Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No.If Jesus is fully God, and God exists outside of time, and is ever present in the past, now, and in the future (the eternal NOW), from God's perspective, was there a moment where Mary wasn't the Mother of God?
Well, that is intellectually thin.Thanks, but I am not too interested. Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. I do not want bear the whole burden of "historical theology", names, places, years who said what against whom etc. I do not see anything useful in it, for me.
As I already said, the title can be acceptable when properly explained, but is still useless. And in many cases its understood wrongly and needs the explanation, which makes it even harmful. So I would not use it.
Jesus was 100% Human and 100% God, which makes Him 200% which is why His incarnation is a mystery and He is Supernatural which can't be applied to Mary.This is like a game of dodge ball. You wonder why peoples patience is running a bit thin. Various respected members asked you your thoughts/beliefs regarding Jesus' humanity and in particular His divinity at the time of his birth (take it back to His conception). Instead, you divert and deflect. We are not discussing the Blessed Virgin Mary's humanity; that is not in question; the question is regarding your beliefs regarding to the dual nature of Jesus Christ.
Bottom line is if He is conceived and born with both natures, Mary can not be mother to half a baby.
Instead of answering questions with questions; maybe try and be less of a politician and answer with a straight answer.
I will try and make this as simple as possible:
Was Jesus the Christ both Human and Divine at the moment of His concepting and birth?
Please answer the question.
Christians have misused that scripture in much worse ways. It has been used to ‘justify’ all kinds of mass atrocities, including the treatment of indigenous people here in the US.A lot of "violent" images in the OT which some non-believers use to attack Christianity.
This is something Jesus would never say.Well, that is intellectually thin.
Sure he would.This is something Jesus would never say.
Jesus was 100% Human and 100% God, which makes Him 200% which is why His incarnation is a mystery and He is Supernatural which can't be applied to Mary.
Mary was the mother of Jesus 100% human. She took care of Him as a baby and raised Him as all good mothers should do, but Jesus was very clear He was on earth to go about His heavenly Fathers business (God in Heaven), not His earthy parents.
Why Mary is always called the mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. John 2:3 Acts 1:14
God existed outside of time, Mary did not, so she can't be the mother of God, which is what this indicates and reducing Jesus as more of a created being with this title or elevating Mary way more than the bible teaches. Yes, I know I was told its just a "title" but titles mean something so it best not to make one up and elevate beyond what we are told in scripture.
I'm not sure I can explain it any better. If you don't agree, that's okay, all gets sorted out soon enough.
If he turns back, he was the latter.He specifically said that if he turns BACK his SOUL will be saved from death. The only thing the person can turn BACK to that will save his SOUL from death is the truth about Christ.
See post #82.You didn't answer the issue put forth by @trophy33 . You evidently don't have time to thoughtfully discuss when people don't agree with your infallible interpretation.
And that is the issue. . .keeping in mind that the least of these are specifically stated as Christ's brethren.When they misuse the Scripture to justify disobeying God's command, yes. The Apostles kept the commandment.
Lol so if he doesn’t turn back to what he believed before he was never saved? But you teach that an unsaved person can’t believe the gospel to begin with. So how can he believe the gospel then turn away resulting in condemnation when you say that no one can believe the gospel unless they’re saved?If he turns back, he was the latter.
I have clearly explained that I do not see Mt 8:5 as necessarily excluding the intermediaries, anymore than the flogging of Jesus by Pilate necessarily excludes the soldiers.Did you even read the texts? One says: "Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him",
another says " So when he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him".
Precisely!Lol so if he doesn’t turn back to what he believed before he was never saved? But you teach that
an unsaved person can’t believe the gospel to begin with.
You’re saying that if he strayed then he never really believed. So turning him back to not really believing will save his soul from death? No, that doesn’t work either.Precisely!
Had he really believed it, he would never have left it.
His leaving it demonstrates he was never among the true believers (1 Jn 2:19), his faith had been counterfeit (Mt 7:21-23).
If strayed means falling into sin, he could be a sinner of true faith who needs to be restored.You’re saying that if he strayed then he never really believed
Correct. It's a slap in the face of God to use Holy Scripture to harm people.Christians have misused that scripture in much worse ways. It has been used to ‘justify’ all kinds of mass atrocities, including the treatment of indigenous people here in the US.
God killing or ordering the killing of large groups of people including all of the children presents a legitimate moral problem. Some Christians lose their faith wrestling with it.
As I pointed out 1 John 2:19 doesn’t say that.His "faith" was not true, it was a counterfeit faith (1 Jn 2:19).
True faith perseveres.
Turning back people who have “counterfeit faith” doesn’t save anyone UNLESS they previously believed.There won't be any turning back those of counterfeit faith.
I don’t get your point here we’re both saying they weren’t believers.And that doesn't work for sure. . .
They claimed to be believers, but denied
the incarnation (1 Jn 4:2, 2 Jn 7),
that Jesus is the divine Christ (1 Jn 2:22).
the Father, are liars (1 Jn 2:22), do not have the Father (1 Jn 2:23), and are deceivers (2 Jn 7),
who left the church because they did not have anything in common with believers (1 Jn 2:19).
Which is exactly what I said.Working miracles in Jesus' name indicates they professed to be believers. . .their faith was counterfeit.So neither of those passages have anything to do with believers who fall away.
You’re completely ignoring the fact that TURNING THEM BACK will save their soul from death. Key word here BACK. They STRAYED and they need to turn BACK to be saved. You keep trying to twist it into saying something else but every time you do it doesn’t line up with what the passage says.James is talking about those who profess faith.
Which belief can be counterfeit.As I pointed out 1 John 2:19 doesn’t say that.
Turning back people who have “counterfeit faith” doesn’t save anyone UNLESS they previously believed.
And those of counterfeit faith will not be turned back.You keep missing the point that the only thing that they can turn BACK to that will save them is the truth of the gospel.
I don’t get your point here we’re both saying they weren’t believers.
Which is exactly what I said.
You’re completely ignoring the fact that TURNING THEM BACK will save their soul from death. Key word here BACK. They STRAYED and they need to turn BACK to be saved. You keep trying to twist it into saying something else but every time you do it doesn’t line up with what the passage says.
You are not the only one who ever had struggled with these truthes; many other Christians from early times on to present day have. It was because of the misunderstandings of the nature of God in respect to the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ that further explanation was needed and a third, more comprehensive creed was drafted by the Church, known primarily as the Athanasian Creed. Here are a couple excerpts that show that from the early times of the Church, it was accepted that one can not separate the two natures; human and divine are one Christ, Christ is not a grafting together of the two.Jesus was 100% Human and 100% God, which makes Him 200% which is why His incarnation is a mystery and He is Supernatural which can't be applied to Mary.
Mary was the mother of Jesus 100% human. She took care of Him as a baby and raised Him as all good mothers should do, but Jesus was very clear He was on earth to go about His heavenly Fathers business (God in Heaven), not His earthy human parents.
Why Mary is always called the mother of Jesus, not the mother of God. John 2:3 Acts 1:14
God existed outside of time, Mary did not, so she can't be the mother of God, which is what this indicates and reducing Jesus as more of a created being with this title or elevating Mary way more than the bible teaches. Yes, I know I was told its just a "title" but titles mean something so it best not to make one up and elevate beyond what we are told in scripture.
I'm not sure I can explain it any better. If you don't agree, that's okay, all gets sorted out soon enough.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?