1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Does God have a Mother?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Eliyahu, Dec 11, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 8 of 18
  1. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why do you believe these OT apperances were in a "human" body and not some kind of angelic body?

    Why is Mary called Jesus "mother" in scripture (in the main narrative, not just when quoting others)?

    Do you believe Jesus flesh, the flesh that Mary gave birth to, was devine (God)?     </font>[/QUOTE]Are you claiming that "Elohim's" body was just an "angelic body"? Do you believe His body is just "angelic" today? Do you believe the body Jesus Had prior to His earthly ministry was anything but the glorified body He currently has?
     
    #141 webdog, Dec 13, 2005
  2. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Please explain how "divine flesh" can bleed, be cut and bruised...and ultimately die. This is not taking away from the fact that Jesus, even with his perishable earthly body (which Mary gave birth to) is God. Mary never gave birth to Jesus' glorified body, the one He had prior to His earthly ministry, and the one He has now.
     
    #142 webdog, Dec 13, 2005
  3. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not exactly. I am claiming there is no reason to believe it was a "human" body.

    I believe Jesus is still 100% God and 100% man, in his glorified body.

    Again, there is no reason to believe his body was "human" in the OT. If it was, there was no need to be born of a virgin, he could have just appeared like he did in the OT.

    Also, glorification of the body requires resurrection from the dead, which of course did not happen before his crucifixion.

    So, how about answering my questions, now that I've answered yours?
     
    #143 natters, Dec 13, 2005
  4. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please explain how "divine flesh" can bleed, be cut and bruised...and ultimately die.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Is that a "no"?

    Explain how it isn't. It sure looks like it is to me.
     
    #144 natters, Dec 13, 2005
  5. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    What kind of body did Christ have, then? Angelic? Jesus is 100% God and 100% man. You seem to indicate that Jesus' glorified body is only angelic, negating the "man".
    There isn't? You are claiming Christ has not always been 100% God and 100% man?
     
    #145 webdog, Dec 13, 2005
  6. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Please explain how "divine flesh" can bleed, be cut and bruised...and ultimately die.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Is that a "no"?

    Explain how it isn't. It sure looks like it is to me.     </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that is a no. Mary gave birth to the body Jesus used while atoning for the sins of man. Jesus' glorified body cannot die...as our glorified bodies someday will not die. Will we cease to be human then? NO! We will always be human...we will not have our old bodies that die, but glorified ones.
     
    #146 webdog, Dec 13, 2005
  7. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, exactly. He became man at the incarnation. I do not know what kind of body he had when he appeared in the OT.

    If was already 100% human before the incarnation, there was no need to be born of a virgin, he could have just appeared like he did in the OT.

    YOUR TURN:

    Why do you believe these OT apperances were in a "human" body and not some other kind of body?

    Why is Mary called Jesus "mother" in scripture (in the main narrative, not just when quoting others)?

    Do you believe Jesus flesh, the flesh that Mary gave birth to, was divine (God)?
     
    #147 natters, Dec 13, 2005
  8. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then how do you explain "the Word became flesh"?

    I agree. Glorified bodies are what our bodies become after resurrection from the dead.
     
    #148 natters, Dec 13, 2005
  9. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    They were in His glorified body...the same body He left with and will be coming back again.
    She gave birth to Jesus' "flesh" that needed to die to atone for the sins of man. She never gave birth to Jesus' glorified body...the one He appeared with in the OT and at Pentecost.
     
    #149 webdog, Dec 13, 2005
  10. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Then how do you explain "the Word became flesh"?

    I agree. Glorified bodies are what our bodies become after resurrection from the dead.     </font>[/QUOTE]The greek for "flesh" is meat. Meat dies and rots. Jesus became nothing (flesh) through Mary. This is not his glorified body.

    You believe Jesus only had a glorified body after He was resurrected? What do you believe He had prior to "becoming flesh"?
     
    #150 webdog, Dec 13, 2005
  11. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    They were in His glorified body...the same body He left with and will be coming back again.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. A glorified human body requires resurrection from the dead.

    "and the Word was God" (John 1:1). "And the Word was made flesh" (John 1:14)

    Webdog, you really need to talk to your pastor about this, as well as study orthodox Christian doctrine on this matter. The position you are taking is accepted by neither Baptist nor orthodox Christianity. I hope you take this advice very seriously.
     
    #151 natters, Dec 13, 2005
  12. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Again, what kind of body did Jesus have prior to His earthly ministry?
    Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

    I do not disagree with this. Your point?
    Thank you for your concern...but what position exactly is not accepted? Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
     
    #152 webdog, Dec 14, 2005
  13. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not know. But there is no reason to believe it was "human". It would make the virgin birth pointless.

    1 Cor 15:39-40 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

    I do not disagree with this. Your point?
    </font>[/QUOTE]It appears you do disagree with this. It says the Word, God, divine, was made flesh. Yet you said the flesh was not divine.

    1. That his body was human before the incarnation.
    2. That his human body after the incarnation was not divine (God).
    3. That Mary is the mother of only the 100% man.
    4. That Mary was nothing more than a human incubator.

    If that verse means what you think it means, it defeats your position as well, for then he couldn't have "become "nothing" through Mary", and then he couldn't have a different body before his crucifixion than he did after his resurrection.

    Seriously. Talk to your pastor. This is important.

    I'm signing off for the night. [​IMG]
     
    #153 natters, Dec 14, 2005
  14. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    16
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let me start over again today.
    I think 2 types of understanding are possible, about the nature of Jesus Christ.
    First, I want to re-think about what Natters mentioned yesterday, &lt;Do you believe Christ's humanity is divine?&gt;, and want to comment on webdog's idea which I believe very much to the point and to some extent, we can match together all the possible ideas.

    1) Webdog's idea coincides with my explanation about the birth and also, if we take the idea of natters that the humanity may be divine, then as divinity existed from eternity to eternity, it means that Christ had the humanity too even from the eternity.
    If natters claim that humanity=divinity, and that was given only after incarnation, then it denies the eternity of Christ's divinity. Therefore I believe natters would agree to the eternity of divinity and humanity in unity, from eternity.
    In that case we can think about the lineage and progress where Jesus existed before eternity as we hear from Heb 7:3 (having neither days of beginning...) and Prov 8:22-31)

    In OT, Malack is translated into an Angel or the Angel and it was mentioned 214 times in my knowledge and it is different from usual wording for angels which is elohim. He appeared in Gen 18 when God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and when Abraham try to sacrifice Issac too&gt; Also, he appeared to Manoah, Samson's father and Jacob.
    Jacob confessed " the Angel who redeemed me from all evil" (Gen 48:16) Redemption need the blood-shedding, which may have been done with the animal sacrifices as shadows of Christ's crucifixion. Such appearance of Malack as theophanic Angel took place about 50 times. He told Jacob that He is God of Beth-El and Manoah asked his name, then answered his name is peleh (Wonderful)which is also found in Isaiah 9:6.
    Moreover, we often read the Right hand of Jehova protected Israel and led them.
    Therefore we can believe that Pre-Incarnate Son of God worked during OT times in many ways.
    Now the question is about whether Son of God had the flesh same as the one after His incarnation or not. I don't think it is a serious matter whether the flesh is the same or not. Jesus could enter the room while the door was closed (20:19) Wasn't it possible before His incarnation? He already showed up miraculously unto Manoah and even unto Balaam (Numbers 22). Sometimes He wrestled with Jacob as in Gen 32:28-30. Of course the meaning and the role of the humanity which Son of God carried at each time may be different. He was perfect before the incarnation and was also perfect after the resurrection.(Heb 5:7-9) The difference is that we human beings are included in His perfection.
    Pre-Incarnate Body-Incaranted Body-Glorified body may be the same or may be a little different, which is not so important in this discussion. I don't think the glorified body is different one than the Incarnated body before the crucifixion. Likewise we can even think that the Incarnate body may be the extended form of WORD which started from the minimal size, or which penentrated into human body as He entered the closed door and started from minimal size as Human embryo.
    Otherwise, if we take that Word become a sperm and the sperm was fertilized into ovum, which is based on human thoughts, then the question arise about where was the previous being(Son of God) gone because the fertilization creates a new human embryo with brain etc.
    Therefore if we take the word itself, simply The Word became flesh (neither sperm nor other than flesh) which has Spirit and Soul in it, which eventually means "enfleshing"
    This is why Jesus remembered what Abraham did and said He IS before Abraham WAS.

    Therefore what natters recommended coincides with my thinking and that of Webdog's
    It is good that Web' understands very well about the ministry of Son of God before Incarnation as Pre-Incarnate Yeshuah.

    But the point in this thread is that in such case the role of Mary is very much limited to Human Incubator or to Surrogate-Mother, and Jesus existed before the creation and before His incarnation,and Mary didn't add anything to humanity nor to his divinity, but remained as maid-servant(as she confessed) carrying and passing the enfleshed Son of God into the world.

    2) Another idea is the one which I would call "traditional or conventional understanding"
    This idea may be OK with Bobryan's as he explained well about his view on this matter.

    In this case, Jesus was 100% divine before incarnation, but not 100% human before incarnation.
    After he was conceived in Mary, he became 100% divine plus 100% human.
    In that case, we can clearly notice the difference between 2 times, about the nature of Jesus.
    The fact that the nature of Jesus is different at 2 different times means that something was added or changed in it. Was divinity changed into humanity? Is the body of Mary capable of converting divinity into humanity? Wasn't her role was simply to bear the baby?
    In my opinion, there is no way with this idea other than allowing the separation of 2 natures in Him, and divinity existed before and then afterwards humanity was added unto him.
    As we cannot think about Trinity without separation, we cannot think about this without separation. If Trinity stands without separation, God the Father had to be crucified and Holy Spirit was baptized too. Then Mary is Mother of God the Father if She is mother of Son of God. Therefore we cannot think about Tri-unity without separating the deities.
    Likewise, the nature of Jesus should be considered separately. If one doesn't want to separate it, then one nature(divinity) existed far before Mary was born, and Mary is just the mother for the increased portion of the nature of Jesus, not for the divinity and therefore calling Mary as Mother of God is unjust as Heb 7:3 denies.


    3)Natters, I don't understand your question and arguement in this:
    If Mary is the "Mother of Jesus", yet Jesus existed before his conception in Mary's womb, then why isn't "Mother of Jesus" heresy for using "procreation terms" if Jesus was "incarnated, not procreated"?

    You have to explain further your questioning.

    4) If anyone still disbelieve that Heb 7:3 denies Son of God has Mother, he or she should ask his or her kids how they interpret such verse, after they read thru Hebrews ch 4-7, becaue they are not contaminated with human theology.
     
    #154 Eliyahu, Dec 14, 2005
  15. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    7
    Nope. Something was added to the Person of Christ, namely a human nature, but the divine nature remained unchanged at the Incarnation.
    Nope.
    No--humanity was added to the divine Logos without change or mixture or separation.

    Depends on whom you ask. :cool:
    That's true, as far as it goes as long as one recognizes that it's the same PERSON ("hypostasis"), the Logos, with both natures.

    No the former is the error of "patripassionism". Only God the Word was Incarnate, yet He was not "separated" from God the Father or Holy Spirit. How this works out is indeed a mystery, but it is nonetheless true.

    No, because the Son (Word) was Incarnate of Mary, but the Father was not. (Yet one cannot "separate" the Son from the Father--the essence is undivided)
    It's Deity (singular) and of course the undivided Trinity cannot be "separated", but the Persons can be distinguished. The fact remains that the Son was Incarnate, not the Father nor Holy Spirit.

    Yet the One she bore in her womb was divine (God from eternity) and human (became man in time).


    The truth lies between two errors:
    (1)"Nestorianism" --two natures, two hypostases, one prosopon
    (2) "Mononphysitism"--one nature, one hypostasis, one prosopon.

    The Truth:
    Two natures, One Hypostasis, one prosopon.
     
    #155 Doubting Thomas, Dec 14, 2005
  16. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    [​IMG]
     
    #156 Matt Black, Dec 14, 2005
  17. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Then I'm afraid your opinion is heretical
     
    #157 Matt Black, Dec 14, 2005
  18. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    Repeating the same assertion makes it no less heretical
     
    #158 Matt Black, Dec 14, 2005
  19. jesusrocks

    jesusrocks New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm in agreement with Doubting Thomas' most recent post... especially on the "deities" comment (there is but ONE God). The Trinity shares one Divine nature, but the Trinity exists as a communion of persons, who can be (and are) distinguished from one another. It was only God the Son, second person of the Trinity who became man, took on created human flesh, and died on the cross of Calvary.
     
    #159 jesusrocks, Dec 14, 2005
  20. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are more than two. However, only one is orthodox Christian doctrine.

    False. The Word was made flesh at the incarnation.

    False. He was always God, but not always flesh. The Word was made flesh at the incarnation.

    No, actually natters would strongly disagree.

    It is a very serious matter. If he was eternally human before his incarnation, then:

    - John 1:14 is a lie.
    - the virgin birth is pointless, as he could have just "appeared" as he did in OT times, instead of being born.
    - he is not biologically descended from the line of David, and thus an illegitimate successor to the throne of David, and thus a false King and ultimately a false Messiah.

    I really suggest you do some study on what the orthodox view of the Trinity is.

    It is very simple: if "Mother of God" is heretical because it uses "terms of procreation" for someone who preexisted, then "Mother of Jesus" is heretical for the exact same reason.
     
    #160 natters, Dec 14, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 8 of 18
Loading...