Does God have a Mother?

[natters]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Natters, sorry for any omission in answering because we are moving around many parts of the subject.

Are you really sorry? If you were, I would think you would start answering some.

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.

Argh. I can explain this as well, but please don't start new subtopics while you are complaining there are too many for you to respond to as it is. You said "I am answering you one by one! they are complicated and I need your confirmation about the points before I answer you!", yet you have no problem introducing new questions to me. Give me a break!

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters, let me confirm some points:
1) The body of the Angel which Jacob wrestled with was exactly same as human I believe. If the Angels and Jehova could eat the same food as Abraham eat, such as veal meat, milk, Butter and many other foods, then the body structure which the Angels and God wore at that time were the same as ours, which we can presume from the fact that we were created in the likeness of God, as well.

2)Jesus could enter into the room with the doors closed. He could minimize his size into Nano-size or enter anywhere in the world. My understanding is that Holy Spirit worked in sending Pre-Incarnate Jesus with enfleshed into the womb of Mary, in the minimal size and in the human embryo form, either by attaching any dust or not. In such case the contribution by Mary was nil, but what she did was to nurture Him in her womb and served for the Creator.

 

[natters]

I already know you believe that. How about answering some of my responses about that?

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters, where are you btw. I am in Toronto

 

[natters]

I am in front of my computer.

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters said:
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.\
____________________

I disagree that Flesh is God

 

[natters]

Then you really need to reconsider your affiliation. You are opposing essential Christian doctrine.

What does "the Word (who is God) was made flesh" mean?

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters said:
+++++++++++++++++
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.
++++++++++++++++

1) I din;t deny that He was born out of woman. That's false accusation.

2) I didn't deny John 1:14. When Bible says God became flesh, it means God came into this world in the form of flesh. vice versa doesn't work in this case when you say "flesh is God", I disagree.

3) You don't believe that Jesus worked in OT times, and he wore any type of flesh in different times. You may be disappointed with less importance of the Mary's role. Flesh is like a clothes to change and wear.

4) Your understanding about birth instead of appearance sounds that Jesus was produced by Mary or created by Mary but Bible clearly says:
The one in her is born by Holy spirit (already before He was born out of Mary)

Have I answered your key questions? If you have any more, please let me know it.

 

[Eliyahu]

Word became Flesh! but Flesh is not God! because vice-versa doesn't work in this case.

 

[natters]

Thank you for answering some questions!

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
1) I din;t deny that He was born out of woman. That's false accusation.

I never said you denied that. John 1:14 says the Word was made flesh. You said the Word was always flesh.

2) I didn't deny John 1:14. When Bible says God became flesh, it means God came into this world in the form of flesh.

No, "was made" does not mean "was already and just came in that flesh".

3) You don't believe that Jesus worked in OT times, and he wore any type of flesh in different times.

Yes I do.

You may be disappointed with less importance of the Mary's role. Flesh is like a clothes to change and wear.

The Word was made flesh. The Word didn't "wear" flesh. That is heresy, and I rarely use that word. I don't say that to make you mad, I say that to wake you up. You need to come in line with Christian doctrine. I really hope you'll talk to a pastor in your area about this.

4) Your understanding about birth instead of appearance sounds that Jesus was produced by Mary or created by Mary but Bible clearly says:
The one in her is born by Holy spirit (already before He was born out of Mary)

Both were involved. Scripture says so.

Have I answered your key questions? If you have any more, please let me know it.

How can the Word "become" something he already was?

How was Jesus "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3), and "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh" (Acts 2:29) if Mary was only a surrogate?

How can the flesh not be divine, if you believe the flesh was eternal?

Why does scripture (in the main narrative, not just when quoting people) call Mary his "mother"?

Word became Flesh! but Flesh is not God!

But the Word is God. How can God become something and no longer be God?

 

[Eliyahu]

I think Doubting Thomas posted the traditional so called Orthodox, but it contains a lot of contradiction: Let me check shortly:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Mary is Mother of God the Father if She is mother of Son of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore we cannot think about Tri-unity without separating the deities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

If the deity cannot be separately, which means 3 persons should be at the same place all the time, then God the Father was baptized because He was in Jesus and He was crucified with Jesus because He was in Jesus and Jesus was in Him, which I believe in the broader sense but in the function and role I believe there are differences. Eventually even if it might be a very small difference, there is a difference between the persons.

 

[Eliyahu]

When did I say this?
You said the Word was always flesh

I meant Word could wear any type of flesh any time, like changing clothes

When did I say the above?

 

[Eliyahu]

It doesn't make much difference:
QTE
No, "was made" does not mean "was already and just came in that flesh".
UQTE

Word can withdraw the flesh and then the Word can wear another flesh because the Word is God and can do anything.
Do you believe that God became a piece of meat?

 

[Eliyahu]

How can the Word "become" something he already was?

How was Jesus "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3), and "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh" (Acts 2:29) if Mary was only a surrogate?

1)Can you not wear another clothes after you take off one?

2) Are the tube babies not called after the surrogate parents? Was the role not important? I think such role was also important.

 

[Eliyahu]

Natters:
+++++++++
How can the flesh not be divine, if you believe the flesh was eternal?

Why does scripture (in the main narrative, not just when quoting people) call Mary his "mother"?

But the Word is God. How can God become something and no longer be God?
++++++++++++++

Do you believe that all the flesh is God or only the flesh of Jesus is God and the flesh of Jesus os different from that of other people?

I interpret this way:
Word became flesh because Word was enfleshed or appeared in the appearance of Flesh, but the actual is that Jesus had the Spirit clothed with flesh, and the whole appearance was that Word became flesh.
In this process, what was the role of Mary? it is your turn which you have not answered.

 

[Eliyahu]

Mt. 22:45
If David then calls Him, Lord, how is He his Son? (descendant)?

 

[natters]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
When did I say this?
You said the Word was always flesh

I meant Word could wear any type of flesh any time, like changing clothes

When did I say the above?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Do you believe he was always human, but not always "wearing" flesh?

Do you believe that God became a piece of meat?

God became man, yes. After his resurrection, his "meat" was glorified, incorruptible.

How can the Word "become" something he already was?

How was Jesus "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3), and "of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh" (Acts 2:29) if Mary was only a surrogate?

1)Can you not wear another clothes after you take off one?

2) Are the tube babies not called after the surrogate parents? Was the role not important? I think such role was also important.

1. Yes, I can. That does not answer my question. When I wear clothes I do not "become" clothes. Do you? I wish I could make those words really big and red and flashing.

2. Test tube babies are not "of the fruit of the loins, according to the flesh". Yes, role is important, but if Jesus was not biologically from the line of David, he is a false Messiah.

Word became flesh because Word was enfleshed or appeared in the appearance of Flesh, but the actual is that Jesus had the Spirit clothed with flesh, and the whole appearance was that Word became flesh.

How is this not Nestorianism? Why was he born of Mary, instead of just appearing like he did to Moses?

In this process, what was the role of Mary? it is your turn which you have not answered.

Oh my goodness. Mary was his mother.

 

[Eliyahu]

Do you believe he was always human, but not always "wearing" flesh?


I have not made all the statistics, but it might be that Yeshuah worked from time to time in flesh. However, it is only after He was born out of Mary that He wore the proper flesh to be ready to bleed and die at the Cross.

 

[Eliyahu]

the main difference appears in this:

You say and believe that Word became Flesh:
Mary is the Mother.
Then does it mean that Mary was the mother of Word? or what did she or her body did?
You never answered it.

 

[Eliyahu]

If any woman surrogate-mothered a son , will he not call her Mother? and Can he not be her child? Can he not be said to be born of her loin?