Runningman
Member
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Mary, the mother of the Lord
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
There is no way to know for sure, but at a minimum she means the title of honour as Messiah and master.
Runningman
Member
I believe we can safely conclude that Mary isn't the mother of God. This is also a commonly held position in Protestant Trinitarianism. Therefore, Mary is the mother of a human. Lord refers to a human Lord in all of scripture in regards to Jesus. That means Jesus isn't God.
She is considered the mother of God in the sense that she bore the God-man and raised him, in my opinion. It's likely that Catholics and others see it a bit differently.
This is all, once again, fallaciously begging the question. You continually being with the premise that God is unitarian and then conclude that he is unitarian. That is an error in reasoning. Not to mention that we must then conclude that when the Father is called Lord that he is a human Lord, that is if you want to be logically consistent.
- The Word became flesh.
- God became flesh.
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
Mary gave birth to the flesh and blood Man Jesus Christ.
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5
Mary did not give birth to Spirit. Mary gave birth to flesh.
Mary is the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ; the Man, The Messiah; the Word who became flesh.
God is Spirit.
God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24
Mary is not the mother of God.
Again, The Son of God; not God the Father, but God the Son became flesh.
He became a little lower than the angels.
JLB
Runningman
Member
Jesus is a certifiable human, the image of the invisible God, yet the Father is never called the image of God, but rather the only true God. The only true God is YHWH, who said He is not a man. Just very basic deductive reasoning confirms that Jesus isn't God and it's scriptural.
Runningman
Member
I would like to ask you to not derail this thread by quoting a fringe translation of 1 Timothy 3:16, please and thank you. *For the readers, 1 Timothy 3:16, in the earliest and best manuscripts, does not say "God manifested in the flesh" but rather "He was manifested in the flesh." You and I already discussed this and I provided you with the proof that 1 Timothy 3:16 was altered later. We don't need to spend several dozen pages going round and round in circles on this point again. You won't budge, I won't budge, and Bible scholars won't budge so let's move on from that point.
I did notice you quoted 1 Timothy 2:5. How does that help? That proves that decades after Jesus was taken to heaven that people were still calling him a man and not God. If he was God then they would have referred to him as such.
So on the point of Luke 1:43, since Elizabeth called Mary the "mother of the Lord" and we know that Jesus is a human and that Acts 2:36 says "Therefore let all Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!” Then we can rightly understand that Jesus isn't the God who made himself Lord. No one makes themselves Lord, for all authority comes from God. Therefore, Jesus being Lord refers to humanity. Jesus is, therefore, a human Lord over the church.
Last edited:
Of course he is. No one is saying otherwise.
Which I've addressed HERE. But to add to that:
"The meaning is, that he represents to mankind the perfections of God, as an image, figure, or drawing does the object which it is made to resemble.
...
It properly denotes that which is a copy or delineation of a thing; which accurately and fully represents it, in contradistinction from a rough sketch, or outline.
...
The meaning here is, that the being and perfections of God are accurately and fully represented by Christ. In what respects particularly he was thus a representative of God, the apostle proceeds to state in the following verses, to wit, in his creative power, in his eternal existence, in his heirship over the universe, in the fulness that dwelt in him. This cannot refer to him merely as incarnate, for some of the things affirmed of him pertained to him before his incarnation; and the idea is, that in all things Christ fairly represents to us the divine nature and perfections" (Albert Barnes).
Of course not, because he didn't come in human flesh as the Son did.
Which doesn't preclude the Son from being true deity, being truly God and equal with the Father.
You're still fallaciously begging the question that God is unitarian.
Because he isn't; he is God, not a creature. But, it doesn't follow that he couldn't or didn't come in the flesh in the person of Jesus.
Not at all; it's poor reasoning. I've given basic, deductive, sound reasoning which proves that Jesus is God. You have yet to provide any substantial rebuttal.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Why can't the only true God be a man? He appeared in human form multiple times in the OT, known as theophany, as early as he "walked" in the garden of Eden. Notably, he appeared to Abraham as a traveler and informed him of the good news that Sarah will conceive a son, despite her old age - and her own self awareness of her old age, which probably implies menopause. This was most certainly God himself, and this was no illusion or vision or dream, as God ate the food Abraham prepared! If you believe that Scripture doesn't contradict itself, either God was lying or you don't get it.
The Lord (God YHWH) appeared to him (Abraham) by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he (Abraham) was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. (Gen. 18:1)
So he (Abraham) took butter and milk and the calf which he (Abraham) had prepared, and set it before them (God and his two angels); and he (Abraham) stood by them (God and his two angels) under the tree as they (God and his two angels) ate. (Gen. 18:8)
Niblo
2024 Supporter
You will know, of course, that the unchanging nature of God is clearly taught in the Bible.
In the Old Testament, He says: ‘For I am the LORD, I change not…..(Malachi 3:6; KJV. My emphasis).
In the New Testament we read:
‘Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’ (James 1:17; KJV. My emphasis).
The Church teaches that God is absolutely immutable:
‘We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable……’ (Fourth Lateran Council: Constitution 1. Confession of Faith); and again: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal.’ (The Council of Basel: Session 114).
By ‘absolutely immutable’ is meant that in God there can be no change whatsoever. The Dominican theologian St Thomas Aquinas bases the absolute immutability of God on His absolute simplicity (a Spirit, having no parts); on His pure actuality (He has no potential for change); and on His infinite perfection. According to Aquinas, mutability includes potentiality, composition and imperfection and as such is irreconcilable with God as ‘actus purus’ (the absolutely simple, absolutely perfect Essence). (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 9; Article 1).
Perhaps you can explain how God – pure spirit, pure actuality, with no potential for change (none whatsoever) – can become flesh (which is forever subject to change) without violating His immutability.
Runningman
Member
You said so yourself. God isn't a creature, Jesus is a creature. Do you contest that?
Runningman
Member
God never appeared in human form in the Old Testament. Walking, having a right hand, a face, a backside, etc doesn't necessarily imply humanity or being a physical being. Since God said he isn't a man in Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9, then we may rightly conclude this is always true. The options aren't that the Bible is in contradiction or God was lying, both which are the extremes. The middle ground is that the Bible uses figurative language sometimes for illustrative purposes.
What I read in Genesis 18 is that the LORD appeared to Abraham by the Oaks at the entrance of his tent. The men standing nearby doesn't mean the men are the LORD.
Genesis 18
1Then the LORD appeared to Abraham by the Oaks of Mamre in the heat of the day, while he was sitting at the entrance of his tent. 2And Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
The context shows us that the word Theos in the Greek, is translated "God" in English, as the context shows.
14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, (G2316) which is the church of the living God, (G2316) the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God (G2316) was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:14-16
Theos G2316 which is rendered "God" in English is where the word "Theology" (the study of God) comes from.
Why would you believe the word "Theos" would mean "God" in verse 15, but mean something else in verse 16?
JLB
Carry_Your_Name
Member
Then you're just in denial, the Scripture clearly identifies of them as the Lord, later the other two as two angels. Can't help you there.
Carry_Your_Name
Member
So what? Indeed his triune nature never changes. Sans changér!
How many times In our discussions do you think that I have clearly stated that Jesus is both God and man; two natures in one?
Runningman
Member
Runningman
Member
It doesn't say "those three men are the LORD" or something to that effect. Where did you see that?
Runningman
Member
Many times I guess. So if I understand you correctly, you say that the nature of God is God?
The nature of God is what makes God, God, and it is a nature that only he can have. That is, "God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."
https://www.ligonier.org/guides/the-nature-of-god
It is like the translation of John 1:1c--"and the Word was God." It is a qualitative statement that could be translated as "and the Word was in nature God," however, since only God can have the nature of God, it is to essentially say the same thing as "and the Word was God."