--But on the contrary, God is not Mary's son, He is her Father. She gave birth to His physical incarnation (i.e., the flesh, bone, and blood, not the mind or Spirit), but, to paraphrase Yochanan the Immerser, aka John the Baptist, He who came after her is before her, for He preceded her.--
Actually, God is her Father, created her, and kept her alive each moment of her existence by His Divine Will. However, your comment about "His physical" incarnation makes you a heretic. You would make the Mother of God the Son an incubator. Jesus Christ was God, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. He was Son of God and Son of Man. He was a Divine Person with Two Natures making Him God-Man.
The Mystery of the Incarnation blows your mind doesn't it? It blows my mind too but that is straight out of John (no, not the Baptizer; the one we celebrate today, the Evangelist) who wrote about the Word. Check him out sometime. He uses the issue of Divine and human often in his Gospel on the Word.
Oh yeah, Luke says something about Him being obedient unto them (Mary and Joseph). Guess He was "under their authority."
Frank
Woot! Hey guys, he called me a heretic! I'm back in the game! (And here I thought I was losing my touch.)
Seriously, think about this before you start throwing around such nonsense labels. Yes, Yeshua the Messiah was fully God. He was also fully Man. However, there's no way you can seriously claim that Mary, a mortal, time-bound creature somehow gave birth to the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of the Immortal, Eternal, Creator God--the first two, yes, but not the last two. Thus, even using your terminology, we can say plainly that Mary was the mother of Yeshua's Man-nature, but not of His God-nature.
You either have to draw the distinction, or you have to claim that Mary is not only a goddess, but that she is greater than God.
The Mystery of the Incarnation blows your mind doesn't it?
As it does anyone who actually tries to think about it, yes.
He uses the issue of Divine and human often in his Gospel on the Word.
And this has what to do with the conversation at hand?
Oh yeah, Luke says something about Him being obedient unto them (Mary and Joseph). Guess He was "under their authority."
As a child growing up, yes. Having taken the form of Man so that He could keep the whole Torah in both letter and spirit, He had to operate as a son to human parents. He had "emptied Himself, and took upon Himself the form of a servant" (Php. 2:7). He was the servant of all, even washing His disciples' feet--but no one would claim that Kefa (Peter) orders Yeshua around, would they?
As the Resurrected Lord, no:
"He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him, and has given Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of heavenly ones, and of earthly ones, and of ones under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Yeshua HaMashiach is Lord (i.e., the LORD, YHVH), to the glory of God the Father." (vv. 8-11)David was the Messiah's father (a few generations removed). In Jewish thought, no son was greater than his father, and yet, "How then does David by the Spirit call him Lord, saying, "the LORD (YHVH) said to my Lord, Sit on My right until I make Your enemies Your footstool for Your feet?" If David then calls Him Lord, how is He his son?" (Mat. 22:43-45)
In like manner, Miryam does not call Yeshua her son, but her Lord, and it is she who hastens to do His will, not vice-versa. As soon as you so much as hint otherwise, it is you who is the heretic, not I.