6,8,14,17
work and works: 4:34, 5:20,36(2), 9:4, 10:25,37,38, 14:10, 17:4
doctrine: 7:16,17: “My doctrine is NOT mine, but HIS that SENT me. If any man will do HIS will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of GOD, or whether I speak of myself.”
That’s over 100 references (from the book of John alone) showing that the Son’s source of ALL things divine, ALL power, ALL wisdom, etc., is from God the Father. There are plenty more alluding to the same.
BUT......here is a question for you: With your separate and distinct persons of God theology; can you quote a scripture that shows the FATHER receiving anything divine from the Son?
When you place the Father (Spirit) in the Son (divinely created flesh, with a soul), you have defined Jesus Christ in the simplest of terms.
Did Mary make the Spirit? No. That’s what is indestructible. And that is what raised the dead. Without the ‘glory of the Father’ raising up Christ, the body would have stayed in the tomb. So what Mary was mother to was perishable. God doesn’t perish for even a moment. He doesn’t even weaken.
**Christianity is Trinitarian. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you aren’t Christian.**
You have a right to your opinion. But you are not the Judge, nor do sheer number make a group of people right. “Few there be that find it”.
“You claim there is no confusion in the Athanasian Creed.”
Yes, and I was correct on that. Only confused people find confusion in the Athanasian Creed.
“Yet, none of these lines are even similarly found in the scriptures”
A thing does not have to be found in scripture to be true. You are, de facto, relying on the doctrine of sola scriptura - which is not found in scripture.
Also, the roots of the Athanasian Creed’s doctrines go back to the beginning of Christianity and are found explicitly or implicitly in scripture and the tradition of the Church.
Thus, “17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord” is easily seen in scripture since all three Divine Persons of the Trinity are referred to as Lord in the New Testament.
“So with your trinitarian concept,”
I have no “Trinitarian concept”. I only know the Christian doctrines about the Trinity. This is not about “your” or “my” anything. This is about truth.
“why was the Holy Ghost ALSO ‘out of the loop’?”
Again, hyperbole.
“Here’s a list of words and references, showing who was the original provider of knowledge...”
None of which changes the truth of what I posted.
“With your separate and distinct persons of God theology; can you quote a scripture that shows the FATHER receiving anything divine from the Son?”
Your question is meaningless. Jesus was a man. As such He could receive things from God the Father. As the Son of God, He could also receive things from the Father. A Son does not give to His Father. Still, through Jesus, the Father is glorified. Philippians 2:9-11
“Did Mary make the Spirit? No.”
And, again, who here is claiming she did? Do you have to resort to making up straw men?
“That’s what is indestructible. And that is what raised the dead. Without the ‘glory of the Father’ raising up Christ, the body would have stayed in the tomb. So what Mary was mother to was perishable. God doesn’t perish for even a moment. He doesn’t even weaken.”
Yet Jesus - who was God - died. And the son who Mary bore will NEVER die again so how can you now say “So what Mary was mother to was perishable”? You’re clearly missing the point. Jesus is God. The Second Person of the Trinity always was. Jesus always will be.
**Christianity is Trinitarian. If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you aren’t Christian.**
You have a right to your opinion. But you are not the Judge, nor do sheer number make a group of people right. “Few there be that find it”.
Exactly. Simon Peter never went to Rome, all 12 apostles were sent to the lost tribes of Israel. Paul was sent to the gentiles, so Paul is the one that went to Rome.
Trouble is the the Samaritan man who tried to buy an apostleship in Samaria from Simon Peter beat Paul to Rome by several years and his name was Simon Magus, and he was called Simon Pater in Rome. One of Satan's counterfeits. Peter called him the "gall of bitterness", an apt description considering the inquisitions, etc. Samaritans were Babylonians who replaced the 10 northern tribes in the Assyrian deportations. Simon Magus was a Babylonian therefore and that's where the Catholic Church gets a lot of their unbiblical practices from (Queen of Heaven, graven images, using the word "father" religiously to describe another man, etc).
Christ's Church that will prevail against the gates of Hell are the original 12 and then those that listened and followed.
No, He went through all of Psalms 22. Jesus never called God "God", He called Him "Father". David called God "God", and David wrote Psalms 22. It starts out "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". The fact the He taught Psalms 22 on the cross actually converted one of the malefactors and he was the first in Paradise.
(finally back home. OTR driver w/’dumb’ phone.)
I said: “Did Mary make the Spirit? No.”
You said: And, again, who here is claiming she did? Do you have to resort to making up straw men?
You are claiming Mary to be the ‘mother of God’, as if God (Spirit, as defined by Jesus Christ) would need anything from his creation. Mary was used to help bring forth the Son of man. She didn’t even give him his start (remember, she didn’t lift a finger....zap....suddenly she’s pregnant).
**You’re clearly missing the point. Jesus is God.**
You’re missing Jesus Christ’s point throughout the book of John: That the Father is in him, and he in the Father. That EVERYTHING divine pertaining to him was because of the Father dwelling in him, giving him ALL power.
Your man-made ‘trinity’ concept has the Son turning off his own supernatural ‘circuit breakers’, appear on earth, and ask the Father (sitting near the circuit board) to turn those things on when needed. In doing so, God was weakened for a while. That’s not possible. The Son NEVER declared himself to be God,.....He DECLARED, over and over and over that God is IN him, GIVING him all power and authority (”..the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath DECLARED him..”). WHICH is what the apostles taught.
**The Second Person of the Trinity always was.**
Why can’t he be first person some of the time? Under your concept, he has existed just as long as the Father. Was the Holy Ghost created after the Son, causing a ‘third person’?
The Holy Ghost made Mary conceive. So, in your carnal understanding of the Godhead, the Father had to have the third person make Mary pregnant. Thus, the Holy Ghost should be the actual father. I mean, why would the Father delegate a chore to someone else, if he could do the same himself?
Did the three of them, eons ago, draw straws to to see who would be ‘first’ second’ or ‘third’? If one can do something the other can’t do, then they certainly aren’t coequal in power. No wonder people are told: “You can’t find the trinity doctrine in the scriptures, it’s a mystery. You just have to accept it by faith.” What a tangled mess.
Jesus is God. Mary is His mother. Mary is the mother of God.
“Why can’t he be first person some of the time?”
Because one person cannot be another.
“Under your concept, he has existed just as long as the Father.”
Again, it’s not my concept. It’s just the truth.
“Was the Holy Ghost created after the Son, causing a ‘third person’?”
None of them were created. They always just were.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.