• 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?

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
[ QB] But Heb 7:3 also says that he had no father; does that mean God isn't His Father? Ask your kids etc...
Are you denying the virgin birth? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Certainly not! But your interpretation of it, if extended from 'mother' to 'father', does...
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
How much eager and zealous People are to have a Mother of God so that they may worship her as Goddess!
 

Ransom

Active Member
Eliyahu said:

instead, Word itself became flesh and Mary is just a human incubator or a surrogate mother.

Over in the other thread in the Baptist forums, participants attempting to explain how Mary could not be the "mother of God" (whether properly understood or not) gave explanations that were distinctly Nestorian and Sabellian.

Now we have added a kind of Docetism to the mix: the denial of Jesus' humanity. While the anti-theotokos people haven't gone as far as to say Jesus' flesh was illusory, when they claim that Mary was merely an "incubator" or "surrogate mother," they are denying that Jesus was truly a member of the human race, because his flesh has no genealogical connection to the descendants of Adam.

The early Church realized that the nature of the Incarnation had immense soteriological ramifications, which is why they were so determined to refute heretical Christologies.

Bottom line: If Jesus Christ was not a true man, he was not a suitable substitute to atone for the sins of men, and we are still all doomed in our sins. And if Jesus was not a true descendant of David, then biblical prophecy cannot be regarded as reliable. We Christians are all living a lie.
 

Chemnitz

New Member
As for Lutheran, you'd better check with yahoo, with Martin Luther anti-semitism. Thousands will prove how he behaved.
A glut of articles on the Web does not make nor prove that Luther was an anti-semite. :rolleyes: I have read the articles by the sad little people who wish to discredit one of the boldest proclaimers of the Gospel, instead of blaming the people who are truly responsible.

Well Nestorius did take your/his interpretation to its logical conclusion, denying the death of the deity.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Ransom,

Well said.
thumbs.gif


I particularly liked this sentence:
The early Church realized that the nature of the Incarnation had immense soteriological ramifications, which is why they were so determined to refute heretical Christologies.
 

Ransom

Active Member
Thanks Thomas. After reading the last 17 pages of this thread, I have a very sore spot on my forehead from banging it on the desk repeatedly. Some people simply cannot be reasoned with.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by Ransom:
Thanks Thomas. After reading the last 17 pages of this thread, I have a very sore spot on my forehead from banging it on the desk repeatedly. Some people simply cannot be reasoned with.
Ha, Ha! I know what you mean.
laugh.gif
 

Marcia

Active Member
Originally posted by Eliyahu:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Yes, I realize Jesus existed before he incarnated. But incarnating does not mean that Jesus just put on flesh; it means he became human. Jesus the 2nd Person of the Trinity became man; he added a human nature. That is more than just appearing in flesh - it means he added a human nature .
It is good that you believe Jesus existed before Incarnation. You say that He added a human nature. ( I am not sure you meant really He himself added such human nature, then Mary didn't do anything but carrying Him). That is very fine too. I didn't say, he just appeared.Please read the above posting where I mentioned He noticed a body prepared for Him and thereby He was enfleshed. He existed before the creation. I think you are seprating personality of Jesus into two humanity and divinity in unity as Nestorius did.
You'd better notice that I am explaining in both ways,
a traditional way which means humanity was added to the pre-existing divinity thru the incarnation. In this case I would rather think seprately between 2 natures of Jesus, humanity and divinity, for considering the time before the Conception.

another way is to think that Jesus' 100% divininity itself includes all the humanity. If anything is impossible or anything is left out, then it is not 100% divine. Therefore from the eternity, 100% divinity has included the 100% humanity. Only the change was done at the time of Incarnation, so that He can come with flesh so that He may bleed and die.

If you read Heb 5:7-9, JW may argue that He was imperfect before. However, He was perfect before the crucifixiion and perfect again after crucifixion. The difference is that we have been included in His perfection. Likewise, it is a long process of the Jesus nature.

In either method, we can explain the nature of Jesus and there is no reason to call Mary as Mother of God, which is rejected by Heb 7:3.
Please read the verse to your kids and then ask how they interpret it.
Because Mary is the mother just for the human nature in case of method a, and she is just mere a surrogate mother in case of method b
</font>
Whenever someone refers to a verse, I look at the surrounding verses and also compare that to other parts of the Bible.

There are problems with your reference to Heb 7.3 to prove your point:
1. Melchizedek could have been a type of Christ or, some say, the preincarnate Christ. But we don't know for sure as the info is very spare on Melchizedek. It is not good to use an unclear or disputed passage to prove a point or doctrine.
2. Heb 7 also states that Melchizedek did not have a father.
3. Heb 7 is about why Jesus did not emerge from the Levitical priestly line.

I think you have an issue with this because you are associating the phrase "mother of God" with the Roman Catholics instead of realizing this phrase came about when believers stood against a heresy about Jesus Christ. Just because the Roman Catholic Church uses this phrase does not mean it's not true.

God could have had Jesus just appear as an adult male, or He could have had Jesus appear as a baby in Mary's arms, but He didn't. He chose to have Jesus conceived supernaturally in Mary's womb and then gestate and be born as other babies. This makes Mary Jesus' human (and only) mother.
 

Marcia

Active Member
Eliyahu, read Ransom's post at the top of p. 20. He's right -- Jesus had to be a descendant of David to fulfill prophecy, and and a descendant of Adam to be fully human.
 

Bunyon

New Member
""And I'm sure they might return the favor to you as well. ""

They would have burned us at the stake I am sure. As far as calling folks heretic though, you guys win the medal. It is funny because this his been an experiment in how the title was used to distroy your enemies in the early chruch. I see what happened to Nestorius. I doubt if he or cyrill were christians, and I am not sure why we would give such a state chruch as it was so much authority. Examine what happened at ephesus with your own eyes, ears and heart. Do you really see anything honorable about it? Do you really think the spirit of God was present? Whos purpose did it serve. You can say we need it to show that Christ was God all you want, but we can see by the plain history that it was the worshipers of Artemis who had a very strong Mary cult at Ephesus who were most pleased.
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Bunion,
Have you actually read the primary source documents surrounding Ephesus or just secondary revisionist accounts? Perhaps if you read the former rather than the latter you'd be less quick to castigate folks like Cyril as "non-Christian". But I'm sure that wouldn't be in keeping with your conspiratorial anti-catholic (little 'c') agenda.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So, what happened - did a stork drop Baby Jesus on Bethlehem?
Is "That" the only alternative to the Trinity denying heresy "Mother of God"????

What special fallacy is THAT???

What about just "admitting" to the SAME THING that Bible writers do - that "Mary is the mother of Jesus"???

Why is that so "hard" for Catholics?

ANSWER: Because IF someone believes that she is also the MOTHER OF GOD - then that MUCH STRONGER statement WOULD be used frequently and often - JUST as our RC brethren do! Just as the Bible writers DO NOT DO!!

How can this "obvious point" be glossed over time after mind numbing time by the pro-RC posters here??

I just don't see why they are so bent on turning away from this obvious point.

In Christ,

Bob
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
They that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another! (Rev 11:10)
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Speaking of the OT time prior to the incarnation of God the Son as "Christ" the Messiah - Jesus I said

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Jesus did not "exist" - God the SON did.
Thus I clearly draw the line between the INCARNATION and the pre-incarnate Son of God.

Natters then tries a "tactic" of obfuscation

Originally posted by natters:

"Jesus" is a name, and it was not given until after the child was born (Matt 1:25, Luke 2:21). So who was it that was in Mary's womb between conception and birth, if it wasn't "God the SON", and it wasn't "Jesus"?

Do you believe Jesus's flesh is divine (God)?
Way cool misdirection!
laugh.gif


But "Back to the point" - God the Son was not IN FLESH nor the INCARNATE God BEFORE the incarnation.

Your point that the incarnation started at some point in pregnancy - "not withstanding".

The point remains.

Incarnation IS NOT the "procreation" that the RC heresy imagines so it can not have the PROCREATION terms inserted into it.

Terms like "MOTHER OF GOD" are NEVER used by inspired Bible writers!. It is also NEVER USED by Christians today that hold to that same view of INCARNATION vs procreation and that do not want to lessen the concept of God in order to "worship at Mary's altars".

In Christ,

Bob
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Terms like "MOTHER OF GOD" are NEVER used by inspired Bible writers!.
Neither are the terms "Trinity" and "consubstantial" for that matter.

It is also NEVER USED by Christians today that hold to that same view of INCARNATION vs procreation and that do not want to lessen the concept of God in order to "worship at Mary's altars".
That's simply not true. You persist in upholding a strawman.
 
Top