Grip Docility
Well-Known Member
- Nov 27, 2017
- 7,019
- 2,785
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
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, that is modalism.-Ok i have replied to your questions.
Now do you hold to the Oneness view that, Jesus is the Father and the Spirit and the Son!
A "form of Deity"? That doesn't mean anything. Jesus Christ is God or He isn't.Jesus was a form of Deity, no doubt.
Of course yes. Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. The Blessed Virgin is His mother. So whether it offends uber Protestant sensibilities, the Blessed Virgin Mary is the God Bearer, the Mother of God.Ca
Was Mary then Mother of God? Of course not.
Then you must deny that Jesus is God.God does not have a mother.
Sorry, but that's simple heresy. Our Lord is not "God in the form of a man", He is God, end of.However, in the form of man God did have a mother
Except being His mother., who had nothing whatsoever to do with producing a divine child.
The same can be said of your mother, or anyone else'sShe just "had him."
That's like saying that becuase no one remembers King David's mother that he didn't have one.The emphasis here was not on Mary, but on the Lord, who Mary carried.
Sorry, that's just gibberish.In Mary coming, she brought the Lord with her. You are turning this around to be about Mary, rather than about the Lord she carried.
The context is not about Mary. Quite simply "all" either means every individual or it does not. So far you've admitted you consider Jesus to be an exception. I've brought up babies now twice, and you've avoided a specific response twice. What sin do you accuse newborns of committing? What about severely handicapped people who don't have the capacity to make moral decisions?You are very poor at arguing things. Language is not geometric, but a vehicle for conveying information. A word, such as "all," can mean many things. But it is *context* that matters, and the thing that defines what "all" means in a particular instance.
In this case, "all" is not exhaustively referring to Jesus. It's common sense, but you have to use it.
If I say "everyone is getting sick," the context would be determining that "everyone" does not include everyone in all places and in all times. The common sense understanding would be that I'm referring generally to a trend that has become dominant and that *many*--not "all," are getting sick. It *appears* that "all" are getting sick. You are clearly playing with words.
In some cases "all" would be referring, in context, to all of *created* mankind, excluding the Son of God whose body was created but whose divine personality was uncreated. By definition he would be excluded.
But then again, understanding this requires "common sense." And I wish you would use it?
No, that is modalism.
You believe as I have known you believe. You express it well, in this post. We do not disagree on any words with this quote. Iron sharpens Iron.Jesus is God, He, Jesus is God The Son and has all the fullness of the Godhead as The Father and The Holy Spirit has. Meaning Jesus is not a lesser part of The Godhead. Jesus is co equal with The Father and The Spirit.
Jesus is not The Father or Jesus is not The Holy Spirit. The only way to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life and become a permanent born again child of God is to believe in Jesus. Believing that Jesus is who He said He is: The Son of God The promised Messiah, the resurrection and the Life.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
So there you go, take however you want.
I'm sorry, whose mother was that? Are you referring to Jesus, Who is God Incarnate? Last post you said, quite emphatically, that He didn't have a mother. Now you agree that He did.Nobody is denying that Jesus' mother gave birth to a divine child!
One and inseparable, OM. Not three gods, but One God. There's no prying them apart.What I deny is that God the Father has a "mother!"
No, it is simple fact. And in light of the ancient Creeds of the Church, to deny that the Blessed Virgin is the mother of God is heretical.It is heresy to say that God has a Mother
God is obviously a self-existent entity. No, the BVM didn't create God. Then again, no mother "creates" her child. Every living soul is a creation of God.and is not a self-existent entity.
And what I see you saying is that God the father is God, but God the Son is Not God. That, mi compa, is heresy, of the rankest kind.In saying Jesus had a mother is not the same thing as saying God the Father has a Mother!!
You shoud have been looking in the mirror when you typed that. That is Good New Fashioned American Protestantism reaching back across the centuries to pull Nestorianism out of the junk yard of history and peddle it as though it had improved with age. It hasn't, it was heresy back then, and it's heresy now. But it sorts well with the modalist view of the Trinity that was the standard Sunday School fare back in my Baptist days.You heretic!
You'd think the two had at least some relationship to each other, wouldn't you?This isn't about the Deity of Christ. It isn't about Christology.
And Christ is God.It is rather about the doctrine of God.
Which is impossible to gainsay.And that holds that God is eternally self-existent, and the source of all else.
Is Christ God? Simple binary answer set, He is, or He is not. If not, then go off and be an Aryan. If so, then God Has A Mother.He did not have a Mother since He had no beginning.
So far I've seen little evidence of that. It looks a lot more Aryan or Nestorian.I understand Trinitarian theology
Inseparable. Christ is God., and we are not arguing Christology.
A "form of Deity", was it?I've never said Jesus is partly God and partly Man
Dunno what that is supposed to mean.. God did not simply inhabit Man, whether as a spirit or as a mind, nor as the Word of God.
Jesus is God or He is not. Oerthodoxy says Jesus is God, no circumlocution allowed.Jesus is entirely the product of God's Word representing the full Deity of God. I've neve said anything else.
Yo intiendo. So, do you believe that Jesus is God? A yes or no will suffice.My opinion is: tu no comprendes!
Then you're embracing the Nestorian Heresy.God as an omnipotent, infinite Being had no mother to give Him birth. But as the Son of God it is said that the God-Man had a mother, namely Mary. I can go with this.
I agree that you are "lost for words."
So far so good.-Jesus is God
If I'm reading it properly, you're bang on so far., He, Jesus is God The Son and has all the fullness of the Godhead as The Father and The Holy Spirit has. Meaning Jesus is not a lesser part of The Godhead. Jesus is co equal with The Father and The Spirit.
You're on a roll...Jesus is not The Father or Jesus is not The Holy Spirit.
Not gonna argue soteriology right now, but in simplest terms that isn't wrong.The only way to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life and become a permanent born again child of God is to believe in Jesus.
Yes.It's the same old argument. Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Yes.Jesus is God.
Yes.So Mary is the mother of God.
The point is that Protestants don't think we ought to say that, because they aremn't really comfortable with the idea of Jesus being the Word Who was made flesh and dwelt among us.You miss the point, or refuse to acknowledge it.
Only if you're trying to dodge around the fact that Jesus is God.There is a difference between saying Mary is the mother of Jesus and saying Mary is the mother of God.
Jesus is God Incarnate of He isn't. No weaseling.The difference is if we mean by "Mother of God" that Deity in its infinite form has a "mother."
God has become an "it" now. Hmmmm...It does not.
Deity has a mother only in its finite form.
As you're using it it seems to imply the "shape" or "appearance" of God, which is of course bogus. Jesus is God.But you have a problem with the word "form," and apparently with any Bible translator that translates Philippians 2 as such?
I've not disputed whether "master" can be applied to God. He is indeed a "master" and a "lord." But the word "Lord" is not always synonymous with "God," no. It is an interpretive fallacy to apply the word "Lord" in the same way in different contexts.The Septuagint was the first complete Bible that could be utilized by individuals and contained the entire OT, as well as the Deuterocanonical books. The practice of using the Greek word kyrios was carried forward in the NT.
You apparently don't understand what Arianism was? It viewed Jesus as somewhere between God and Man, but not God Himself. Jesus was God in the form of the Son. The Son, however, was not the Father. That is Modalism.This is the picture of Semi-Arianism, if not full blown Arianism.
Yes, Philippians indicates Jesus was the "form" of God--not matter what synonym you wish to use. Do you believe that all synonyms, because they are different words, are not really synonyms?Thirdly, the very word "FORM" as it is used in Philippians 2 is not how you are using it, but is fully a proof to the very usage of the matter being expressed by the people that you are disagreeing with.
Not at all. I'm saying the Son is not the Father. Jesus is God's Word made flesh. Jesus is not the Father. Rather, he is God in human form, aka the Son.You are saying that Jesus is not God.
Yes, it's already been answered. It's a metaphorical "mother" of Jesus and of the 12 tribes of Israel. Mary did not give birth to all 12 tribes of Israel!@Xeno.of.athens stated that the Child is Jesus, thus, even if you focus on Israel, that the Child's mother is clearly Mary.
Do you deny that simple truth within scripture?
You instantly show no understanding of the issue! Mary did not give birth to God the Father! Did Mary give birth to a limited form of God? Yes! Jesus was the Word of God, but only presented the Father in his human form.Such a divine and beautiful mystery. Yes, that infinite, timeless, unborn, uncreated God took human flesh born of a woman.
I've already argued this.A "form of Deity"? That doesn't mean anything. Jesus Christ is God or He isn't.
You reject the rules of grammar, which require "context" for any word to be properly understood, including the word "all."The context is not about Mary. Quite simply "all" either means every individual or it does not.
No, you're confused. Jesus had a mother. God the Father did not have a mother.I'm sorry, whose mother was that? Are you referring to Jesus, Who is God Incarnate? Last post you said, quite emphatically, that He didn't have a mother. Now you agree that He did.
No, I accept Christ had 2 natures, divine and human, simultaneously and inseparably. The Father, however, is not the Son. They are the expression of 2 Persons--not just 1 Person.Then you're embracing the Nestorian Heresy.
No, but she gave birth to God. What you and @d taylor seem to be missing is the concept of the Persons of the Trinity being homoousios - "consubstantial" or "of the same essence." This is how the Son can be God and the Father can be God without the Son being the Father, and without the Son or the Father being only "part of God" or three gods.You instantly show no understanding of the issue! Mary did not give birth to God the Father!
You obviously don't know Protestants or wish to slander them. I don't know of a single Protestant who rejects Jesus being the Word of God made flesh!The point is that Protestants don't think we ought to say that, because they aremn't really comfortable with the idea of Jesus being the Word Who was made flesh and dwelt among us.
What makes you think I don't understand that? I believe the Father and Son are united by divine "substance."No, but she gave birth to God. What you and @d taylor seem to be missing is the concept of the Persons of the Trinity being homoousios - "consubstantial" or "of the same essence." This is how the Son can be God and the Father can be God without the Son being the Father, and without the Son or the Father being only "part of God" or three gods.
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?