Mary, Mother Of The Lamb(flesh) Of God, Not Mother Of God

MichaelH said:
Mary can't be the Mother of God, Jesus said He was with the Father before the foundation of the World and I don't think Mary had been born yet.
Click to expand...

sure .. and Jesus could not be savior because He could not be a descendant of King David like the prophecy said He must be, because He existed before King David .. nor could Jesus be the savior because the Father said I am the only savior ..

I think these things may be a little over your head using the logic you are trying to apply ..
 
Surprise Witness ..
Deu 6:4 shama`Yisra'el Yĕhovah 'elohiym Yĕhovah 'echad

hmmm .. hear Israel, Jehovah is Gods, Jehovah is one.
 
MichaelH said:
Mary can't be the Mother of God, Jesus said He was with the Father before the foundation of the World and I don't think Mary had been born yet.

The Word came to pass and made flesh, Mary pregnant with Jesus.

God the son is still a correct term because Jesus was Called God by Thomas without correction, John and God the Father called his son God.

If your trinitarian, then there are 3................. each their own person and not the other person. Jesus is not the Word part of God but came in the last days to speak the Word of God. Jesus name means the Word of God, but Jesus is actually the Son of God, and not some words or scripture part of God.

All 3 make the eternal Godhead.................

If you are a Modelist...... Then there is One God who has a split personality disorder and Jesus is not the real son but 1/3 of a god machine.

what are we talking about here. I just wanted to post something.
Click to expand...

Yes Jesus was God, as the Son He was God and man. The Bible says: Son of God, NOT God the Son.
Where did Jesus teach a "threeness doctrine" ? Where did the Apostles ever mention this allegedly essentially doctrine called trinity?
Of course Jesus was with the Father before His incarnation........He was the Father incarnate.
The Word "became" flesh. But, Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
 
ixoye_8 said:
Luk 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.[/quote]

WHY IS JESUS CALLED THE SON OF GOD ???
what reason ???
BECAUSE GOD BEGAT GOD ..
 
Last edited:
Textus Receptus
1:35 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἄγγελος εἶπεν αὐτῇ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ καὶ δύναμις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ

nice how they can change the original ..
 
Last edited:
so what is the KJV bible based on ???

Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants, but had only six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.[5] They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.

lol .. they couldn't even get the case right .. great translator ..

The origin of the term Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden. The preface reads, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, translated as, "so you hold the text, now received by all, in which (is) nothing corrupt." The two words textum and receptum were modified from the accusative to the nominative case to render textus receptus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

ha ha .. so they mass produce it and that validates it as the TEXT RECEIVED .. nice they validate themselves AND say it is error free .. so it must be ..
 
Last edited:
that rivals the Jews Mesoretic Texts they created in 850 ad, when they found out the Christians were validating Jesus through the OT, and then made that version to do their best to obscure any mention of Jesus or trinity in the OT ..
 
even St Jerome's Vulgate no longer exists ..
other translators through the centuries kept changing it instead of just preserving it the way he translated it ..
 
I left off the best part of that Wiki article above ..

The Dutch humanist Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on a fresh Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[1] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god.
 
Brother David said:
Yes Jesus was God, as the Son He was God and man. The Bible says: Son of God, NOT God the Son.
Where did Jesus teach a "threeness doctrine" ? Where did the Apostles ever mention this allegedly essentially doctrine called trinity?
Of course Jesus was with the Father before His incarnation........He was the Father incarnate.
The Word "became" flesh. But, Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
The Trinity is part of the Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
 
ixoye_8 said:
sure .. and Jesus could not be savior because He could not be a descendant of King David like the prophecy said He must be, because He existed before King David .. nor could Jesus be the savior because the Father said I am the only savior ..

I think these things may be a little over your head using the logic you are trying to apply ..
Click to expand...

I am game....... You would be suppressed what is not over my head.

The Father is the Savior. The father sent his son and Crucified him.

Jesus earthly right was from David. Why he had to come in a flesh body. Satan came another way. Jesus came to destroy the Works of the devil.

Jesus is the I AM has always been with the Father.

I'll spare the scriptures as you probably already know them.

Please also could you quote me just once........... I think I responded to you and behold..... there is more to hunt down. I don't want to miss anything...

Also...... I like Greek..... Know a bit how it works, but slow down. If something is there in concept, it's good enough.

Brother David said:
Yes Jesus was God, as the Son He was God and man. The Bible says: Son of God, NOT God the Son.
Where did Jesus teach a "threeness doctrine" ? Where did the Apostles ever mention this allegedly essentially doctrine called trinity?
Of course Jesus was with the Father before His incarnation........He was the Father incarnate.
The Word "became" flesh. But, Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...

First, I have no idea what we are even discussing, I just jumped in for lack of better things to do. I am not trinitarian at all.

2nd Jesus is not His father nor is incarnation found in the bible either. Jesus is also not the Word, but that the Word was made flesh as the Word made trees, as the Word made a dog. We don't change the understanding of how God creates for one scripture.

The Word made flesh, Came to pass the only begotten son of God. That describes How Jesus as promised came to earth.

Jesus name means the Word and God sent his son in the last days to speak the word. Not speak out himself.

Also if Jesus is the Father, then God who gave Jesus all things and made him an heir which we are joint heirs got real confused since he gave what he already owned to himself........... So confused he made two thrones for his make believe son he thinks he has.

If you like, I can post a whole bunch of scriptures that shred the idea of modelism to pieces.

though I am not trinitarian at least they can count.

Also the Holy Spirit was never called God, that is made up by Trinity, oneness,and modelist.

However, if you want to get technical, the Holy Spirit is theos (God) by definition.

Just say the word, I don't mind.
 
MichaelH said:
If you like, I can post a whole bunch of scriptures that shred the idea of modelism to pieces.
Click to expand...

you don't get it ..
you are working with adulterated material ..
that bible you use is based on the 1600 ad Texus Recpticus made by a man who said he was inspired by "some god" ..
and the 850 ad Mesoretic Text made by Jews who purposely obscured OT references of Jesus and trinity ..
and then translated to mold to the dogma of the Church of England into English by common criminals ..

what about lucifer ???
that is a Protestant invention for the devil's name ..
scripture never gives his name ..

and so the reformist do what God would not ..
respect satan by giving him a name ..

and here is the Protestant tribute to him ..

KJV
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

and here is how a REAL bible reads ..

NASB
Isa 14:12 “How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

the word used (הֵילֵל)(heylel) reflects shinning, and is interpreted correctly above as that is Jesus' title and Issiah was mocking the devil for being so dumb as to think he could be God ..

Catholic Bible
12 How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn! How are you cut down to the ground, you who mowed down the nations!

The English word "Lucifer" found in the KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate where we find the word "heylel" .. which was translated from the Septuagint where we find the Greek word "xosphoruos" .. which was translated from the original manuscripts where we find the Hebrew word "hehlehl" .. so Jerome actually put it back into the Hebrew from the Greek (untranslated) and the KJV decided to make either a noun or verb - star/shinning into a proper name .. so satan is only respected with a pseudo Proper name in the minds of the Church of England's bible and those who use it ..
 
Last edited:
my point is it is impossible to discuss doctrine or theology when your not working with God's true word .. and if you are using a source that has been through the wash many times .. then you must conceded to the alterations in those verses that are pointed out as not viable data to work from ..
 
for this reason, it is good as a student of God's word to become a student of Greek and Hebrew .. and always refer back to the eldest wittiness .. I am always open to learning and sharing what I have learned ..

FYI: I have a Robin Hood mentality .. when I see those (denominations/brethren) who would pick on others (denominations/brethren) my response is always to take away what they perceive as their leverage .. hence many of my posts lately ..
 
Last edited:
When I became a believer in Jesus Christ at 22...(raised Catholic) praying to Mary became fruitless-- why would I pray to her when Gods word tells me to bring EVERYTHING to Him? It seems so very simple to me. It's in Gods word. I didn't take any issue with Catholics or their beliefs until as I was reading my Bible I began to recognize inconsistencies between what I learned from Catholic Church and what I was reading as a believer.

Mary absolutely deserves our love and adoration just like Paul, Moses, Daniel, all the great GODLY men and women who's faithful lives contributed to the telling of story of the Messiah.

But My Lord and Savior is the only one worthy of prayer which IS A FORM OF WORSHIP.

Whether it not you don't like john MacArthur, he was right on point with the reading of Psalms 115, 116-- and Revelation 22

The word of God is clear WHO we are to communicate with. Time spent praying to another believer (greater than me of course but still another created believer) is time I could have spent being in communion with The Living God!!!!

:)
 
Brother David said:
No, Jesus (as the Son) had a beginning at Bethlehem. Why would what the Greeks call Mary tie into Bible truth ? Mary birthed God "In Flesh" Not God that was always there...even before the incarnation. There is a problem with your understanding of God: There is but ONE God- **Glomung wrote:
It is equally correct to call her the "Mother of God" because she was in fact His (Jesus') mother.
That however does not make her the "mother of the Eternal God".
According to your reasoning..........

There is a mother of a God that is not eternal, but called the Mother of God(wow that's two Gods- one eternal, and one not)
Click to expand...

Mothers do not birth only the flesh, they birth a person, and in Mary's case the person was God (okay we get the IN the flesh idea...thats not the issue...the person was the I AM of eternity...
 
If God intended Mary to play such an important role in our walk with Christ (praying to her, meditating on her greatness)then why is it not instructed to do this in the Bible like so many other things are?
 
ixoye_8 said:
that rivals the Jews Mesoretic Texts they created in 850 ad, when they found out the Christians were validating Jesus through the OT, and then made that version to do their best to obscure any mention of Jesus or trinity in the OT ..
Click to expand...
Wow that explains why in the Torah Isaiah doesn't have any mention of God in the "for unto us a child is born" prophecy--

Thank you for this info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top