I agree that it was YHWH God who gave his only begotten Son his divine nature. But I disagree that Jesus is YHWH God because people are not going to convince me that YHWH God was given his divine nature. There is only one true God his name is YHWH, and he is the Father and God of Jesus Christ.
The term "Godhead."
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
- Status
He is all that Father is. Such a being is God. The Deity that lives in Him forever is the Fathers not His own. They are one. He is not the Father He is the Son. I agree the Father alone is the only true God but the Son is the radiance of the Fathers glory and the imprint of the Fathers very being. One God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. The throne of God and of the Lamb forever.
Why do you think the Father states
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."
It is therefore lawful to call the Son God in regard to the nature found in Him. God was the Logos.
Ahhh... you have the assumption that God is something that inhabits one or more persons who share the same nature. The theologians who developed this concept in the 4th century didn't understand that being in the image of the Son and, therefore, in the image of God are what every true child of God will be conformed to.
The way the Trinity actually works is that God is converted into an essence. The essence is distributed among three members. The essence, therefore, is actually the God in Trinitarianism and the persons would not be God. It's very problematic, full of too many holes and contradictions with Scripture. They developed this doctrine because they wanted to make Jesus into God and were confused about who the Holy Spirit is.
God is actually a person called YHWH, also known as the Father. That's it. It's very simple and repeated dozens of times in Scripture, and doesn't require complicated arguments to explain. I also find that non-believers digest and accept these facts easily because it doesn't take long to explain since it harnesses the common sense most people have. The Trinity is an incomprehensible mystery and requires years of Sunday school and people still can't fully wrap their head around it.
While there may be differing interpretations of certain scriptural terms, we must remember that at the heart of our faith is the profound mystery of God's love for humanity, made manifest in Jesus Christ.
Rather than focusing on linguistic debates or doctrinal divisions, let us reflect on how we can deepen our relationship with God and live out His call to love one another. The essence of our faith is not found in precise translations or theological formulations, but in encountering the living God and allowing His love to transform our lives and our world.
We are all on a journey of faith, seeking to understand the infinite mystery of God with our limited human minds. Let us be patient with one another, recognizing that we see only partially now, as through a glass darkly. What matters most is not our intellectual grasp of divine concepts, but how we live out our faith in love and service to others.
Remember the words of St. Paul: “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.“ Let us focus on growing in love - love for God and love for our neighbor. This is the true measure of our faith.
Amen and I agree with that. We should start saying amen more when we agree on something. However, this is an apologetics thread so there is going to be some debating. The person you are replying to is not out of line, but rather I agree with him.
The Son of God, Jesus Christ is both God and Man.
The Spirit of Christ is God.
His flesh body is Man.
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
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14
God is Spirit.
God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24
Mary did not give birth to Spirit.
Mary gave birth to flesh.
JLB
But that implies that Jesus had a beginning? Yes or No and why?
I ask this since you assert shes the mother of GOD. Pretty bold claim. Almost.... prideful. Tell me if the early Church (NOT RCC!!) from 50 AD to 900 AD consistently thought so.
Apostolic Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D.
(with authority from Christ to bind the faith of all Christians. Matt 16:19 & 18:18)
If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh) let him be anathema.
Theotokos: God bearer!
Mother of God!
Lk 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Mary is not the mother of the divinity, or the mother of the eternal father, or the mother of the Holy Spirit, nor the source of the divine nature.
Mary is the mother of God, cos Jesus Christ is God and Mary is His mother, not the mother of His body but the mother of His entire person.
"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God." Martin Luther
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God." John Calvin
Mother of God!
Jesus is a divine person who became man, and not a human person, that is why Mary is truly the “mother of God” Jesus is God, Mary is His mother, so she is the mother of God not to be confused with “source”, she is not the source of God or the mother of the divine nature, or the mother of the eternal Father, nor the mother of the spirit!
But mother of the Son who is God.
Only one person every has a family relationship with God, Mary; and she has three!
Daughter of the Father
Mother of the Son
Spouse of the Holy Spirit
And Jesus being our spiritual brother Mary is our spiritual mother!
God has no mother:
God is uncreated and eternal!
God the son does have a mother!
Mary is the mother of God!
It does not mean that Mary is the mother or source of the divine nature of God, or the mother of the father or the mother of the spirit.
it is a relationship between mother and child, Mary and Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is God;
Mary is His mother;
Mary is the mother of God to deny this is to deny the divinity of Christ and scripture. Lk 1:43
Cannot have Jesus as your spiritual brother unless Mary is your spiritual Mother!
Anyone who has no mother is an orphan.
Jesus said to His disciples; “I will not leave you orphaned” and “behold Thy mother”!
Jn 19:26 spiritual mother
Rev 12:19 spiritual mother
It is Mary who gave birth to the mystical Body of Christ!
We must obey the 4th commandment, “honor Thy father and mother”!
We must obey scripture and call Her “blessed”! Lk 1:48
Our salvation is in Mary!
Mother of our salvation!
Mary gave birth to our salvation and all us who are born again in Christ!
The Lord is with Her!
Thanks
Im sure you don’t understand, its all good i’ll answer any objections
What you mean is 'catholic'. This is wrong, of course, because the RCC is NOT the Apostolic Church.
It's an unproven assumption that the Biblical term 'apostolic' somehow refers to the church that invented mary-worship, saint-worship, integrating graven images into their beliefs, indulgences, etc. The RCC.
Someone can assert that Eastern Orthodox is the Apostolic Church. Then how will you defend your assumption??
NonBiblical.
RCC's love to exalt Mary above & beyond what Scripture says about her.
So then this is CONTRA Biblical. This implies God was not eternal, but that He came from something.
Tell me, is mary a created being? How is that 'mother of His Person' possible?
Why did mary need to be sinless to give birth to Jesus, but her mother didn't need to be, if Mary was always sinless? And then it goes on ad infinitum.
God's 'entire person' was and is eternal. It did not 'begin', it always was.
If mary created God, or somehow played a part in His "origin", then shouldn't she be eternal, and there was a point when God did not exist??
WRONG.
She is just predicting that all generations will call her blessed.
She was simply blessed with carrying Jesus. SHE WAS NOT GRANTED SUPERPOWERS AND A HIGH AUTHROITY STATUS LIKE RCC'S TEACH.
You have *zero* evidence that Luke 1:48 is a command.
Why wouldn't she say "MUST" or "SHOULD"?
"lowly state of His maidservant;" Why would mary be LOWLY if she were above God, His origin, eternal, or sinless????
If mary is the mother of God's Person , shouldnt she have authority over Him? If not why not?
This is made up and nowhere in Scripture.
By this logic, her parents are also our spiritual parents.
If you are trying to quote or paraphrase Luke, you are incorrect. And using EIGESIS. That's no suprise, an RCC using eigesis.
"43And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
Berean Standard Bible
Nowhere in that verse is there denying Divinity. 'The mother of my Lord' refers to His body, not His Person, or His 'essence'.
Mystical??? That's a term applied to and believed by pagans.
No wonder, for the RCC is a branch of Christianity that was influenced by paganism. This proves the RCC is NOT the Biblical Apostolic church.
the Bible: "Be ye NOT OF the world" // RCC: "How about i do, anyway?"
What do you mean by the phrase "is in"??
Salvation is a Gift from God. Are you telling me that Jesus IS salvation? How can He be God if He is simply the gift of salvation?
Jesus is God so are you implying that God IS salvation? If God is a gift then how can He give Himself? How is He personal?? God is not His gifts!
If i send you a present, do I become a present? No, i stay a human.
The douay rheims is a bad translation.
As one says, ". It’s a translation of the Vulgate, which is a translation from the Greek and Hebrew that has errors in it.
Honestly, unless you’re pushing an agenda, why would you ever use a translation of a translation?"
the Church since even before Vatican IIhas not regarded the Vulgate as inerrant
"
The first principle was that the basic text for translating had to be the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. This was considered to be even better than the Greek ‘in those places where they disagree.’ This is still the first principle for any translation approved by Rome and therefore, strictly speaking, Roman Catholic versions of the Bible are revisions rather than translations. The translators of the Douai Bible kept Latin words, and even phrases, and admitted to a word-for-word approach at times. This occasionally led to such unhelpful renderings as ‘against the Spirituals of wickedness in the celestials’ (Eph. 6:12). If a verb is not required in the Latin (or the Greek), it is not supplied in the English either, therefore they rendered Hebrews 13:4 as ‘Marriage honourable in all.’ The Psalms contain some quite unintelligible phrases because here Jerome translated from the Septuagint; the Douai Psalms are therefore a translation from a translation of a translation! However, it has to be admitted that this Bible was clearly dependent in a large measure upon Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva Bible—an irony indeed.
The marks of Roman Catholic theology are nevertheless evident. John and Jesus both call upon their hearers to ‘do penance, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Our Lord prays that ‘this chalice’ might pass from him, and Paul and Barnabas ordain ‘priests in every church.’ The Douai Bible included the Apocrypha, with the exception of the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, which were printed separately at the end. The commentary that ran alongside the text helped the faithful to interpret the Bible from a Roman Catholic perspective.
Bishop Richard Challoner revised the Douai Bible in the eighteenth century (1750) and this version, which was influenced to a considerable extent by the Authorized Version, lasted until the Confraternity Version in 1941. Even this was based upon the Latin Vulgate, although it was preceded by the commencement of the Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures in 1935 based upon the Hebrew and Greek texts.
By far the most popular English translation for Roman Catholics, partly because it is an official version, is that of Ronald A. Knox, called ‘a translation from the Latin Vulgate in the light of Hebrew and Greek originals.’ This was completed in 1949 but its great weakness was in being tied to a copy of the Vulgate authorized in 1592 and clearly not accurate in places.
It is not always appreciated that the Jerusalem Bible is a Roman Catholic translation. Published in 1966, the full version contains commentary notes to draw out Roman Catholic theology. For example, the note on Exodus 12 claims, ‘The Jewish Passover becomes a rehearsal for the Christian passover, the Lamb of God, Christ, is sacrificed (the cross) and eaten (the Last Supper) . . . The mystical re-enactment of this redemptive act becomes the central feature of the Christian liturgy, organized around the Mass which is at once a sacrifice and a sacrificial meal.’ The notes are also clearly liberal: the note on Jonah dismisses Jonah as the author and claims the book was written at a late date, concluding, ‘The late date is warning enough against any interpretation of the book as history.’
The Jerusalem Bible is of little value as a translation, though it is still the most widely used for reading in Roman Catholic churches. However, Roman Catholics are now permitted to use the Revised English Bible, and later editions of the Revised Standard Version under the title ‘The Common Bible.’
"
answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/from-vulgate-to-vulgar/
You are only half right. Orphans have no PARENTS not 'no mother' .
- A child whose parent(s) are dead.
This doesn't make sense.
Were they Born Again?
Or catholic? If they were not Born Again they do not qualify as an Apostle.
The Biblical Apostles were Born Again, right? Not RCC.
Blessings in Christ, gentlemen.
This thread has kinda played out, and we need to shut it down at this point. Please feel free to start a new one if you wish to continue debating the current topics, and thanks for your polite and courteous exchanges.
In Christ,
Hidden in Him
- Status