Mary, the mother of the Lord

[Runningman]

Which has no bearing on whether or not Jesus is Yahweh. As I have stated repeatedly, Phil 2:6-8 is key here.

What is key about verses 6-8? I begin with verse 5 which is also key.

Philippians 2
5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:

The entire meaning of this passage changes when verse 5 is taken into the context. What Paul said after that was prescribed to the Philippians on what they can do to be like Jesus. We shouldn't try to understand verse 6-8 as an indicator of Jesus' deity because it introduces the heresy that Christians can either be God or demi-god. Some cults have already adopted this. To prevent this, it's necessary to keep Jesus a man.

 

[Runningman]

There is only one Son of Man whose Father is God alone. I don't think of Mary as the mother of God as Jesus was before the world began. I do think of her as the Mother of the Christ though.

Thanks I appreciate you saying that. It's so rare to see the Father being given His due glory as God alone and it's refreshing to see that.

However, how do you figure Jesus was before the world began?

 

[Free]

What is key about verses 6-8?

It proves the deity of Jesus by reiterating what John states in John 1:1, 14.

I begin with verse 5 which is also key.

Philippians 2
5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus:

The entire meaning of this passage changes when verse 5 is taken into the context.

It doesn’t change any meaning; it is a part of the meaning.

What Paul said after that was prescribed to the Philippians on what they can do to be like Jesus.

In part, by way of example, but clearly these are things that no mere human can do:

Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Note what Paul has done here. First, Paul tells his readers to "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves," and "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." Then, he gives the supreme example, which is that of Christ, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men," "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."

In other words, Jesus did "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit" and looked "not only to his own interests." It would have been easy for him to use his equality with God to his own advantage, but that would have been selfish ambition and looking to his own interests. Instead, he empties "himself, by taking the form of a servant," and humbles "himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." In this way, he has "in humility count[ed] others more significant than [himself]," and looked "to the interests of others."

He humbled himself in his incarnate state, becoming dependent on and subject to the Father, for the purpose of the salvation of humans and redemption of creation.

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

We shouldn't try to understand verse 6-8 as an indicator of Jesus' deity because it introduces the heresy that Christians can either be God or demi-god.

How, exactly, does that introduce "the heresy that Christians can either be God or demi-god"? Maybe if you read the text according to your understanding, but not if one reads it in context.

Some cults have already adopted this. To prevent this, it's necessary to keep Jesus a man.

No, it isn’t. It’s necessary to teach correct doctrine, which means teaching that Jesus is both truly God and truly man. Besides, it's fallacious to argue that because some group misuses a verse or passage to argue that man can become a god, that one must therefore not teach the deity of Jesus. That is poor argument. The Bible states what it states and we must never change the meaning of what was said or not teach the full counsel of Scripture simply because some misunderstand or twist what was said; that is entirely on them. We are already warned of such people:

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV)

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
"It proves the deity of Jesus by reiterating what John states in John 1:1, 14." [/QUOTE\]

If by it proves the deity of Jesus you mean it proves Jesus is God or equal to him, I disagree.

I can see that by what the apostle Paul wrote at Philippians 2:2-6. Paul wasn't teaching the Christians in the Philippian congregation, that they should think themselves equal to God because Jesus thought himself equal to God.

I agree that the only begotten Son of God is divine or a god but the scriptures make it clear that Jesus isn't the only true God or the Almighty God.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

These men in some way represent God;"

Is that so? A quick reminder, it was an ANGEL of God that appeared to Moses in a glowing bush (Ex. 3:2), is that not a mere “representative” of God? In all following texts in ch. 3, this was the one speaking to Moses, Moses didn’t address him as an angel, he called him Lord! How is this angel YHWH and the Adonai in Gen. 18 not? In your logic, YHWH is that angel who just “in some way represents God”, how do you know YHWH is God’s name?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And I will take the translations that don't capitalize "lord" in Genesis 18:3 rather than what you say, being a random guy on the Internet yourself. However, if you want someone with some credentials, then Barnes Notes on the Bible don't say the three men in Genesis 18 are God, but in some way represent God. This would be more accurate considering God already stated He isn't a man. (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9)

Here’s the thing - if you’re who you say you are, then you are appearing to me as an avatar on Christianforums the same way God appear to Abraham as Adonai in the form of a man. If your deny Adonai as God, the I can deny your personhood, perhaps you’re an AI robot, how can I know that you’re a real person of flesh and blood? After all, “Runningman” just in some way represents you on this forum, right?

 

[Runningman]

Is that so? A quick reminder, it was an ANGEL of God that appeared to Moses in a glowing bush (Ex. 3:2), is that not a mere “representative” of God? In all following texts in ch. 3, this was the one speaking to Moses, Moses didn’t address him as an angel, he called him Lord! How is this angel YHWH and the Adonai in Gen. 18 not? In your logic, YHWH is that angel who just “in some way represents God”, how do you know YHWH is God’s name?

Angels are representatives of God insofar that they are messengers, but God's angels aren't God. The angel of the LORD is not the LORD. It's worded this way to indicate to the reader a relation of ownership where the angel is God's property. Look at those verses from a different angle because the angel isn't God. Here's an example.

The angel of the LORD and the LORD are speaking to each other. That means they aren't the same person.

Zecharia
12Then the angel of the LORD said, “How long, O LORD of Hosts, will You withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been angry these seventy years?”

13So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who was speaking with me.

 

[Runningman]

Here’s the thing - if you’re who you say you are, then you are appearing to me as an avatar on Christianforums the same way God appear to Abraham as Adonai in the form of a man. If your deny Adonai as God, the I can deny your personhood, perhaps you’re an AI robot, how can I know that you’re a real person of flesh and blood? After all, “Runningman” just in some way represents you on this forum, right?

In Genesis 19:2, adonai is used in reference to angels. In Ezra 10:3 adonai is once again used of a human. In Genesis 18:3 adonai issued of men. Adonai (sometimes written adonay) isn't exclusive to God, regardless of what the church may tell you. They depend on us not studying these things, doing our homework, and diligence. Keeping us in darkness and indoctrinated is how they have tried to perpetuate Trinitarianism all of these years, but the cat is out of the bag. Please take a look at the verses provided above and below.

Genesis 18
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.

Numbers 23
19God is not a man, that He should lie,
or a son of man, that He should change His mind.
Does He speak and not act?
Does He promise and not fulfill?

Hosea 11
9I will not execute the full fury of My anger;
I will not turn back to destroy Ephraim.
For I am God and not man—
the Holy One among you—
and I will not come in wrath.

 

[LovethroughDove]

I believe I can basically agree with that if I understand you correctly. The Son of Man is the Son of God. Though Jesus may have many titles, they all refer to the same person. I don't believe in the hypostatic union. Do you?

John 17
2For You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him.

I believe the Son of Man is from the maternal side and the Son of God is from the paternal side of Jesus the Christ.

I don't have the view as most people who say "trinity". They are not co-equal, but Jesus has been given authority over flesh because of his literal . I know one of the reasons Jesus has been given authority over ALL flesh is that he submitted his will totally unto the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For he (the Father) "has put everything under his (the Son) feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him(the Son), it is clear that this does not include God himself(the Father), who put everything under Christ. When he (the Father) has done this, then the Son himself will made subject to him (the Father) who put everything under him (the Son), so that God (the Holy Spirit) may be all in all.

 

[LeviR]

Angels are representatives of God insofar that they are messengers, but God's angels aren't God. The angel of the LORD is not the LORD. It's worded this way to indicate to the reader a relation of ownership where the angel is God's property. Look at those verses from a different angle because the angel isn't God. Here's an example.

The angel of the LORD and the LORD are speaking to each other. That means they aren't the same person.

Zecharia
12Then the angel of the LORD said, “How long, O LORD of Hosts, will You withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been angry these seventy years?”

13So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who was speaking with me.

It’s said that men have seen God and that no man has seen God at any time.
The explanation is very simple and easy to understand. Just like all truth.
The Angel of the LORD is called Both LORD and God in the O.T. Because God had sent him to speak God’s words and do God’s works.
It goes like this:
God says: I’m sending My angel to go with you. If you listen to his words and obey what he says you will be listening to all I say and obeying MY commands.
They would simply be recognizing that what the angel said is what God is saying. And that obeying the angel was obeying God who spoke through the angel.
The angel would be as seeing God Himself.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Angels are representatives of God insofar that they are messengers, but God's angels aren't God. The angel of the LORD is not the LORD. It's worded this way to indicate to the reader a relation of ownership where the angel is God's property. Look at those verses from a different angle because the angel isn't God. Here's an example.

The angel of the LORD and the LORD are speaking to each other. That means they aren't the same person.

Zecharia
12Then the angel of the LORD said, “How long, O LORD of Hosts, will You withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been angry these seventy years?”

13So the LORD spoke kind and comforting words to the angel who was speaking with me.

Then I ask you again, why is YHWH God, not that angel who appeared to Moses in the glowing bush? According to you they're not the same person, right? Then who is the LORD?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

In Genesis 19:2, adonai is used in reference to angels. In Ezra 10:3 adonai is once again used of a human. In Genesis 18:3 adonai issued of men. Adonai (sometimes written adonay) isn't exclusive to God, regardless of what the church may tell you. They depend on us not studying these things, doing our homework, and diligence. Keeping us in darkness and indoctrinated is how they have tried to perpetuate Trinitarianism all of these years, but the cat is out of the bag. Please take a look at the verses provided above and below.

You keep hanging on the rope of Num. 23:19, insisting God "is not a man", but why can't he APPEAR as a man? You're not Runningman the avatar on this forum, why can you appear to be so? Also, God takes a lot of human actions - he was WALKING in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8); wrote with his "fingers" (Ex. 31:18); "sat" in the heavens and "laughed" (Ps. 2:4), if God is just ethereal, intangible spirit, how does he walk, sit, laught and write with his fingers? Are you gonna say none of these are God? Please take a look at these verses I mentioned.

 

[Runningman]

I believe the Son of Man is from the maternal side and the Son of God is from the paternal side of Jesus the Christ.

I don't have the view as most people who say "trinity". They are not co-equal, but Jesus has been given authority over flesh because of his literal . I know one of the reasons Jesus has been given authority over ALL flesh is that he submitted his will totally unto the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For he (the Father) "has put everything under his (the Son) feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him(the Son), it is clear that this does not include God himself(the Father), who put everything under Christ. When he (the Father) has done this, then the Son himself will made subject to him (the Father) who put everything under him (the Son), so that God (the Holy Spirit) may be all in all.

Yeah, but check Matthew 16:13-17 where Jesus asked them who the Son of Man is. They answered saying the Son of Man is the Son of God. Same person, no difference at all according to God and Jesus.

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.

 

[Runningman]

Free said,
"It proves the deity of Jesus by reiterating what John states in John 1:1, 14." [/QUOTE\]

If by it proves the deity of Jesus you mean it proves Jesus is God or equal to him, I disagree.

I can see that by what the apostle Paul wrote at Philippians 2:2-6. Paul wasn't teaching the Christians in the Philippian congregation, that they should think themselves equal to God because Jesus thought himself equal to God.

I agree that the only begotten Son of God is divine or a god but the scriptures make it clear that Jesus isn't the only true God or the Almighty God.

That's true, but based on a close study of the Greek in John 1:1 I believe that "the Word" is actually not even "a god." Why? Because There is no mention of a pre-existent being known as the Word in the Bible saying or doing anything. On top of that, Apostle John didn't contradict himself in 1 John 1:1-3 when he said the the Word is a thing and isn't God. So how do we resolve this? John 1:1 must be personification of the Word. For example, in John 1:9,10 the Word isn't the creator of the world, but rather the True Light is.

The idea John is getting at in John 1 is that in the beginning the Word was godly.

 

[Runningman]

It’s said that men have seen God and that no man has seen God at any time.
The explanation is very simple and easy to understand. Just like all truth.
The Angel of the LORD is called Both LORD and God in the O.T. Because God had sent him to speak God’s words and do God’s works.
It goes like this:
God says: I’m sending My angel to go with you. If you listen to his words and obey what he says you will be listening to all I say and obeying MY commands.
They would simply be recognizing that what the angel said is what God is saying. And that obeying the angel was obeying God who spoke through the angel.
The angel would be as seeing God Himself.

I agree with that up until you said the angel of the LORD is called both LORD and God because God sent him to speak God's words and do God's works. You're describing all of the prophets in the Bible who God empowered and gave the words to speak. They aren't God and neither is the angel of the LORD.

 

[Runningman]

Then I ask you again, why is YHWH God, not that angel who appeared to Moses in the glowing bush? According to you they're not the same person, right? Then who is the LORD?

Well, that's what God is like. He's everywhere already in the first place. Though sometimes we may not be aware of this or feel it, I know from personal experience and Scripture that this is true. I don't see any reason why the angel of the LORD and the LORD being in context together necessitate them being the same person.

 

[LeviR]

I agree with that up until you said the angel of the LORD is called both LORD and God because God sent him to speak God's words and do God's works. You're describing all of the prophets in the Bible who God empowered and gave the words to speak. They aren't God and neither is the angel of the LORD.

Many who have studied the O.T. See that there are two persons called LORD and God. Trinitarians suggest that one of them is the Son.
I believe that person was not the Son but an angel, the angel of the LORD.

 

[Runningman]

You keep hanging on the rope of Num. 23:19, insisting God "is not a man", but why can't he APPEAR as a man? You're not Runningman the avatar on this forum, why can you appear to be so? Also, God takes a lot of human actions - he was WALKING in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8); wrote with his "fingers" (Ex. 31:18); "sat" in the heavens and "laughed" (Ps. 2:4), if God is just ethereal, intangible spirit, how does he walk, sit, laught and write with his fingers? Are you gonna say none of these are God? Please take a look at these verses I mentioned.

I guess God could appear as a man if He wanted to, but I don't know why He would. I am familiar with the verses you quoted because recently someone tried to tell me God has a human body. While it's absolutely true God is a person, that isn't to say God is a human.

I guess one could be literal about it, yet at the same time the Bible is also clear the only God is an eternal, immortal, and invisible Spirit (1 Timothy 1:17) and that God isn't served by human hands (Acts 17:24,25) so I would have to take those instances of talk about God having body parts as being figurative language.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I would have to take those instances of talk about God having body parts as being figurative language.

Then so can Num. 23:19 be taken figuratively, it is describing God’s immaculate character, that he would never lie or falter like Balaam did in that particular context. His way is not our ways, and his thoughts are higher than ours. This is never meant to be weaponized to deny Jesus’s deity. God would appear as a man because that’s the only way to communicate with his people.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Well, that's what God is like. He's everywhere already in the first place. Though sometimes we may not be aware of this or feel it, I know from personal experience and Scripture that this is true. I don't see any reason why the angel of the LORD and the LORD being in context together necessitate them being the same person.

Hmm, that sounds awfully like pantheism. He did leave his fingerprints everywhere such as the golden ratio of 0.618, but that’s just proof of his providence, the golden ratio is not God himself, we don’t worship the golden ratio, we worship God; but since God is ethereal spirit, how do we properly worship him? See, that’s why he did become a man and dwell among us, so we can worship God properly through this medium. If you deny this medium, you deny God himself, and you’re doomed to worship a golden calf. Ancient Israelites weren’t worshiping a pagan God, they thought they were worshiping YHWH who delivered them out of Egypt, and a golden calf was the only way of worship they knew, but that’s not acceptable to God, it had so offended God that it constituted idolatry that broke the covenant.