• 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!

Mary Sightings in History

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It sounds like you are wanting to separate Christs divine nature from His human nature?

It does not take too much common sense to understand that diety could not be conceived by a human as like beget like.

It does not take too much common sense to understand that eternity cannot be concieved in time.

It does nto take too much common sense to understand the finite cannot conceive the infinite.
 
It does not take too much common sense to understand that diety could not be conceived by a human as like beget like.

It does not take too much common sense to understand that eternity cannot be concieved in time.

It does nto take too much common sense to understand the finite cannot conceive the infinite.
:thumbs::thumbs:

IOW, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Mary is not the mother of God and that God has NO motherhood!
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
:thumbs::thumbs:

IOW, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Mary is not the mother of God and that God has NO motherhood!

Michael Wrenn posted: "Oh, yeah, please show how it is incorrect. As the mother of Jesus, she bore Him; since He was fully deity and fully human without separation of the two natures, she bore His full deity and full humanity. Therefore, she bore the deity of Jesus -- thus she was "Theotokos". Not rocket science either!

The belief that Mary is the Mother of God* is directly essential to the understanding that Jesus is God (which was in fact what the Council of Ephesus said) - and the Incarnation is essential for salvation. Either Jesus was God or He wasn't. You can't separate Him as a human from Him as Diety. Mary was certainly Jesus' mother. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that you must deny His diety or embrace the Nestorianism heresy to get around that. Are you saying that Jesus only became Diety after He was born? Please elaborate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It does not take too much common sense to understand that diety could not be conceived by a human as like beget like.

It does not take too much common sense to understand that eternity cannot be concieved in time.

It does nto take too much common sense to understand the finite cannot conceive the infinite.

If:
Jesus = God
and
Mary = Mother of Jesus

then

Mary = Mother of God

Right?

No one, absolutely no one has suggested that Mary was the mother of God the Father or the Holy Spirit. She was the mother of Jesus who is GOD the Son, period.
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
The Divine nature cannot be contained within Mary's womb any more than it can be contained within the entire universe! There was absolutely no conception of Deity or birth of diety in or by Mary. She gave birth to a "child" but the Son was "given" not conceived.

Mary provided absolutely NOTHING from her being to contribute to the conception or birth of Deity whatsoever in way shape or form.

Nobody is saying that Mary conceived the deity of Jesus.

But to deny that Mary bore the full deity and humanity of Jesus is to commit a most ancient heresy and to deny the full deity of Jesus.

From conception, Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Mary thus bore the God-man Jesus Christ in her womb. Therefore, it is perfectly correct and acceptable to call her "theotokos". To deny that Mary bore Jesus with His two natures as both God and man is to separate His two natures and to deny that He was God while in Mary's womb. If you deny that Jesus was God while in Mary's womb, then you espouse another ancient heresy -- adoptionism.

This is astonishing! I never thought fundamentalist Baptists would be guilty of these heresies.
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Michael Wrenn posted: "Oh, yeah, please show how it is incorrect. As the mother of Jesus, she bore Him; since He was fully deity and fully human without separation of the two natures, she bore His full deity and full humanity. Therefore, she bore the deity of Jesus -- thus she was "Theotokos". Not rocket science either!

The belief that Mary is the Mother of God* is directly essential to the understanding that Jesus is God (which was in fact what the Council of Ephesus said) - and the Incarnation is essential for salvation. Either Jesus was God or He wasn't. You can't separate Him as a human from Him as Diety. Mary was certainly Jesus' mother. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that you must deny His diety or embrace the Nestorianism heresy to get around that. Are you saying that Jesus only became Diety after He was born? Please elaborate.

This is quite amazing, is it not?

Now we see those who have charged me with heresy, apostasy, cultism, and other vile things caught on the hook of their own accusations. I knew the law of sowing and reaping would catch up with them; I just didn't expect it to be this soon!

But aside from all that, this is still one of the most astonishing things I have ever seen -- fundamentalist Baptist Nestorians and Adoptionists! They had better stop talking about the Mormon false Christology!
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nobody is saying that Mary conceived the deity of Jesus.

Alright, then what was? What was conceived from a HUMAN EGG?

Are you arguing then that conception produced the Humanity of Christ but the Son of God afterwards within the womb took up on himself that humanity, taberncaled in that humanity prior to birth?

If so, then you have placed some gap of time between what was conceived and the indwelling, tabernacling, taking upon himself that humanity. Hence, your position is as much Adoptionism as my position, as my position places the gap between conception and the time Christ came forth from the womb in keeping with Isaiah 9:6 the "child" was "Born" but "the Son" was "GIVEN."



From conception,

You deny Diety was concieved but assert the union was "from" conception. Hence, you place a gap of time between conception and inception when the Son of God TAKING UPON HIMSELF that humanity and actually TABERNACLING in that humanity or else you must embrace that Diety was concieved in the womb with humanity.

I think you better go back in history and read what adoptionism is! Historcially adoptionism states that Deity came upon Christ at his baptism some 30 years after his birth. I know it is very dramatic for you to make this charge but very dishonest as well as you also have a gap of time between conception and inception of Deity.

Neither of us deny that Christ was fully man and fully God FROM BIRTH but adoptionism denies that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
:applause::applause:
This is quite amazing, is it not?

Now we see those who have charged me with heresy, apostasy, cultism, and other vile things caught on the hook of their own accusations. I knew the law of sowing and reaping would catch up with them; I just didn't expect it to be this soon!

But aside from all that, this is still one of the most astonishing things I have ever seen -- fundamentalist Baptist Nestorians and Adoptionists! They had better stop talking about the Mormon false Christology!

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
:applause::applause:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

For those who tout historical theology both of your are completely ignorant of what adoptionism is! Adoptionism denies that Christ was both fully man and fully God from birth but assumed deity 30 years later at his baptism.

I know you like to be dramatic but you are dishonest as well.

All three of us believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man FROM birth whereas historical adoptionism denies that.
 
Excerpt from an article by Dr. Henry M. Morris: When God Became Man

How Could the Creator Become Man?

Since "by Him [that is by Christ, the Word of God] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), He must have created the very body in which He would dwell when He "was made flesh." This body, however, could not be a body produced by the normal process of human reproduction, for it must be a body unmarred either by inherent sin spiritually or by inherited genetic defects physically or mentally.

It would necessarily have to be a perfect body, a body like that of the first man He had created long ago in the beautiful garden of Eden. He would, in fact, come to be called "the last Adam" (I Corinthians 15:45), since there would never be another man created as that "first Adam" had been.

There would be one important difference, however. The first Adam was created and made as a full-grown man, but the second must be "in all things . . . made like unto His brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). From conception to death, He must be "in all points . . . like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). In particular, His blood must be "precious blood . . . as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1:19), for that blood must be "offered . . . without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14).

Thus the body of the second Adam must be formed directly by God and placed in a virgin's womb. This had been the very first promise made after the first Adam brought sin and death into the world. Speaking of "the woman, and . . . her seed," God said that He "shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel" (Genesis 3:15). This prophecy was addressed to Satan, whose lie had elicited Eve's sin. This wonderful body would not grow from a man's seed, as in every other human birth, nor would it grow from a woman's egg, for in either case a sin-carrying and mutation-carrying embryo would necessarily result. It must instead be a seed specially formed by the Creator Himself, then planted in the virgin's womb, where it forthwith would become His "tabernacle" for thirty-three years as He lived on His planet Earth among those He had come to save.

"Lo, I come," He would later promise through David (Psalm 40:7). Through Isaiah He said: "(The) virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son," and that babe would also be "the mighty God, the everlasting Father" (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). Still later, another great prophet could anticipate that "The LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man" (Jeremiah 31:22).

Note that the "new thing" in the chosen woman must be "created." When the time came the angel assured young Mary that "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Then, "when He cometh into the world, He saith, . . . a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5). Most significantly, He used the same word "prepared" (Greek, katartizo), which the writer of Hebrews also then would use when he testified that "the worlds were framed by the Word of God" (Hebrews 11:3), recognizing that the same living Word who had framed the worlds had also framed His own human body! And in that tiny cell in Mary's womb resided all the information not only for His own growth into manhood, but also for the creation, preservation, and redemption of the whole creation. It was His by right of creation and soon would be doubly His by right of redemption.
_______________________________
Bolding is mine
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Alright, then what was? What was conceived from a HUMAN EGG?

Are you arguing then that conception produced the Humanity of Christ but the Son of God afterwards within the womb took up on himself that humanity, taberncaled in that humanity prior to birth?

If so, then you have placed some gap of time between what was conceived and the indwelling, tabernacling, taking upon himself that humanity. Hence, your position is as much Adoptionism as my position, as my position places the gap between conception and the time Christ came forth from the womb in keeping with Isaiah 9:6 the "child" was "Born" but "the Son" was "GIVEN."





You deny Diety was concieved but assert the union was "from" conception. Hence, you place a gap of time between conception and inception when the Son of God TAKING UPON HIMSELF that humanity and actually TABERNACLING in that humanity or else you must embrace that Diety was concieved in the womb with humanity.

I think you better go back in history and read what adoptionism is! Historcially adoptionism states that Deity came upon Christ at his baptism some 30 years after his birth. I know it is very dramatic for you to make this charge but very dishonest as well as you also have a gap of time between conception and inception of Deity.

Neither of us deny that Christ was fully man and fully God FROM BIRTH but adoptionism denies that.

Keep posting and piling up falsehoods and at some point it will be extremely difficult to dig yourself out.

You are guilty of Nestorianism and Adoptionism.

Your own words have convicted you: You say you believe that Christ was fully God and fully man FROM BIRTH. That is heresy. You have not said that you believe Jesus was fully God and fully man from conception, or that Jesus was fully God and fully man while Mary was carrying Him in her womb. Your inability to affirm that makes you guilty of Nestorianism and a form of adoptionism. That makes you a heretic!

If I am wrong, you can set the record straight right now: Do you or do you not believe that Jesus was God from conception and while Mary was carrying Him in her womb? Did Mary bear the God-human Jesus in her womb or not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Excerpt from an article by Dr. Henry M. Morris: When God Became Man

How Could the Creator Become Man?

Since "by Him [that is by Christ, the Word of God] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), He must have created the very body in which He would dwell when He "was made flesh." This body, however, could not be a body produced by the normal process of human reproduction, for it must be a body unmarred either by inherent sin spiritually or by inherited genetic defects physically or mentally.

It would necessarily have to be a perfect body, a body like that of the first man He had created long ago in the beautiful garden of Eden. He would, in fact, come to be called "the last Adam" (I Corinthians 15:45), since there would never be another man created as that "first Adam" had been.

There would be one important difference, however. The first Adam was created and made as a full-grown man, but the second must be "in all things . . . made like unto His brethren" (Hebrews 2:17). From conception to death, He must be "in all points . . . like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). In particular, His blood must be "precious blood . . . as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (I Peter 1:19), for that blood must be "offered . . . without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14).

Thus the body of the second Adam must be formed directly by God and placed in a virgin's womb. This had been the very first promise made after the first Adam brought sin and death into the world. Speaking of "the woman, and . . . her seed," God said that He "shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel" (Genesis 3:15). This prophecy was addressed to Satan, whose lie had elicited Eve's sin. This wonderful body would not grow from a man's seed, as in every other human birth, nor would it grow from a woman's egg, for in either case a sin-carrying and mutation-carrying embryo would necessarily result. It must instead be a seed specially formed by the Creator Himself, then planted in the virgin's womb, where it forthwith would become His "tabernacle" for thirty-three years as He lived on His planet Earth among those He had come to save.

"Lo, I come," He would later promise through David (Psalm 40:7). Through Isaiah He said: "(The) virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son," and that babe would also be "the mighty God, the everlasting Father" (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6). Still later, another great prophet could anticipate that "The LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a man" (Jeremiah 31:22).

Note that the "new thing" in the chosen woman must be "created." When the time came the angel assured young Mary that "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35).

Then, "when He cometh into the world, He saith, . . . a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5). Most significantly, He used the same word "prepared" (Greek, katartizo), which the writer of Hebrews also then would use when he testified that "the worlds were framed by the Word of God" (Hebrews 11:3), recognizing that the same living Word who had framed the worlds had also framed His own human body! And in that tiny cell in Mary's womb resided all the information not only for His own growth into manhood, but also for the creation, preservation, and redemption of the whole creation. It was His by right of creation and soon would be doubly His by right of redemption.
_______________________________
Bolding is mine


I pose the same question to you that I posed to Biblicist:

Do you or do you not believe that Jesus was God from conception and while Mary was carrying Him in her womb? Did Mary bear the God-human Jesus in her womb or not?
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Those who deny that Jesus was God from conception, while Mary was carrying Him in her womb, and that Mary bore the God-human Jesus in her womb are guilty of Nestorianism and a form of adoptionism, thus denying the full deity of Jesus, the fullness of the Incarnation, and separating His two natures. It is but a short step to a strain of Gnosticism which considers the flesh and the physical to be evil.

Do some of you really want to go down that road? Oh, my mistake; you are already on it if you deny that Jesus was both fully God and fully human in Mary's womb.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Divine nature cannot be contained within Mary's womb any more than it can be contained within the entire universe!
This statement utterly denies the Incarnation and is rank heresy.
There was absolutely no conception of Deity or birth of diety in or by Mary.
And so does this.
Mary provided absolutely NOTHING from her being to contribute to the conception or birth of Deity whatsoever in way shape or form.
With that I can agree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It does not take too much common sense to understand that diety could not be conceived by a human as like beget like.
Agreed, apart from the rather tiresome continued misspelling of 'deity'. But no-one here is saying that Mary conceived Christ's deity, just that all of Christ - His humanity and His deity - was present in Mary's womb from the moment of His conception by the Holy Spirit. You can see the difference, can't you??
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
For those who tout historical theology both of your are completely ignorant of what adoptionism is! Adoptionism denies that Christ was both fully man and fully God from birth but assumed deity 30 years later at his baptism.
But, can you not see (or are you so blind?!) that there is no difference - other than degrees of time - between saying that Jesus assumed His deity after His birth (classic Adoptionism) and your belief that He assumed His deity at some point after His conception (Biblicist's Adptionism)? I just don't get how you can't see that!:BangHead:

I have to say that I am both amazed and appalled to see heresies such as Nestorianism and Adoptionism being bandied about willy-nilly by men who have apparently been to Bible College and really should know better. I'm forced to conclude that either they ignored what they were taught there or that there is something very very badly wrong with what is being taught.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Moriah

New Member
We really do not know what all Mary and Joseph saw Jesus do during his childhood. We get a glimpse with the incident at age twelve. No doubt they saw some unique things. How about the eighteen years we know nothing about? Who knows what He could have done. The Gospel says it was so much it could not all be written down.

I used to wonder too about the child Jesus, what things he might have done that were miraculous. However, the Bible tells us when Jesus turned water into wine that was the first miracle.

In addition, the Bible gives us a small glimpse into the young Jesus and it is not an account of some miracle the young Jesus made happen, but just that he was missing from his parents for a few days and they found him in the temple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Michael Wrenn

New Member
But, can you not see (or are you so blind?!) that there is no difference - other than degrees of time - between saying that Jesus assumed His deity after His birth (classic Adoptionism) and your belief that He assumed His deity at some point after His conception (Biblicist's Adptionism)? I just don't get how you can't see that!:BangHead:

I have to say that I am both amazed and appalled to see heresies such as Nestorianism and Adoptionism being bandied about willy-nilly by men who have apparently been to Bible College and really should know better. I'm forced to conclude that either they ignored what they were taught there or that there is something very very badly wrong with what is being taught.

It's worse than that: If you read his replies to me, he states that he believes Jesus was God FROM BIRTH!! So, from conception and all the time Mary was carrying Jesus in her womb, right up until the moment He was born, He was not God, but from birth He was! This must be the most asinine thing I've ever read on here. So, when Jesus was being born, did God miraculously transform Him into deity in that moment? Biblicist doesn't believe in Immaculate Conception, but if he believes this, he believes in Immaculate Perception, perceiving that Jesus was not God a moment before His birth but became God a moment after! :laugh:
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Those who deny that Jesus was God from conception, while Mary was carrying Him in her womb, and that Mary bore the God-human Jesus in her womb are guilty of Nestorianism and a form of adoptionism, thus denying the full deity of Jesus, the fullness of the Incarnation, and separating His two natures. It is but a short step to a strain of Gnosticism which considers the flesh and the physical to be evil.

Do some of you really want to go down that road? Oh, my mistake; you are already on it if you deny that Jesus was both fully God and fully human in Mary's womb.

They have done just that! Some of them are already far down that road and are on record as stating that Jesus was not fully God and fully human in Mary's womb. I have saved those posts so that the next time I'm accused of blasphemy or heresy by these people it will be a good time to bring up their own denial of the Deity of Christ while He was in the Blessed Mother's womb. They have dug themselves in good! One says Jesus only aquired Deity AT His birth (a form of Adoptionism) others say Mary DID NOT bear Jesus Deity while He was in the womb, claiming that if you say that you are claiming Mary created God and even when that is clearly explained as NOT what 'God Bearer' (Theotokos) means, they keep insisting Mary only bore Christ's humanity, separating out His two natures.
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's worse than that: If you read his replies to me, he states that he believes Jesus was God FROM BIRTH!! So, from conception and all the time Mary was carrying Jesus in her womb, right up until the moment He was born, He was not God, but from birth He was! This must be the most asinine thing I've ever read on here. So, when Jesus was being born, did God miraculously transform Him into deity in that moment? Biblicist doesn't believe in Immaculate Conception, but if he believes this, he believes in Immaculate Perception, perceiving that Jesus was not God a moment before His birth but became God a moment after! :laugh:

YEP, YOU NAILED IT!! :thumbs:
 
Top