It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Jesus is God" = Mary is "the mother of God"

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
looking at this logically..

how can mary be the mother of god?

she clearly had sex with a man that was not her husband and lied about it.

mother of god?...i dont think so




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

And you are back to Mary being the mother of God.

The thing is, Mary would be the mother of whatever Jesus is. Its basic common sense.


OK, we're past seven pages into this exercise. We are indeed back to Mary being the mother of God. My question would be what is your objection to that?

In case it matters, I am an agnostic. My stake is not to defend anybody's claims or counterclaims about gods, but I do think it's a good idea to achieve clarity about what those claims are, and about who believes what.

Christian and Muslims agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus and that he had no human father. Christians (that is, those who profess the Nicene creed, of whom there are a billion or more) believe that Jesus' father is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Muslims do not. Further, Nicene Chrsitians believe that Jesus is both "of one being with the Father" and "was made man." Muslims not only disbelieve that, but believe it would be a category mistake for one being to be both creator and creature (and so, since Nicene Christians believe otherwise, it follows of necesstity that the Nicene Christian God is not the Islamic Allah, but that's another thread).

Nicenes hold that the Incarnation is an incident in the biography of God. The incident had a beginning in time and space. Nicenes believe that God enlisted the services of a woman to be his mother. Mary, then, is fairly described as God's mother according to the beliefs of Nicene Christians. Nicenes do not believe that God had any beginning in time and space. Mary thus plays no role in the origin of Jesus' personhood, but only the role she played in the incident of his incarnation.

(Christians do not typically believe that humans exist before their conception, but they do believe that of Jesus. So, yes, they believe that the Christ is an exceptional human being. Duh.)

It is not just Catholics who call Mary "the mother of God." So do Anglicans, who are the largest Protestant denomination. Orthodox Christians prefer a different title, Theotokos, which has the sense of God-bearer, but there is no dispute that "bearing" refers to a mother bearing a child.

So, what is the problem you propose? I could try to guess, but there are so many possible objections. Then again, one reason why there are so many objections is that this doctrine has been taught for almost two millennia in the face of criticism. Yet you write as if you have made some novel discovery, something that has been overlooked.

There is no question that this is the Nicene claim, that Mary performed the maternal role in the incarnation of God. There is also no question that the Christians claim that she was created by the God of whose incarnation she was delivered, and not in any sense the other way around.

Maybe it would help if you explained how you would describe Mary's role in history, if you were a Nicene Christian, other than as the mother of God. If your point is simply that a Muslim wouldn't agree with an orthodox Christian about this, then how are we up to eight pages? That news is more than a thousand years old.
-
edit on 15-8-2012 by eight bits because: accumulation



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
If Icould go back in time, I would like to ask them the same questions that I did in the OP.

Its interesting how Christians have woven an elaborate theology to interpret Jesus as God. Yet, they remain silent when it comes to the issue of Mary. On one hand they insist that Jesus is God... on the other hand they stop short of acknowledging Mary as the mother of God. Instead they start looking for new ways to explain it away.

They did NOT stop short of acknowledging Mary as the Mother of God.
They acknowledged Mary as the Mother of God; it is there in the decrees of the Council of Ephesus- THEOTOKOS.
If a man comes out and says something, you cannot accuse him of failing to say it.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Jesus is God incarnate - John "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'. Mary is His mother. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

It's very simple.

But for some reason fundamentalists get all a twitter thinking that by saying that truth - Mary is the mother of God - that somehow raises Mary above Jesus or something. That's not the case at all. She is His mother .. she carried Him in her womb and raised Him and loved Him. Just like the rest of us humans, she had nothing to do with generating the soul/spirit/whatever of her child. God did that.

Jesus is God.
She's His mother.
She's the mother of God.
Simple.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
None of these states of this element can exist in the same space as another...
So logically the Father can not exist as the son in the same place...
Which negates their "oneness"


Logically speaking ....

God is outside of time and space. God is the creator and can manipulate creation as He wishes. He is not held to the laws of physics. He has powers and abilities we can't even dream of. To hold God to our myopic view of life would be to turn a blind eye to the fact that 'eye has not seen and ear has not heard' ...



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Sorry but I see no reason to change my position. You say you understand the metaphysical concepts in this theology yet say they hold zero bearing on this... which is just not accurate. As you didn't actually respond to my points but instead just repeated your position over again, we are clearly at a standstill. Not a problem I can post in other threads



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





Jesus is God incarnate - John "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'. Mary is His mother. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

It's very simple.

But for some reason fundamentalists get all a twitter thinking that by saying that truth - Mary is the mother of God - that somehow raises Mary above Jesus or something. That's not the case at all. She is His mother .. she carried Him in her womb and raised Him and loved Him. Just like the rest of us humans, she had nothing to do with generating the soul/spirit/whatever of her child. God did that.

Jesus is God.
She's His mother.
She's the mother of God.
Simple.


While I may not agree with you, thanks for taking time to reply.
You said you were Catholic, right? Or am I mistaking you for somebody else?



She is His mother .. she carried Him in her womb and raised Him and loved Him. Just like the rest of us humans, she had nothing to do with generating the soul/spirit/whatever of her child. God did that.


You are correct on this matter. But the same holds for all of us, right? Our mothers only carried us and raised us. But our souls were created by God.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 




Sorry but I see no reason to change my position. You say you understand the metaphysical concepts in this theology yet say they hold zero bearing on this... which is just not accurate. As you didn't actually respond to my points but instead just repeated your position over again, we are clearly at a standstill. Not a problem I can post in other threads


Well then, thank you for taking time to post here.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   


TextWhat do YOU believe about Jesus? Do you think he is God?
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


skOrpOn

According to the 1611 KJV bible it is said that Jesus said the following---

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

If Jesus were God then this writing is wrong but if this writing is correct then Jesus was not God.

The unborn Jesus was not conceived by a human man but is said that He was conceived by a celestial God.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

This is why it is written that He was the begotten son of God. His Father was God and not man. Mary was the vessel or containment of the unborn but her egg was not fertilized to conceive. He was brought forth as a male child by a celestial God. Jesus was not God and is not God today. He was the celestial Son known as the "Word" before His birth and is now also known once again as the "Word".

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

As He returns to govern this world, He will return as the celestial "Word" and not as the human Jesus. The man Jesus is dead and shall never again be the man Jesus. His substance was changed both in entering this world and in leaving this world. He was and is now the Son of God.

Revelations 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Mary is not the mother of God as the Catholic church declares, but she is blessed above all women.

How then could Mary be created from God and yet be the mother of God? Impossible !

Understand that this is nothing but theology and my answer is theoretical but in accordance with the 1611 KJV.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


I like to think that Jesus was one of the earliest starchildren sent after the three days of darkness...



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   


TextYou simply cannot have it both ways my friend either your yahwhe/jesus is the creator of all or it is not.
reply to post by ChristianJihad
 


ChristianJihad

Most Christians are not aware of the substance change as well as name change in referencing Jesus.

Jesus is the flesh and blood (Terrestrial) substance of the Son of God. Jesus as the human man did not create anything.

The "Word" was and is now the (Celestial) substance of the visibility of the Spirit God. It was the "Word" which is the visibility of the Spirit God who created this world. He created as a celestial image of the invisible God.

The terrestrial Jesus entered this world in a substance change from celestial to terrestrial. He also left this world in a substance change from terrestrial to celestial. Every human must also leave this world in the same manner.

IF this theology is correct then it was the "Word" that created and not Jesus. Jesus is given to us for understanding God. We could never have understood God otherwise. The man Jesus is gone just as every living thing must die on the world. Jesus will never return in the flesh just as nothing will return to this earth in the flesh. Once you die you then become celestial substance (whatever that is).

Therefore, It was the celestial "Word" that was with God and that was God who created this world. Not the earthly Jesus who was not the "Word" while in the flesh. The earthly Jesus was not God nor was He the "Word" and He did not create.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000


Sigh. Not going to waste my time circle jerking. :shk:, NuT, Adjensen you guys can deal with this. Good luck with the :bnghd:.


Me? I answered him on page one, and haven't seen anything to say that my answer wasn't what he was looking for. To that end, I fail to see the point of any of it, apart from "stirring the pot" -- it's the usual baited in-fighting among theists on a point that probably doesn't matter, with the occasional insult from the God haters tossed in.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Everything I say in this post is written under the assumption that Jesus's story, as related in the Bible, is true.

You said that Mary is the mother of "God" because she gave birth to Jesus, who was reportedly "God". It's not that simple. First, as shown in previous posts by other members, he was not "God" when he first emerged from her womb. He achieved that state on his own, after he was independent of her. Second, Higher Consciousness (the Holy Spirit) is not a material substance, and so Mary did not give birth to it. It was already there. Jesus's mind and soul, not his body, was of the Higher Consciousness. His body was mortal. That's why it could bleed. That's why it sweats. That's why he didn't resist them, because his body was mortal. Everything that was of the "Holy Spirit" was in the part of him that wasn't physical.

Mary was responsible for the physical body, not the Higher Consciousness within it. So she was Jesus' mother, but she did not give birth to the Higher Consciousness within him. She's the mother of the vessel, not what the vessel contained. So when he said he was the "Holy Spirit", he meant his mind and soul were of the Higher Consciousness. And remember, language is very clumsy compared the communication of Higher Consciousness, so because of that, much of what he said was, at the moment he said it, a very rough translation of what he actually meant. That's why he spoke in parables, because to actually say what he meant in his mind would make no sense to those people.

Mary gave birth to the flesh, not the soul. The flesh was not "God" in the story, the soul and mind was. So she didn't give birth to "God", so she wasn't the mother of "God". That Hail Mary thing is inaccurate. But hey, what do you expect of a man-made prayer?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Are you a man or a woman? I ask this because you carry chromosomes. You are either XX or XY, unless you are a hermaphrodite.

X is matrilineal, Y is patrileneal. Does it make you a woman because you have X along with the Y? Women are XX, and cannot be considered men by that logic. But the determination of sex is the chromosomes. Just because one chromosome is X and the other Y does not make you a woman, simply because of the X, it is the XX that makes woman.

The same with Mary and Jesus. Think of it this way...Mary is the X, the matrilineal, God is the Y, the patrilineal. Jesus is fully man, he is XY and fully God, because of the Y.

If you are a man, you are fully man and fully son of your father. You have XY that makes you man because your father is Y.

If you are a woman, I apologize for saying you. But this is simple genetics.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by queenofangels_17
 


This is true, but he said of himself... he was a servant of God...

And he also said he was "the son of God"...

are these corruptions as well?



Not when he is saying it in the context that the disciples are also sons of God, that God is also their Father.

In this context, we are all sons of God, since we are the work of His hands. He made us in his image, that of a spirit, all good as originally framed by Him.

But when it is referred to mean, son of God, such as the heir, begotten, a Partner of God, then that's a corruption;; Jesus would not refer to himself as THAT kind of son of God.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by queenofangels_17
 



19:22 And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.


Explain this line, if you would. From what I understood, the only person with her is an angel, and she conceived this angel? Or she conceived Jesus? And she withdrew with him inside of her, is that what I'm reading here?

Please clarify this for me, not all of us are as knowledgeable as you are in areas of obscure, outdated text.


The angel who delivered the "Word" to Mary is the Angel Gabriel, who appeared to her in the form of a perfect man. Upon saying the "Word" she immediately conceived Jesus in her womb, this "Word" which is " BE", from which God has created all things. After she conceived Jesus, she withdrew with him to a remote place. There she gave birth to him, not in a manger on a cold December night, but in the Dessert, and all alone.

19:22 And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place.

19:23 And the pangs of childbirth drove her unto the trunk of the palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died ere this and had become a thing of naught, forgotten!

19:24 Then (one) cried unto her from below her, saying: Grieve not! Thy Lord hath placed a rivulet beneath thee,

19:25 And shake the trunk of the palm tree toward thee, thou wilt cause ripe dates to fall upon thee.

19:26 So eat and drink and be consoled. And if thou meetest any mortal, say: Lo! I have vowed a fast unto the Beneficent, and may not speak this day to any mortal.

19:27 Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing. -

19:28 Oh sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot.

19:29 Then she pointed to him. They said How can we talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy? -

19:30 He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet,

19:31 And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive,

19:32 And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest.

19:33 Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!

19:34 Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.

19:35 It befitteth not the Majesty of Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! WHen He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.

Peace!



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Your reply was a rant against Catholics.
Its not news, since Christians accuse Catholics of worshipping Mary.

You said....


This title doesn't mean that she pre-existed Jesus, it's just a reference to the fact that she carried him in her womb and provided the DNA for his incarnation.

Well...since Mary " carried him in her womb and provided the DNA for his incarnation", it means Mary is the mother of Jesus. And since you believe Jesus was God, then the woman who gave birth to him becomes the mother of God.

Like I said earlier... most Christian arguments on this subject can be condensed to "Mary is Jesus' mother. Jesus is God. But Mary isn't the mother of God"



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by queenofangels_17
 


Jesus created more bread and fish. When there is only a little to begin with, and then there's a lot, that means he created something. He took bread and fish and created more of this, he made a lot where there had been only a little.

Also...

He created sight, for a blind man.

He created health, for a paralyzed man.

He created life, for a dead man.

He created many things, if you take his story to be true. Come on now, you should know this!

edit on 14-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


I certainly am aware of Jesus' miracles, but it is not as you perceive it to be.

He didn't create the fish or the bread, he prayed on it and it was multiplied by God's leave to be able to feed the multitude.

here is the story..

When the greater part of the crowd had departed, there remained about five thousand men, without women and children; who being wearied by the journey, having been two days without bread, for that through longing to see Jesus they had forgotten to bring any, whereupon they ate raw herbs - therefore they were not able to depart like the others.

Then Jesus, when he perceived this, had pity on them, and said to Philip: `Where shall we find bread for them that they perish not of hunger?'

Philip answered: `Lord, two hundred pieces of gold could not buy so much bread that each one should taste a little.' Then said Andrew: `There is here a child which hath five loaves and two fishes, but what will it be among so many?'

Jesus answered: `Make the multitude sit down.' And they sat down upon the grass by fifties and by forties. Thereupon said Jesus: `In the name of God!' And he took the bread, and prayed to God and then brake the bread, which he gave to the disciples, and the disciples gave it to the multitude; and so did they with the fishes. Every one ate and every one was satisfied.

***
This Miracle he did not do by himself, but he did in the Name of God, and was answered by God.

The healing of the sick he did also by permission of God, not by himself, since he has no power of his own to accomplish this.

5:110 When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favor unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead, by My permission and how I restrained the Children of Israel from harming thee when thou camest unto them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is naught else than mere magic;



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenofangels_17

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by queenofangels_17
 


This is true, but he said of himself... he was a servant of God...

And he also said he was "the son of God"...

are these corruptions as well?



Not when he is saying it in the context that the disciples are also sons of God, that God is also their Father.

In this context, we are all sons of God, since we are the work of His hands. He made us in his image, that of a spirit, all good as originally framed by Him.

But when it is referred to mean, son of God, such as the heir, begotten, a Partner of God, then that's a corruption;; Jesus would not refer to himself as THAT kind of son of God.


Actually in the same passage he claims to be the son of God, he says "we're all Gods" quoting Psalm 82...

So i believe you are incorrect.

I'd like to see where you got the information that says the gospels are corrupted... mind you im not saying they're not... im just curious


edit on 15-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Skorpie?


Your reply was a rant against Catholics.


In B4 Jensen reminds you that he is Catholic.

And as to


Like I said earlier... most Christian arguments on this subject can be condensed to "Mary is Jesus' mother. Jesus is God. But Mary isn't the mother of God"


as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, a comfortable majority of Christians profess that Mary is the mother of God somewhere in their liturgy or catechesis. That would include Catholics, big-oh Orthodox, and Anglicans. Round numbers, these churches comprise 2/3 to 3/4 of Nicene Christians.

So, apparently, your most = really some? Anyway, back to my question, if we may:


We are indeed back to Mary being the mother of God. My question would be what is your objection to that?


TIA for your reply.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join