Why was Mary necessary?

[MoreCoffee]

I would have to disagree with this statement. Prayer is very important and it is very important that we pray the correct way.

What's "the correct way"?

 

[Alithis]

Do you believe Jesus is always God? Yes or No.

If no, when was Jesus never God? When did He become God according to your beliefs?

Answering these questions will speak volumes.

how many times are you going to ask the same question .here is my answer -i believe everything the scriptures declare about him .not only the ones you want me to adm .. but ALL of them . and none of it changes that she is the mother of the MAN who walked as flesh and blood ,, for th person of Christ was with the father before mary was created thus she is not the mother of the person of the Godhead but only on the flesh man .

so the truth remains unchanged - that God ,by his holy spirit NEVER gives mary that title . so why should you or I ?

have you yet asked why it is so important to one particular denomination to give her this title ?
why glorify her that way ..? is it not the lord Jesus to whom ALL(not some) honour and ALL (not some ) glory is to be given
.. yes it is HIM for he ALONE is worthy of it .
so ask yourself .. by what spirit is it they speak when they so seek to glorify another with heady titles ?

it is not the holy Spirit .for the lord Jesus said "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.… "

so we see here plainly that the holy Spirit wil not glorify another .So it is not by the Spiirt of the lord Jesus that this title is added to mary . so what spirit seeks to usurp and glory i another but the spirit of anti christ .

 

[Alithis]

Since you deny, reject and protest the things this title affirms (Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may correctly be referred to as God) then you protest, reject and deny these two things. Luke 2:1-7 ETC teaches that Mary bore Him and John 20:28 ETC states that Jesus may be correctly referred to as God. So, by rejecting the two things the title affirms and the Scriptures that teach them, you are rejecting one or both of these sets of Scripture.




.

YOU say - and Jesus may correctly be referred to as God . but your quoting it as if you are quoting a biblical text .. was his flesh GOD ? or was his flesh ..man ?

but thats not the point its a distraction by yourself

- the point is the scripture does not call mary "the mother of God "

so why do you insist glorifying her with that title when God does not ? what is to be gained ? well then you can go on and call her lots of other false things .all of which are blasphemies .

 

[Alithis]

My view of this....

The Trinity makes up God. He is 3 parts (Father, Son, Spirit). I relate this to the average man. We are made up of different parts. We have a mind, a soul, and a body. I can generally refer to someones body as being that person, and people would understand that I am referring to said person and understand the context. But I would not be able to say that said person's body is truly who that person is. A body is not a person. A body, soul, and mind are a person. One of these things individually does not make up the entire person. But when individually spoken about in general they can be referred to as a person and it is understood. The same goes for the Trinity. The Son does not make up all of God. He makes up one of the 3 parts of God. Mary gave birth to the Son. She did not give birth to the Father, and she did not give birth to the Holy Spirit. Generally speaking it can be understood that what is meant when saying that Mary is mother of God is that she gave birth to Jesus the Son. When we get into the literal meaning of the word God though, the meaning of "Mary the mother of God" changes. She did not give birth to the Trinity (which is God fully). She only gave birth to a part of the God Head. So in literal meaning she is not the mother of God. She is just the mother of Jesus. Jesus does not make up God by himself. If he did then He would not have prayed to the Father. They are all separate parts that work together as one God, which is so complex I don't believe we will ever understand how this works.

God= Trinity

Trinity= Father+Son+Spirit

Son= One part of God (Trinity)

Father= One part of God (Trinity)

Spirit= One part of God (Trinity)

Thoughts and Criticism please......? :banana:

yes .. and this point has been well presented and rejected by some ..their response to it was to announce a change to the meaning of the title "Mary mother of god " .
to which i pointed out .. the only reason you would feel the need to change or redefine the meaning is .. because you now see the term "mary mother of god " is simply WRONG .

to which i advice .. repent of using it rather then attempting to self justify it . if its wrong in its meaning then its wrong . they don't get to redefine the meaning of the singular words and then say the term means something else - thats about as dishonest as it can get to do so .

 

[Josiah]

i advice .. repent of using it

Must Thomas repent of calling Jesus "GOD?" (John 20:28) Should Jesus have condemned Thomas, told Thomas that he was WRONG, called Thomas to repentance? If so, why do you think Jesus didn't?

Since you deny, reject and protest the things this title affirms (Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may correctly be referred to as God) then you protest, reject and deny these two things. Luke 2:1-7 ETC teaches that Mary bore Him and John 20:28 ETC states that Jesus may be correctly referred to as God. So, by rejecting the two things the title affirms and the Scriptures that teach them, you are rejecting one or both of these sets of Scripture.




.

 

[Josiah]

My view of this....

The Trinity makes up God. He is 3 parts (Father, Son, Spirit). I relate this to the average man. We are made up of different parts. We have a mind, a soul, and a body. I can generally refer to someones body as being that person, and people would understand that I am referring to said person and understand the context. But I would not be able to say that said person's body is truly who that person is. A body is not a person. A body, soul, and mind are a person. One of these things individually does not make up the entire person. But when individually spoken about in general they can be referred to as a person and it is understood. The same goes for the Trinity. The Son does not make up all of God. He makes up one of the 3 parts of God. Mary gave birth to the Son. She did not give birth to the Father, and she did not give birth to the Holy Spirit. Generally speaking it can be understood that what is meant when saying that Mary is mother of God is that she gave birth to Jesus the Son. When we get into the literal meaning of the word God though, the meaning of "Mary the mother of God" changes. She did not give birth to the Trinity (which is God fully). She only gave birth to a part of the God Head. So in literal meaning she is not the mother of God. She is just the mother of Jesus. Jesus does not make up God by himself. If he did then He would not have prayed to the Father. They are all separate parts that work together as one God, which is so complex I don't believe we will ever understand how this works.

God= Trinity

Trinity= Father+Son+Spirit

Son= One part of God (Trinity)

Father= One part of God (Trinity)

Spirit= One part of God (Trinity)

Thoughts and Criticism please......? :banana:

Here is the EXACT, VERBATIM, word-for-word doctrine of the Trinity. You might want to very carefully read this. Nearly all Christian denominations embrace this:

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.


.

Note that the Father IS God. The Son IS God. The Holy Spirit IS God. But there are not 3 Gods. The "three-parts" idea that you perhaps are presenting is actually an early heresy that is condemned by the Doctrine of the Trinity above. Note that the Bible calls the Father specifically "GOD" (1 Peter 1:3, etc., etc.) - referring only to the Father. The Bible also calls the Son specifically "GOD" (not "Part God, partly God") (John 20:28, etc., etc.) - referring only to the Son. The Bible also specially calls the Spirit "GOD" (Acts 5:3-4, etc., etc., etc.) - referring only to the Spirit. Since each person IS God, the Bible is not wrong to call each specifically "GOD."

I think where 'confusion' comes is that we embrace that while the Father IS God and the Son IS God and the Spirit IS God, nonetheless God is TRIUNE (THREE yet one). Now, what the Bible NEVER does is call the Father "Trinity." Or the Son "Trinity". Or the Spirit "Trinity" That of course would be a violation of the doctrine as quoted above. The Father does NOT equal the Trinity, although He IS God and IS specifically and correctly reffered to as "GOD" in the Bible (many times!) - so the Bible is not wrong to call the Father "GOD" (but it would be wrong to refer ONLY to the First Person as "Trinity"); it is not wrong for the Bible to refer to the Son (and specifically to Jesus) as "GOD" (which it does many times) but it would be wrong to refer to Jesus as "Trinity." Again, carefully READ the verbatim, exact words of the doctrine of the Trinity which virtually every Christian denomination on the planet accepts, verbatim (of course, not the LDS or Oneness Pentecostalism, etc).

I think some that protest this ancient title (that is a declaration of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL virtually ALL donominations ACCEPT and EMBRACE!) is that they simply CHANGE it. The ancient title embraced by the Ecumenical Council all of us accept is NOT "Mary - Mother of the Trinity." THAT would be wrong! But no one says that, no one has EVER used that title, no one has EVER claimed that. The title affirms two (and only) two things: Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7) and Jesus may be called "GOD (as Scripture itself does, for example, John 20:28). To deny the title is to deny one or both things it (AND THE BIBLE and the DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY!) proclaim: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may correctly be called "God." The confusion comes in part from people who don't know the doctrine of the Trinity and don't know that the Bible itself often calls an individual person of the Trinity as "GOD." Indeed Jesus HIMSELF (as the God/Man, 100% God and 100% man, inseparately) is also specifically called "GOD" by the Bible (and thus IMO it can't be wrong to do that.... and it certainly is not a violation of the Doctrine of the Trinity as the above shows).


I hope that helps!


- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

Please tell me how you view Him laying aside His position and divinity, yes I acknowledge He is God I also acknowledge that God has the power to haveHim operate as a man while on earth.

 

[Josiah]

Double post (sorry; I don't know how I keep doing this! I'll figure it out)

 

[Josiah]

Please tell me how you view Him laying aside His position and divinity, yes I acknowledge He is God I also acknowledge that God has the power to haveHim operate as a man while on earth.

Jesus never laid aside His divinity, He laid aside the use of it in order to be our servant (this time frame is called His "State of Humiliation", from His Incarnation through His death on the Cross). But even here, we see that He is still 100% divine - we see it in His miracles, the Transfiguration, etc..... Perhaps you are thinking of Philippians 2:6, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider that something to be used to his own advantage." Note, it says that JESUS was "in very nature GOD" It doesn't say, "Jesus ceased to be God for a spell."


Jesus was not "as a man." He IS man: 100% Always. He IS God: 100% Always. Inseparably.

John 20:28 is among the places where JESUS is specifically referred to as "GOD."

See post # 206 above, too.



Thanks!


- Josiah

 

[shinobi]

Here is the EXACT, VERBATIM, word-for-word doctrine of the Trinity. You might want to very carefully read this. Nearly all Christian denominations embrace this:




Note that the Father IS God. The Son IS God. The Holy Spirit IS God. But there are not 3 Gods. The "three-parts" idea that you perhaps are presenting is actually an early heresy that is condemned by the Doctrine of the Trinity above. Note that the Bible calls the Father specifically "GOD" (1 Peter 1:3, etc., etc.) - referring only to the Father. The Bible also calls the Son specifically "GOD" (not "Part God, partly God") (John 20:28, etc., etc.) - referring only to the Son. The Bible also specially calls the Spirit "GOD" (Acts 5:3-4, etc., etc., etc.) - referring only to the Spirit. Since each person IS God, the Bible is not wrong to call each specifically "GOD."

I think where 'confusion' comes is that we embrace that while the Father IS God and the Son IS God and the Spirit IS God, nonetheless God is TRIUNE (THREE yet one). Now, what the Bible NEVER does is call the Father "Trinity." Or the Son "Trinity". Or the Spirit "Trinity" That of course would be a violation of the doctrine as quoted above. The Father does NOT equal the Trinity, although He IS God and IS specifically and correctly reffered to as "GOD" in the Bible (many times!) - so the Bible is not wrong to call the Father "GOD" (but it would be wrong to refer ONLY to the First Person as "Trinity"); it is not wrong for the Bible to refer to the Son (and specifically to Jesus) as "GOD" (which it does many times) but it would be wrong to refer to Jesus as "Trinity." Again, carefully READ the verbatim, exact words of the doctrine of the Trinity which virtually every Christian denomination on the planet accepts, verbatim (of course, not the LDS or Oneness Pentecostalism, etc).

I think some that protest this ancient title (that is a declaration of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL virtually ALL donominations ACCEPT and EMBRACE!) is that they simply CHANGE it. The ancient title embraced by the Ecumenical Council all of us accept is NOT "Mary - Mother of the Trinity." THAT would be wrong! But no one says that, no one has EVER used that title, no one has EVER claimed that. The title affirms two (and only) two things: Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7) and Jesus may be called "GOD (as Scripture itself does, for example, John 20:28). To deny the title is to deny one or both things it (AND THE BIBLE and the DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY!) proclaim: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may correctly be called "God." The confusion comes in part from people who don't know the doctrine of the Trinity and don't know that the Bible itself often calls an individual person of the Trinity as "GOD." Indeed Jesus HIMSELF (as the God/Man, 100% God and 100% man, inseparately) is also specifically called "GOD" by the Bible (and thus IMO it can't be wrong to do that.... and it certainly is not a violation of the Doctrine of the Trinity as the above shows).


I hope that helps!


- Josiah




.

So does the Son by himself make up the trinity? Did Mary give birth to the Father. The Son has always been. She gave birth to His earthly form, not His being himself.

 

[Josiah]

Note that the Father IS God. The Son IS God. The Holy Spirit IS God. But there are not 3 Gods. The "three-parts" idea that you perhaps are presenting is actually an early heresy that is condemned by the Doctrine of the Trinity above. Note that the Bible calls the Father specifically "GOD" (1 Peter 1:3, etc., etc.) - referring only to the Father. The Bible also calls the Son specifically "GOD" (not "Part God, partly God") (John 20:28, etc., etc.) - referring only to the Son. The Bible also specially calls the Spirit "GOD" (Acts 5:3-4, etc., etc., etc.) - referring only to the Spirit. Since each person IS God, the Bible is not wrong to call each specifically "GOD."

I think where 'confusion' comes is that we embrace that while the Father IS God and the Son IS God and the Spirit IS God, nonetheless God is TRIUNE (THREE yet one). Now, what the Bible NEVER does is call the Father "Trinity." Or the Son "Trinity". Or the Spirit "Trinity" That of course would be a violation of the doctrine as quoted above. The Father does NOT equal the Trinity, although He IS God and IS specifically and correctly reffered to as "GOD" in the Bible (many times!) - so the Bible is not wrong to call the Father "GOD" (but it would be wrong to refer ONLY to the First Person as "Trinity"); it is not wrong for the Bible to refer to the Son (and specifically to Jesus) as "GOD" (which it does many times) but it would be wrong to refer to Jesus as "Trinity." Again, carefully READ the verbatim, exact words of the doctrine of the Trinity which virtually every Christian denomination on the planet accepts, verbatim (of course, not the LDSor Oneness Pentecostalism, etc).

I think some that protest this ancient title (that is a declaration of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL virtually ALL donominations ACCEPT and EMBRACE!) is that they simply CHANGE it. The ancient title embraced by the Ecumenical Council all of us accept is NOT "Mary - Mother of the Trinity." THAT would be wrong! But no one says that, no one has EVER used that title, no one has EVER claimed that. The title affirms two (and only) two things: Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7) and Jesus may be called "GOD (as Scripture itself does, for example, John 20:28). To deny the title is to deny one or both things it (AND THE BIBLE and the DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY!) proclaim: Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may correctly be called "God." The confusion comes in part from people who don't know the doctrine of the Trinity and don't know that the Bible itself often calls an individual person of the Trinity as "GOD." Indeed Jesus HIMSELF (as the God/Man, 100% God and 100% man, inseparately) is also specifically called "GOD" by the Bible (and thus IMO it can't be wrong to do that.... and it certainly is not a violation of the Doctrine of the Trinity as the above shows).


I hope that helps!


.

So does the Son by himself make up the trinity?

ABSOLUTELY not! That would be heresy! But there is no title, "Mary - Mother of the Trinity." Never has been, still isn't. NO ONE believes or affirms that, that would be heresy as I hope the verbatim words I quoted to you showed.

Read what you quoted from me.



- Josiah

 

[Alithis]

Must Thomas repent of calling Jesus "GOD?" (John 20:28) Should Jesus have condemned Thomas, told Thomas that he was WRONG, called Thomas to repentance? If so, why do you think Jesus didn't?

Since you deny, reject and protest the things this title affirms (Mary bore Jesus and Jesus may correctly be referred to as God) then you protest, reject and deny these two things. Luke 2:1-7 ETC teaches that Mary bore Him and John 20:28 ETC states that Jesus may be correctly referred to as God. So, by rejecting the two things the title affirms and the Scriptures that teach them, you are rejecting one or both of these sets of Scripture.




.

i will address this yet again.i have lost count of how many times .

i have never denied that mary bore the flesh body of the anointed one ( the messiah) into the world and i have never denied that christ is the manifestation of the invisible God . i have never denied anything the scriptures says of him .i have categorically stated "I agree with everything the scripture says about the Lord JEsus" including that he became flesh .

now that it is yet again on record if you make the claim of denial again, it will be on record that you lie to do so .

and since he is the manifestation of the invisible God and was with God before the creation of the world (and mary) and by him (the living word of god )all things were created .. and he -the word , the son , did not originate at mary . She is NOT the mother of God ..she is the mother of the flesh man .. for the man of flesh (also called by scripture the "son of man" began when that flesh was formed in mary by the Holy Spirit . but the person who inhabits that flesh .. IS before the creation of the world .

for this reason the Holy Ghost by whose inspiration the word of god is written .NEVER gives her that title .. - it is a blasphemous title .

i wil end with the same question i ask others - why do you persist in the attempt to glorify mary with such a grandiose title ? when the Holy Spirit does not ,nor ever will .should your efforts not be better spent glorifying the Lord JEsus who ALONE is worthy of ALL praise and honour and glory and riches and power and the name given above every name in earth and in Heaven .And yet is then himself ,at the end of all things brought into subjection to the father .and if christ himself is brought into subjection to the father then -yet again ..mary cannot be the "mother of God " . and is NEVER to be heiled as such .for to do so is blasphemy.

 

[Alithis]

Jesus never laid aside His divinity, He laid aside the use of it in order to be our servant (this time frame is called His "State of Humiliation", from His Incarnation through His death on the Cross). But even here, we see that He is still 100% divine - we see it in His miracles, the Transfiguration, etc..... Perhaps you are thinking of Philippians 2:6, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider that something to be used to his own advantage." Note, it says that JESUS was "in very nature GOD" It doesn't say, "Jesus ceased to be God for a spell."


Jesus was not "as a man." He IS man: 100% Always. He IS God: 100% Always. Inseparably.

John 20:28 is among the places where JESUS is specifically referred to as "GOD."

See post # 206 above, too.



Thanks!


- Josiah

Though he was God,a
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being.... <- this human being .. this flesh is what mary was mother to .

you are never going to find the term mary mother of god in the scripture because it is not in the scriptures .It does not originate from God it comes from the spirit of the anti christ .

 

[Josiah]

Thomas referred to Jesus specifically and directly with the word "GOD.' JESUS...... "GOD" Was he wrong? Was Jesus wrong to not correct him, rebuke him, reject what Thomas said? And elsewhere in the Bible where JESUS is referred to specifically withe the word "GOD" does it ergo err and is wrong? And Luke specifically states that Mary bore this one whom Thomas called "GOD." Was Luke wrong? Is the Bible wrong in many places to say that Mary bore this one who Thomas and Scripture specifically calls "GOD?" Where is Scripture committing "blasphemous" - is it when it calls JESUS "GOD" or when it says "Mary bore this same JESUS?" Because there are only two things affirmed by the title: Mary bore Jesus (Luke 2:1-7) and Jesus may be called God (John 20:28, etc.); if Scripture is wrong to affirm those two things, then I agree it's wrong to affirm those two things and the title is wrong since it affirms those two things - and only those two things. But if the title is wrong to affirm those two things, then so is Scripture (Luke 2:1-7, John 20:28). Dance around that all you feel you want, but that's the reality.

 

[Josiah]

Though he was God,a
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being.... <- this human being .. this flesh is what mary was mother to .

you are never going to find the term mary mother of god in the scripture because it is not in the scriptures .It does not originate from God it comes from the spirit of the anti christ .

Philippians 2:6, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider that something to be used to his own advantage." Note, it says that JESUS was "in very nature GOD" It doesn't say, "Jesus ceased to be God for a spell."

That's JESUS Paul is taking about. JESUS. And he writes (inerrantly, by divine inspiration) HE is "in very nature GOD."




.

 

[Alithis]

ABSOLUTELY not! That would be heresy! But there is no title, "Mary - Mother of the Trinity." Never has been, still isn't. NO ONE believes or affirms that, that would be heresy as I hope the verbatim words I quoted to you showed.

Read what you quoted from me.



- Josiah

this contradiction .. -you just said to him "The father IS god the son IS God etc" ( the term GOD is the collective person of the trinity it is a plural tense it is never singular . .in essence it means "them" . so when we use the term "GOD" we are speaking of all that God is . the collective godhead . if you take away a part of it then you have a part .. not the whole ,not "GOD" . then when he asked you -does the son make up the whole trinity (which means the godhead for the term trinity is also not in the scriptures ) you answered "absolutely not ". and so fully contradicted the statement you made .

all in an attempt to maintain the glorification of the created mary -which is idolatry .

 

[psalms 91]

Jesus never laid aside His divinity, He laid aside the use of it in order to be our servant (this time frame is called His "State of Humiliation", from His Incarnation through His death on the Cross). But even here, we see that He is still 100% divine - we see it in His miracles, the Transfiguration, etc..... Perhaps you are thinking of Philippians 2:6, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider that something to be used to his own advantage." Note, it says that JESUS was "in very nature GOD" It doesn't say, "Jesus ceased to be God for a spell."


Jesus was not "as a man." He IS man: 100% Always. He IS God: 100% Always. Inseparably.

John 20:28 is among the places where JESUS is specifically referred to as "GOD."

See post # 206 above, too.



Thanks!


- Josiah

He had the fullness of the spirit of God on Him and thus He performed miracles as we would, as man would, it is His example we are to follow and none of us are devine in nature so it was Him ioperating as man would in the spirit of God that we can emulate.

 

[Alithis]

Philippians 2:6, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider that something to be used to his own advantage." Note, it says that JESUS was "in very nature GOD" It doesn't say, "Jesus ceased to be God for a spell."

That's JESUS Paul is taking about. JESUS. And he writes (inerrantly, by divine inspiration) HE is "in very nature GOD."




.

. shouting won't change that the term mary mother of God is not in the scripture because God never gives the title and never will

you will note also that he is then not born GOD .. he is born flesh.. he lays aside his divine privilege in order to do so .. ... it is why i was not shy to present the entire verse where you are obviously focusing only on the partial text to try and get it to squeeze into a false doctrine . where as i do not have to manipulate the scripture but can present it all openly without the need to twist and squeeze and manipulate it .

"...Though he was God,a
he did not think of equality with God
as something to cling to.
Instead, he gave up his divine privileges;
he took the humble position of a slave
and was born as a human being..."

so we see rather plainly ,,mary was mother to the flesh and blood MAN .. not of God ,not in any sense of the word .

sooner or later you are going to have to accept that the term is NOT in scripture for a good reason.. it is because it is NOT true .

 

[Alithis]

He had the fullness of the spirit of God on Him and thus He performed miracles as we would, as man would, it is His example we are to follow and none of us are devine in nature so it was Him ioperating as man would in the spirit of God that we can emulate.

yup

 

[Josiah]

Philippians 2:6, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider that something to be used to his own advantage."

Note, it says that JESUS was "in very nature GOD"
It does not say, "Jesus ceased to be God for a spell."

That's JESUS Paul is taking about. JESUS. And he writes (inerrantly, by divine inspiration) He (that is Jesus) is "in very nature GOD."

At His conception, JESUS was "in very nature God."
At His birth, JESUS was "in very nature God."


.

you will note also that he is then not born GOD ..

Then when did it become true what the Bible says, "Jesus is in very nature God?" When he was 53 days old? When he was 721 days old? When he turned 21? IF it wasn't true at his birth, then when DID what Scripture flat out boldly states of Him become correct and not "blasphemy?"

Paul penned this around 65 AD. So at least in 65 AD, it was true (and not blasphemy) that Jesus "is in very nature God." IS. IF this wasn't blasphemy in 65 AD, when - pray tell - did it become blasphemy? When - after 65 AD - did it become untrue and indeed blasphemy to declare that Paul by divine, inerrant inspiration penned? When exactly did that happen?


Do you agree with Scripture that Jesus "is in very nature God" ? Is the Bible committing blasphemy there? Is the Bible wrong in declaring that, affirming that?

he lays aside his divine privilege in order to do so ..

But He did not give up His divinity... He "being in very nature God." Not, "so He gave up being god for a spell." Laying aside the "privilege" as you put it is not giving up his nature, Jesus " in very nature God."

If the title is wrong (indeed blaphemy as you claim) to affirm Jesus as being God - "being in very nature God" then the Bible commits blasphemy, Paul wrote blasphemy, and it's Scripture you are disagreeing with.




.