Mary, the mother of the Lord

[Runningman]

Denying the visitor's lordship in Gen. 18 is denying God. Adonai is a common title of God, and it makes perfect sense to have the Lord addressed in this title since the name YHWH had NOT been revealed yet. I don't care what kind of translation you read, in KJV and NKJV, Abraham was talking with the LORD, in all caps, maybe not in 18:3, but in all the rest of the chapter, that refers to nobody else but God Almighty, the Creator of the universe.

Okay let's look at the KJV in a different spot where the word adonai is used. Let's look at Ezra 10:3 and verse 8. The counsel of the "lord" (adonai) in Ezra 10:3 is in reference to humans in the context. That isn't my translation. Did Ezra deny God, too? Why can't adonai not be God when there are examples of adonai not referring to God? That isn't a denial. Genesis 18 does say that they are "men" who appeared after all.

Ezra 10
3Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
8And that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, Jesus was like all the OT prophets before him, God was with all of them, but none of them was born of the Holy Spirit, only Jesus was. He has a dual nature of both God and man, as he was called both Son of God and Son of Man. If you give God his due glory, you ought to accept and honor his only begotten son; and if you have the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit will always point you toward the Son.

Yes Jesus is my Lord and Savior and I fully believe he is the Messiah and Son of God. No contest there. Neither he nor his Father called him God though. Jesus was calling his Father God, praying to Him, worshipping Him, got his power/authority from Him, and said He is the only true God. What is your issue with others having the same God as Jesus?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Then it seems we have come full circle. So you do agree that Jesus will return physically despite the fact you also said a human body can't go to heaven. Jesus is a man in heaven right now according to the Bible. This may be difficult to comprehend, but it's okay to say so when we don't know or understand something. The writers in the Bible kept calling him a man decades after he was taken to heaven.

According to the Bible he’s both of God and man (Rom. 1:3-4), that’s why he can ascend to heaven and still appear to be a man. Paul wrote this in his teaching of resurrection: “there are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies, but the glory of the celestial is one, the glory of the terrestrial is another.” (1 Cor. 15:40) Jesus is both, he has dual nature, that’s what you can’t understand. A mere man can’t perform the miracles he performed, and a mere man can’t atone for the sins of all mankind.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Oh I would really prefer not to go too deep into eschatology since something that is worthy of its own thread and people will argue about that fiercely for years (i've seen it) but haven't you read about what happens after the resurrection that takes place on earth? Paul was clear they are caught up into the sky unless you think that's figurative, too, but I wouldn't be so sure. I believe Jesus was the model for what happens. Jesus was himself "raptured" or caught up, or taken up, if you will.

If I will, it was prophesied that Jesus will descend on Mount Olive in the same manner he ascend from there, where did the angels ever mention a “rapture”? Or sudden disappearance? That’s Hollywood’s left alone movie saga, not scripture. What 1 Thess. 4:16-16 describes is the second coming on the feast of trumpets, that’s when the dead are raised to life, those who survived, most likely the Jews, will join them, there is no secret rapture.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Okay let's look at the KJV in a different spot where the word adonai is used. Let's look at Ezra 10:3 and verse 8. The counsel of the "lord" (adonai) in Ezra 10:3 is in reference to humans in the context. That isn't my translation. Did Ezra deny God, too? Why can't adonai not be God when there are examples of adonai not referring to God? That isn't a denial. Genesis 18 does say that they are "men" who appeared after all.

You’ve overlooked a key detail - only LORD in all caps indicate God Almighty, if not, then that’s just a human master, and that’s the case of Ezra 10:3 in KJV. In fact NKJV translated it as master in Ezra 10:3. In Gen. 18, though, Abraham was talking with the LORD, all caps, that’s none other than God. In the previous chapter God assured him that Sarah will bear a son, then He just confirmed it to Abraham at His visit to him, this is the same context, there was no chapter marks in the original Hebrew. Since it was God who made a covenant with Abraham, how did it suddenly change to somebody else in the same co text with the same topic of the miraculous conception of Isaac?

 

[Runningman]

According to the Bible he’s both of God and man (Rom. 1:3-4),

The Bible doesn't actually say what you said though. Can we agree on that much?

that’s why he can ascend to heaven and still appear to be a man.

Or he's still actually a man because the Bible says so. Or is that figurative too? Can't God taken people to heaven if He wants to? In 2 Corinthians 12:2, Paul left it open to possibility that a man was physically taken up to the third heaven.

Paul wrote this in his teaching of resurrection: “there are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies, but the glory of the celestial is one, the glory of the terrestrial is another.” (1 Cor. 15:40) Jesus is both, he has dual nature, that’s what you can’t understand. A mere man can’t perform the miracles he performed, and a mere man can’t atone for the sins of all mankind.

What Paul said about the celestial and terrestrial bodies isn't related to Jesus' nature.

A man without sin who was chosen by God to be the Messiah did atone for sins. The Bible says so.

Acts 2 (KJV)
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

 

[Runningman]

If I will, it was prophesied that Jesus will descend on Mount Olive in the same manner he ascend from there, where did the angels ever mention a “rapture”? Or sudden disappearance? That’s Hollywood’s left alone movie saga, not scripture. What 1 Thess. 4:16-16 describes is the second coming on the feast of trumpets, that’s when the dead are raised to life, those who survived, most likely the Jews, will join them, there is no secret rapture.

I agree, which is why Jesus was himself raptured. He was "taken" up to heaven (Luke 24:51) not under his own power, presumably by God or an angel. He will return the same way in which he left. However, look at 1 Thess. 4:14 where it says "God will bring with Jesus." See where the primary mover or actor is God, not Jesus?

 

[Runningman]

You’ve overlooked a key detail - only LORD in all caps indicate God Almighty, if not, then that’s just a human master, and that’s the case of Ezra 10:3 in KJV. In fact NKJV translated it as master in Ezra 10:3. In Gen. 18, though, Abraham was talking with the LORD, all caps, that’s none other than God. In the previous chapter God assured him that Sarah will bear a son, then He just confirmed it to Abraham at His visit to him, this is the same context, there was no chapter marks in the original Hebrew. Since it was God who made a covenant with Abraham, how did it suddenly change to somebody else in the same co text with the same topic of the miraculous conception of Isaac?

It doesn't directly call the men who were there the LORD though. To me it looks like circumstantial evidence to interpret it one way or the other. Some versions actually do refer to the men as "Lord" and others say just "lord." So people are split between whether those people are God or not. I settle it by taking more verses into consideration. I personally don't believe they are God or that God is a human or ever said He would be.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The Bible doesn't actually say what you said though. Can we agree on that much?

Can we agree that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit? No man is born of the Holy Spirit. We’re born again of the Holy Spirit, but we were all naturally born of flesh.

Or he's still actually a man because the Bible says so. Or is that figurative too? Can't God taken people to heaven if He wants to? In 2 Corinthians 12:2, Paul left it open to possibility that a man was physically taken up to the third heaven.

So? I’ve never said he’s not a man, denying his humanity would be the heresy of Docetism.

What Paul said about the celestial and terrestrial bodies isn't related to Jesus' nature.

But Rom. 1:3-4 is.

A man without sin who was chosen by God to be the Messiah did atone for sins. The Bible says so.

Jesus is not merely a mortal man, but the only begotten son of God without the original sin from Adam, that’s his godly nature.

 

[KV-44-v1]

"God will bring with Jesus."

God will bring with Himself.
your case is not backed.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I agree, which is why Jesus was himself raptured. He was "taken" up to heaven (Luke 24:51) not under his own power, presumably by God or an angel. He will return the same way in which he left. However, look at 1 Thess. 4:14 where it says "God will bring with Jesus." See where the primary mover or actor is God, not Jesus?

Nonetheless it is Jesus who will return, it's the same even in Rev. 19:11-16. This verse actually says "God will bring with Jesus THOSE who sleep in him," that refers to the hosts of heaven that will descend with him.

 

[Runningman]

God will bring with Himself.
your case is not backed.

Where does the Bible say what you said though?

 

[Runningman]

Can we agree that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit? No man is born of the Holy Spirit. We’re born again of the Holy Spirit, but we were all naturally born of flesh.

Yes, but that means to say that all people are born spiritually perfect or else they wouldn't need to be born "again" since that implies a second spiritual birth where the first birth ended in death.

Jesus was also born spiritually perfect, hence he was not himself born "again", but had he sinned he would have been in the same condition as everyone else.

But Rom. 1:3-4 is.

How so?

Jesus is not merely a mortal man, but the only begotten son of God without the original sin from Adam, that’s his godly nature.

I don't believe the original sin theory is accurate. Did we inherit the consequences of the original sin? Yes, I believe that. Did we actually inherit Adam and Eve's literal sin? No I don't think so.

 

[Free]

But the divinity of Christ is intimately connected to the doctrine of Mary the mother of God.




Anyone who rejects the dogma of Mary the mother of God is rejecting the divinity of Christ!

No, on both counts. Mary was simply a woman whom God chose to bear his Son, just as Elizabeth was chosen to bear his forerunner. The deity of Christ has absolutely nothing to do with Mary.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Where does the Bible say what you said though?

Jesus is God.
Jesus was sinless. Only God is good so only Jesus is good.

Did we actually inherit Adam and Eve's literal sin?

what does this mean?
does it mean we ate the fruit too? if so then no. i know of no Bible verse stating that.
or does it mean we inherit a tendency to sin? well then yes it does. selfishness comes naturally.

 

[donadams]

No, on both counts. Mary was simply a woman whom God chose to bear his Son, just as Elizabeth was chosen to bear his forerunner. The deity of Christ has absolutely nothing to do with Mary.

If Jesus is God
And Mary is his mother
Then the early church had no problem with Mary mother of God
Theotokos the God bearer

 

[Free]

If Jesus is God
And Mary is his mother
Then the early church had no problem with Mary mother of God
Theotokos the God bearer

But that has nothing to do with what I was addressing.

 

[donadams]

Pl

But that has nothing to do with what I was addressing.

Please explain

 

[Free]

Pl

Please explain

Go back and look what I was responding to, based on my quote. It has nothing to do with whether or not Mary was theotokos.

 

[donadams]

Go back and look what I was responding to, based on my quote. It has nothing to do with whether or not Mary was theotokos.

Thks