Does God have a Mother?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Well thanks, JohnV, for writing off my opinion as Romaphobea.... There justification for calling Mary mother of God relies on folks agreeing to take a limited view of motherhood, which folks don't do naturally.

I'm not writing it off as such. I'm bringing attention to the fact that Romaphibic views exist in Baptist closets, and we need not fear something just because "the Catholics do it". I can't even say "I like stained glass windows" without someone pointing out how "Catholic" it is. Even in your post, you eschewed romaphobia, but then pointed to something
they" do for comparison.

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters,
I think I forgot to start with one point when I mention about Natters idea.

Do you think Jesus humanity is divine?
Then what about vice-versa? Is Jesus divinity not human?

Another question is about Genesis 32:28-30.
The Angel wrestled with Jacob, then did Jacob wrestle with Angel just in the dream?

Abraham prepared food, Butter and Milk for Jehova and His angels in Genesis 18. Then they ate them, was it in the dream only? or did they have any flesh to eat the meal?

Please answer!

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Do you think Jesus humanity is divine?

Absolutely. The Word was God, and the Word was made flesh.

Then what about vice-versa? Is Jesus divinity not human?

Not before the Word was made flesh.

Another question is about Genesis 32:28-30.
The Angel wrestled with Jacob, then did Jacob wrestle with Angel just in the dream?

Abraham prepared food, Butter and Milk for Jehova and His angels in Genesis 18. Then they ate them, was it in the dream only? or did they have any flesh to eat the meal?

These were not just dreams. However, these appearances were not in human flesh, for the Word was made flesh at the incarnation.

Please answer!

I always do. Yet you are not answering my questions and comments.

 

[Eliyahu]

Whether one is Orthodox is or not can be judged by God and His Words. In my view, Majority
condemned Nestorius but Nestorius was the real Orthodox and those guys who condemned him were heretic!
The most of the Orthodox persecuted true Christians throughout the ages, and they are cult and heretic! They are running on the wide and the broadway leading to the destruction, murdering the true believers who are walking thru the narrow gate, condemning the true believers as heretic! Watch out! God is the final Judge! Read Mt 7:13-23

 

[natters]

Does that mean you're not going to respond to my questions and comments?

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters,
Then you mean the nature of Jesus divine only before the conception. Then do you admit that the nature of Jesus before conception is different from that of Jesus after conception?

If the difference exist between 2 times, again can we not summarize this way?
Before Conception, 100% divine only
After Conception, 100% divine + 100% human

How can you explain Word became Flesh in the above process? Was the divine nature itself expanded into human nature?


You are separating the nature of Jesus again because you say Jesus had no humanity before and then he acquired it after the conception, then you already divided his nature into 2, as Nestorius you are condemning did.

 

[natters]

I have already answered these questions, several times. Your turn to answer some of mine.

 

[Eliyahu]

I am answering you one by one! they are complicated and I need your confirmation about the points before I answer you!

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Then do you admit that the nature of Jesus before conception is different from that of Jesus after conception?

Nature as in his body, yes.

If the difference exist between 2 times, again can we not summarize this way?
Before Conception, 100% divine only
After Conception, 100% divine + 100% human

Yes, that is a summary of what I believe.

How can you explain Word became Flesh in the above process?

I can't explain it, I simply accept it and believe it.

Was the divine nature itself expanded into human nature?

I don't know if "expanded" is exactly the right word. The "Word was made flesh" is good enough for me.

You are separating the nature of Jesus again because you say Jesus had no humanity before and then he acquired it after the conception, then you already divided his nature into 2, as Nestorius you are condemning did.

The difference is small but hugely important. I say the flesh is God. Nestorianism (what Nestorius himself actually believed is beside the point) says Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, rather than as a unified person - that the divine dwelt in the flesh, but the flesh itself was not divine.

Your turn yet?

 

[Eliyahu]

My point is that you are separating the nature of Jesus into two, if you say that Jesus was divine only before the conception and then become divine and human after conception. You never answered this.

Also, have you answered how Word become flesh if you believe He was divine only before Conception?
Please reiterate it if you have already answered, as I don't find the answer yet!

How is the contribution by Mary if the WORD itself became flesh?

 

[Eliyahu]

Whether Nestorius mentioned 2 personalities or 2 persons is not clear. You are judging the person who is absent now, based on the information claimed by his opponents. I don't think he insisted that 2 persons lived inside one body as he was not that stupid.
2 personalities (divinity and humanity) lived in one person in unity is not very wrong, even though I think it is just a human understanding

 

[Eliyahu]

You cannot say Jesus had divinity only while he had both divinity and humanity in unity later, without splitting the concepts of the nature of Jesus into two.

 

[Eliyahu]

How do you think Jesus acquired the humanity?
What was the role of Mary in that process?

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters, you agreed that Before the conception, Jesus had only divinity. Then the divinity existed before Mary and Mary is not Mother for that part, right? Nevertheless do you want to call Mary as Mother of God ?


Only the post-conception part is credited to Mary, which means humanity.

 

[Bunyon]

Matt-"Then I'm afraid your opinion is heretical"

I am afraid that you folks who want to press a weak syllogism based on limited definitions that are not agreed upon for no useful purpose are hurting the cause of Christ. I mean here are folks who have told you repeatedly they believe Christ is fully Divine, and yet you want to label them heretics because they don't agree with your syllogism. I mean you would call someone a heretic based on what they said about a confusing and unnecessary syllogism. That is very unfortunate.

How some one conceptualizes a mysterious thing like the incarnation, which is not explained in scripture, should not be the basis for throwing around labels like heretic. And I think your side's insistence on doing so shows the true spirit of what you are doing, as it was in Ephesus. It was and is the spirit of strife and division.

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters, I think you are right in :

I can't explain it, I simply accept it and believe it (about how Word became flesh)

me too! We can think about several scenario or methods of understanding but they may not be accurate. One idea was about the expansion which I mentioned.


In that case what is the role of Mary?
Mt 1:20 says The One in her is begotten by Holy Spirit.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
My point is that you are separating the nature of Jesus into two, if you say that Jesus was divine only before the conception and then become divine and human after conception. You never answered this.

You have never explained how this is "separating". It is simply recognizing a distinction.

Also, have you answered how Word become flesh if you believe He was divine only before Conception?
Please reiterate it if you have already answered, as I don't find the answer yet!

The Word became flesh by his conception.

How is the contribution by Mary if the WORD itself became flesh?

He was conceived in Mary. He is biologically (not just surrogately) connected to her, or else he would not be of the line of David, not "made of the seed of David according to the flesh", not "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh". If Mary made no biological contribution, several scriptures are in error, and Jesus is ultimately a false Messiah.

Whether Nestorius mentioned 2 personalities or 2 persons is not clear.

I am not commenting on Nestorius. I am commenting on Nestorianism.

Only the post-conception part is credited to Mary, which means humanity.

But the humanity is God. The Word was made flesh. Do you believe Mary was his "mother", in terms of his humanity?

If you don't start answering questions as well, I will be dropping out of this conversation.

 

[Eliyahu]

I think Bunyon is very right in pointing out the Abuse of Word Heretic! I am not afraid about being called heretic, but the people who abuse such words are mostly heretic themselves! full of heretic ideas like goddess worship, justifying idol worship, no salvation outside their group etc.
Discern based on Words of God.

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I can't explain it, I simply accept it and believe it (about how Word became flesh)

me too! We can think about several scenario or methods of understanding but they may not be accurate. One idea was about the expansion which I mentioned.

But how did the Word become flesh in your view, if you believe the Word was flesh from eternity? How can the Word "become" something he already was?

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters, sorry for any omission in answering because we are moving around many parts of the subject.

I think you are contradictory by saying this:

"He was conceived in Mary. He is biologically (not just surrogately) connected to her"

Because you believe that Word became Flesh, but now you are saying flesh became flesh as you believe Mary's ovum became flesh