"Jesus is God" = Mary is "the mother of God"

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

then to me Mary would be the mother of Jesus the human and is not connected to the transcendent aspect. I don't agree Mary has to be the mother of both the 'fully god and fully human' Jesus. I think that misunderstands the idea of a transcendent entity.

Theres no point trying to split Jesus' divinity and humanity.... because Jesus was a single entity... who was born of Mary.
Also, explanations like the one you have given is simply unbiblical.

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

What do YOU believe about Jesus?
Do you think he is God?

Jesus was a man, of flesh and blood, like you and me.

Christ is the son of God, so Christ is also a God.

Christ is the spirit that took possession of Jesus the man, and the Father + Christ + Jesus became one.

So, Jesus Christ is the begotten son of God the Father, because Christ is begotten of the Spirit.

But, Jesus is begotten of Mary, a woman of flesh and blood. So, Mary is the mother of the man God blessed with his Holy Spirt by joining him to his son Christ.

So Christ came into the flesh, and walked among men.

But, men could not see Christ, because he is spirit, they only saw Jesus the man.

Jesus spoke with the voice of Christ while teaching, but spoke with his own voice on occasions.

The classic case is Jesus on the cross, when he cried out,

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? KJV Matthew 27:46

At the point Christ left the body of Jesus, the man Jesus was alone on the cross, suffering pain, and cried out, wondering why Christ had deserted him in that painful hour.

Christ was the miracle worker, and had the power to make Jesus feel no pain, but instead he deserted Jesus at the last minute.

This was to show everyone that Jesus was just a man of flesh and blood, and all the miracles done in his life were done by his Father, not the man Jesus himself.

After that little skit, Christ reunited with Jesus again, and rose him up from the dead. The rest is history.

Interesting...

Do you believe the trinity to be true?

reply to post by queenofangels_17

Not so. God comprehends everything in His Knowledge. Everything that have happened and will happen is known to Him.

The OP was just trying to attribute his mistakes, if he had made any to himself. Only GOD doesn't make mistake; we all do from time to time, unless God guides us.

Exactly. That person doesn't know where I was quoting that from.

reply to post by Agoyahtah


Thank you for taking time to post here.

I'd like to point out that you are splitting Jesus, into a divine "Christ" half and a fleshly "Jesus" half.
But Jesus never taught any of this.

Jesus said "I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me." and "I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will." So he was a human servant of God... and a son of Mary.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I'd like to point out that you are splitting Jesus, into a divine "Christ" half and a fleshly "Jesus" half.
But Jesus never taught any of this.

Did he not say the body is more then meat?

reply to post by Akragon

Did he not say the body is more then meat?

Well, yes the body is more than meat.... as it has a spirit. Without the spirit, we are dead.
Jesus also had a body and a spirit.

But that person was trying to split Jesus into a divine "Christ" AND a human "Jesus".
The human Jesus half apparently retained sentience after Christ left the body of Jesus. This to me sounds like Jesus had a split personality... a divine half and a human half who did not seem to understand the divine half.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Well I wasn't trying to give a biblical explanation as I am not a Christian. I was just addressing the specific conundrum which I thought was more about the relationship between the temporal and the transcendent. I think it's perfectly reasonable (not perfectly believable) to say Mary was the mother of Jesus the man and not God, even if Jesus is both man and God.

Theres no point trying to split Jesus' divinity and humanity.... because Jesus was a single entity...

I am not splitting. It's already split. Saying he was a single entity in the way you mean it is missing what it means to be transcendent. That divinity exists on a metaphysical realm and therefore is distinct from the physical i.e a human mother for example.

Anyways that's just my thoughts. As I am not a Christian I am not going to go beyond this..no need

Originally posted by Akragon

Interesting...

Do you believe the trinity to be true?

Is ICE , WATER, STEAM three things or one thing?

Sometimes H2O appears as a solid substance, other times it appears like a liquid, and it can also take the form of a gas. That's three forms of the same thing. All things are made from the same substance, but they are yet three.

So, whether you consider this to be one thing or three things depends on what aspect of it you're focused on.

reply to post by Agoyahtah


Cute...

Star for the amusing analogy

But...

None of these states of this element can exist in the same space as another...

So logically the Father can not exist as the son in the same place...

Which negates their "oneness"

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Agoyahtah

 

Thank you for taking time to post here.

I'd like to point out that you are splitting Jesus, into a divine "Christ" half and a fleshly "Jesus" half.
But Jesus never taught any of this.

Jesus said "I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me." and "I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will." So he was a human servant of God... and a son of Mary.

Although Jesus was of divine seed, he was Jesus the man, until the spirit of Christ descended upon him,

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. KJV Mark 1:9

And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: KJV Mark 1:10

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. KJV Mark 1:11

And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. KJV Mark 1:12

God the Father is invisible. The Spirit "seen" descending upon Jesus like a Dove is the Christ, at that point he becomes "Jesus Christ". And the Father in Heaven blessed the union of Jesus + Christ with the saying "Thou art my beloved Son, In whome I am well pleased."

Now, he is Jesus Christ, son of God.

Before he is Jesus of Nazareth, the man, son of Mary, destined to become Jesus Christ.

The "baptism" was a necessary initiation to form the union of the Christ spirit to the Holy Man.

Originally posted by Akragon

None of these states of this element can exist in the same space as another...

So logically the Father can not exist as the son in the same place...

Which negates their "oneness"

It doesn't matter, it's the same element. Think of the H2O molecules as in constant communication with each other by electromagnetic waves. The ICE molecules talk to the WATER molecules and the STEAM molecules, and are always in contact with each other, no matter what forms appear in this space or that space. They are all connected and form the substance of the one being at the foundation of the all.

reply to post by Agoyahtah


Wouldn't every human, animal, element be included as equal in that equasion?

reply to post by truejew

Jesus is the Father in flesh. Mary was the mother of the Son of God, but the Spirit of the Son of God is the Father. The Father existed before the birth of the Son.Therefore Mary is not the Mother of the Father/God

You are simply concocting your own theology...and complicating things even further.

You say....
1. Mary is the mother of the son of God (Jesus).
2. Jesus is the father in flesh... i.e God

So it makes Mary the mother of the father in flesh. And you are back to Mary being the mother of God.

The thing is, Mary would be the mother of whatever Jesus is. Its basic common sense.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Its basic common sense.

Predicated on the belief there is no metaphysical existence then sure.

Like I said it IS reasonable, however improbable, when you use the concepts appropriately. You are just omitting the metaphysical entirely (divinity) in order for your argument to work.

Mary doesn't give birth to God. God existed before Mary. Mary gives birth to a human. Jesus being connected to divinity is not connected to the temporal event of being birthed by a human mother.

You're evaluating it purely through physical terms.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Predicated on the belief there is no metaphysical existence then sure.

Like I said it IS reasonable, however improbable, when you use the concepts appropriately. You are just omitting the metaphysical entirely (divinity) in order for your argument to work.

Mary doesn't give birth to God. God existed before Mary. Mary gives birth to a human. Jesus being connected to divinity is not connected to the temporal event of being birthed by a human mother.

You're are evaluating it purely through physical terms. That being the case, you really should just be saying Mary didn't give birth to Jesus the son of God because there is no God.

If I am evaluating this on physical terms... its because christians claim the physical Jesus is God in the flesh.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Then you should take a philosophy of religion course to better understand the idea of how the metaphysical relates to the temporal. I don't mean that in a negative and condescending way truly... but your evaluation simply doesn't give these concepts justice.

It seems if you want to evaluate specifics in their religion you would use their concepts. If your interest is more about just saying Mary didn't give birth to Jesus the son of God because there is no Christian God then just say that

I don't believe there is a Christian God therefore I don't believe Jesus was divinely connected to the Christian God. However I can see when using the appropriate theological terms how this particular aspect of their religion isn't an 'inconsistency'.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Agoyahtah

 

Wouldn't every human, animal, element be included as equal in that equasion?

Yes, everything is within the one God. But there are different aspects. To know God, all you have to do is reduce all your activity and let your attention rest on what remains:

Be still, and know that I am God: KJV Psalms 46:10

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


(continued)

You are just omitting the metaphysical entirely (divinity) in order for your argument to work. "

I am in no way denying or omitting the metaphysical aspect of things at all. Its just it has no bearing on the subject of the OP.

Mary doesn't give birth to God. God existed before Mary. Mary gives birth to a human. Jesus being connected to divinity is not connected to the temporal event of being birthed by a human mother.

You may have missed the part about Christians claiming Marys son was God in the flesh. (Despite the fact that the angel who announced Jesus' birth said nothing of that sort.)

So when Christians say that Jesus is God in the flesh... then we go back to Mary being the mother of God.

This is regardless of the metaphysical angle you are approaching this from. Which is why I said that metaphysics has no bearing on the subject involving Jesus and Mary.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
You may have missed the part about Christians claiming Marys son was God in the flesh.
When Christians say that Jesus is God in the flesh... then we go back to Mary being the mother of God.

I have already acknowledged and addressed this. Can you respond to that?..

This is regardless of the metaphysical angle you are approaching this from.

Can you paraphrase, I am not sure I understand.

Which is why I said that metaphysics has no bearing on the subject involving Jesus and Mary.

It is completely totally relevant. Should I use the word supernatural instead? God, and divinity, exist beyond the temporal physical world ergo they are metaphysical. To omit that is not different than just saying there is no God. If that's really what the OP is about then that should of been more clear.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

It is completely totally relevant. Should I use the word supernatural instead? God, and divinity, exist beyond the temporal physical world ergo they are metaphysical. To omit that is not different than just saying there is no God. If that's really what the OP is about then that should of been more clear.

I 100% agree with you that God and divinity exist beyond the physical world. That is simply stating the obvious. Me not bringing it up in a thread about the mother-son relationship of Mary and Jesus does not mean I am omitting or denying it.

Im not bringing up metaphysics simply because it has no bearing on the mother-son relationship, which is a scriptural thing. It poses a theological problem for christians who claim that Jesus is God... Because if Jesus is God, then Mary becomes the mother of God.