How is a biblical conflict solved?

[Hopeful]

This is a problem Jethro.
Here's how I understand this...

When we say the word GOD, everyone most probably understands us to be speaking about God Father.
God Father does not have a mother.

However, we want to say that Jesus is God.
If Jesus is God, how is it wrong to say that Mary is the mother of God?

This confuses me and how I feel about calling Mary the Mother of God.

Wouldn't it be correct to say that Mary is the mother of the Word?
Nah, as that is as incorrect as mother of God.
Both have always been.
She is the mother of Jesus.

 

[Mungo]

Wouldn't it be correct to say that Mary is the mother of the Word?
Nah, as that is as incorrect as mother of God.
Both have always been.
She is the mother of Jesus.

She is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.

But a woman carries a person in her womb, not just a human nature. Mary carried, and gave birth to, the person of Jesus Christ, and that person was God, the second person of the Trinity.

The alternative is the Nestorian heresy. Nestorians claimed that Mary did not give birth to a unified person but tried to separate Jesus’ human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate persons, one human and one divine in a loose affiliation.

The definition of Ephesus (431) was not to glorify Mary but to affirm that Jesus’ two natures – divine and human were united in one divine person.

If we do not accept that what Jesus did and experienced in his humanity was experienced by God (the Son) then we cannot say that God died on the cross and we are not redeemed; we cannot say that God shed his blood for us and our sins are not forgiven.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

And why would Jethro want posts to be shorter?

'Cause Jethro has brain surgeries stacking up in the waiting room and he ain't got no time to be reading long posts, lol!

And they're harder to respond to. I have to sort and pick through them to find the part I want to respond to.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's not easy to then cut and paste it. A mistake could cause you to lose the whole post.

Get in the habit of clicking on the save button in the upper right hand side of the tool bar of the editor in which you are typing your post. Just to the left of the 'Preview' button.

 

[GodsGrace]

What about Luke 19:1-10; John 3:5-7; Ephesians 2:8; Matthew 24:13, Philippians 2:12 that all speak about our salvation as we are to endure all trials and tribulations unto the end and then we will be saved from the lake of fire.

I don't believe in eternal unconditional security - (OSAS)
I believe a person could forfeit their salvation by apostacy, or abandoning God at some point in their life.

So I posted 3 different verse:
One states that we were saved (when we first believed)
One that we are being saved (as we continue to worship God)
And one that we will be saved (in the future at the time of death.

Only at that time will we know if we held fast to our faith, so I agree with you that we are to endure to the end.

 

[GodsGrace]

'Cause Jethro has brain surgeries stacking up in the waiting room and he ain't got no time to be reading long posts, lol!

And they're harder to respond to. I have to sort and pick through them to find the part I want to respond to.

Yes Jethro, we know how busy you are.
And when I first got here I thought you might have been a real doctor!
2

And, really, I agree with you and I, and others, have been trying to get him to cut down...
I'm real busy too BTW, I'm trying to run the world.

 

[GodsGrace]

Get in the habit of clicking on the save button in the upper right hand side of the tool bar of the editor in which you are typing your post. Just to the left of the 'Preview' button.

!!!
Thanks.

But I don't see save....
Oh!
SAVE DRAFT in the drop down arrow.
:nod

 

[GodsGrace]

I find Catholic doctrine to be truly exasperating. So much so I usually have to take a break from discussing it, too.

I find it to be a bit deeper than Protestant teachings.
Like the Immac Concep.

But, you know, I don't agree with a lot so I can't be Catholic.
I think it might be nice though....
They mostly agree on most stuff...not all (I know this for sure).
Here's a question for you...serious.
Does Catholicism bother you more or Calvinism?
For me it's Calvinism.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes Jethro, we know how busy you are.
And when I first got here I thought you might have been a real doctor!
2

But I really is a doctor!
Uncle Jed said so!

I'm real busy too BTW, I'm trying to run the world.

Yeah, that's what Allen said, lol.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Here's a question for you...serious.
Does Catholicism bother you more or Calvinism?

Catholicism for sure!
I despise cold dead 'church', and for me Catholicism is the epitome of that with it's carefully orchestrated ceremonies and procedures as if that's what relating to God is all about. And their beliefs are off the rails!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yeah, that's what Allen said, lol.

 

[GodsGrace]

There's nothing Greek about it. You are saved and have eternal life and have passed from death to life the moment you believe (John 5:24). What we await is our safe passage through the coming fire and our glorified bodies and our physical entry into the kingdom of God.

Now we both agree that this remains this way as long as we continue to believe. But that does not change the fact that we are indeed very much saved in this life while we wait for the rest of the promise, of which the Spirit is a down payment and surety of.

I can't remember your position on OSAS.
I don't agree with it.
I believe in CONDITIONAL eternal security..
Conditional on our continued faith in God,
So, I'd have to say that we won't know till the end if we have endured.

 

[GodsGrace]

LOL
And here I thought it was me running the show!

 

[GodsGrace]

Colossians 1:16-17
16All things were created through Him and for Him.

17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Him being "before all things" means he's not created, and, furthermore, Him creating all things before there were all things indicates to me that is very much divine.

I don't know the nature of his body before he took on the form of a mortal body, but it's clear he is divinity sent from heaven to dwell in a body like ours and the purpose of becoming like us as the Bible explains.

The Son of God always existed.
The 2nd Person of the Trinity always existed.
Jesus did not always exist...He was born 2,000 years ago.
This is why He was 100% human and 100% divine.
The Son and the 2nd Person are 100% divine only.

Jesus, as Jesus, did not always exist.

 

[GodsGrace]

Since He created all things for Himself that tells me he existed as a conscious entity, not just as the Word.

The only thing created, or made about him is when he emptied himself of his authority and took on the form of a servant in the likeness of man:

Philippians 2:7-8
7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself

I think we agree.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I can't remember your position on OSAS.
I don't agree with it.
I believe in CONDITIONAL eternal security..
Conditional on our continued faith in God,

That is where I'm at on the issue, too.
You have to keep believing in order to be saved from the wrath of God at the end of the age.

So, I'd have to say that we won't know till the end if we have endured.

Yes, you won't know if you have continued to believe to the end until you get to the end, but that in no way means you aren't, or can't be, saved right now in this moment of your believing. Paul is very clear when he says if you believe right now, you are saved right now—1 Corinthians 15:1-2.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The Son of God always existed.
The 2nd Person of the Trinity always existed.
Jesus did not always exist...He was born 2,000 years ago.
This is why He was 100% human and 100% divine.
The Son and the 2nd Person are 100% divine only.

Jesus, as Jesus, did not always exist.

I agree with this to the extent that Jesus did not dwell in the form Paul describes in Philippians 2:7-8 prior to him being sent to earth. That form is what was birthed through Mary, not his divinity. Mary is not the mother of God. God has no beginning and no end that God should at some point be born. 'Mary the mother of God' is a play on words that has no meaning. It's a deceitful phrase to fool people without the Spirit into worshipping her instead of the Godhead.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, I'm aware of this.
I'm of the opinion that the founding fathers are the fulfillment of Acts 20:29. I used to respect them. Now I despise what they did to the church.

I respect and honor the founding fathers.
They fought to keep heresy out of the church so that we have a proper representation of it today.
Of course, 2 or 3 generations in and things started to change. That's why I really won't read the Fathers after the Nicene Council. So I agree with you there.

I submit to you that saying Mary is the mother of God is absolutely meaningless. It means nothing. What does it mean, 'mother of God'? How incredibly un-useful! She was the birth mother of the physical body that Jesus inhabited in order for Him to become like us for the purpose of becoming a merciful and faithful High Priest familiar with the temptations and weaknesses of humanity. God has no birth, no beginning, no end. Mary did not birth God.

I said in a different post that we understand God to be God Father and as such, God has no mother.
But then how do we call Mary? The Mother of the Son of Man? The Mother of Jesus?
I think this diminishes who Jesus is - God.
Or is it even incorrect to call Him God since He was also fully man?

You see....once you start to go down that road you begin to strip Jesus of His divinity and the whole question of the Trinity comes into question.

You and I are not going to solve this - just my ideas.

I do want to say that I don't totally agree with you about how you represent Mary.
It makes it sound like she was just a shell made for the birth of Jesus.
She was His mother...she had Him in her womb for 9 months.
I like to think she was more than just a mere baby factory which He needed to be born.

A debate I will not engage in. I may or may not state why I believe he's divine and then I'm out. A person either gets it or they don't. And it doesn't change anything in regard to salvation if they don't.

I didn't mean it like that. I know what you believe.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I do want to say that I don't totally agree with you about how you represent Mary.
It makes it sound like she was just a shell made for the birth of Jesus.
She was His mother...she had Him in her womb for 9 months.
I like to think she was more than just a mere baby factory which He needed to be born.

Without question Mary had a special and blessed relationship with Jesus that no one else will have. But there's no reason to take it beyond that like the Catholics have done. Even Jesus himself drew the people away from unduly exalting his earthly mother when he said this:

Luke 11:27-28

27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and blessed are the breasts that nursed You!”

28But He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”


This has always spoken to me a lot about how we are to deal with the role Mary played in the gospel. As special as it was it still isn't more important and blessed than living an obedient life to God. But the Catholics put her on a pedestal that God did not intend for her to be put on. Blessed rather are YOU AND I who hear the word of God and obey it! When can we expect a Catholic to tell us that in these forums? I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Hopeful]

She is the mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God
Therefore Mary is the mother of God.

Jesus was the Word.
The Word was with God.
And was God.
But not after taking on flesh.
God is Spirit.

But a woman carries a person in her womb, not just a human nature. Mary carried, and gave birth to, the person of Jesus Christ, and that person was God, the second person of the Trinity.
The alternative is the Nestorian heresy. Nestorians claimed that Mary did not give birth to a unified person but tried to separate Jesus’ human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate persons, one human and one divine in a loose affiliation.
The definition of Ephesus (431) was not to glorify Mary but to affirm that Jesus’ two natures – divine and human were united in one divine person.
If we do not accept that what Jesus did and experienced in his humanity was experienced by God (the Son) then we cannot say that God died on the cross and we are not redeemed; we cannot say that God shed his blood for us and our sins are not forgiven.

God has no blood to shed, as He is Spirit.
The Word took on flesh, and His blood washed away our sins at baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins.
God cannot die.