Mary Mother of God?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Many people were called God ...

Could you give some examples from scripture of many people being called God?

Originally posted by galveston75
Because I have answerd you over and over and over. You don't get it so nothing more to say to you. Are you unable to understand that?

No you haven't, you have deflected and avoided as you usually do. Here is the question:

You said in this thread;

"Jesus is a mighty God" and that "Jehovah is almighty God" and that "Jesus is not Jehovah"

So by definition, you must believe there are two Gods?

It's a simple point for you to confirm Galveston.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Mighty God is simply a reference of nobility. Many people were called God and Lord...
If as they say, He is God, no I could not identify with His suffering. It is also illogical according to the bible. There were many "types" of Christ in the old testament. One of my favorites is Joseph in Genesis. If you will notice in the following verses, he was give ...[text shortened]... thout your consent no man may lift his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt."
NKJV

So Jesus being a God does not affect the degree to which you identify with his suffering? Would you have identified with the suffering even more if he hadn't been a God?

Originally posted by FMF
So Jesus being a God does not affect the degree to which you identify with his suffering? Would you have identified with the suffering even more if he hadn't been a God?

You miss my point. Jesus was a man. 100% man but without the sinful nature. Still He had to grow in wisdom, make choices. He was the 2nd "Adam" but unlike the 1st "Adam" Jesus made all the right choices. From childhood, He studied the scriptures and learned who He was. He realized through study and revelation from His Father what His calling was. He was obedient unto death. He is my hero, my Lord whom I follow.

Originally posted by divegeester
Could you give some examples from scripture of many people being called God?

I don't want to get in your game, you look it up. Just look at a concordance every where the words god, God, lord Lord are used...very easy. Are you asking because you want to learn or just argue? Anyone who wants to believe in a triune god is free to do so, but you do err not knowing the scriptures...Anyone who wants to know the truth has to work for it.


Prov 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
NKJV

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I don't want to get in your game, you look it up. Just look at a concordance every where the words god, God, lord Lord are used...very easy. Are you asking because you want to learn or just argue? Anyone who wants to believe in a triune god is free to do so, but you do err not knowing the scriptures...Anyone who wants to know the truth has to work for it ...[text shortened]... the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
NKJV

You made a bold statement about the reference Isaiah makes to the "child" being "mighty God". You said that "many people were called God", which can infer that what Isaiah was saying in that scripture was not unique and specific to Jesus.

If you are unwilling to back this claim up with evidence or expand on the implications, then I will assume you invented it. The onus is on you to explain it, not on the reader to scury off to see if it is correct.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You miss my point. Jesus was a man. 100% man but without the sinful nature. Still He had to grow in wisdom, make choices. He was the 2nd "Adam" but unlike the 1st "Adam" Jesus made all the right choices. From childhood, He studied the scriptures and learned who He was. He realized through study and revelation from His Father what His calling was. He was obedient unto death. He is my hero, my Lord whom I follow.

Jesus was also 100% God, because He was the only begotten of the Father.
Adam was created 100% man by God, not begotten of God as was Jesus.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You miss my point. Jesus was a man. 100% man but without the sinful nature.

It is you who is missing the point. There are posters here who are saying that Jesus was a God. You have said he was a God. Now you are saying he is "100% man". This is surely not only a contradiction in terms, but you are overtly contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Jesus was also 100% God, because He was the only begotten of the Father.
Adam was created 100% man by God, not begotten of God as was Jesus.

Jesus was 100% man, never 100% God...Yes I agree Jesus was the only begotten of God, meaning He was born of a woman and seed was created in her by God. I know the text says Holy Spirit, but God is Holy, and God is Spirit...hence God is Holy Spirit. The gift we receive at the new birth is holy spirit. There is a difference.

Originally posted by divegeester
You made a bold statement about the reference Isaiah makes to the "child" being "mighty God". You said that "many people were called God", which can infer that what Isaiah was saying in that scripture was not unique and specific to Jesus.

If you are unwilling to back this claim up with evidence or expand on the implications, then I will assume you in ...[text shortened]... The onus is on you to explain it, not on the reader to scury off to see if it is correct.

This is a copy and paste from volumes I have read on this topic...
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (KJV)
1. Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God”? The Greek language uses the word theos, (“God” or “god&rdquo😉 with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, “GOD” (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today.
2. Given the language of the time, and given that Jesus did represent the Father and have divine authority, the expression used by Thomas is certainly understandable. On the other hand, to make Thomas say that Jesus was “God,” and thus 1/3 of a triune God, seems incredible. In Concessions of Trinitarians, Michaelis, a Trinitarian, writes:
I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God. This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only “whom I shall ever reverence in the highest degree”…Or a person raised from the dead might be regarded as a divinity; for the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal sense” [Michaelis is quoted by Dana, ref. below].
Remember that it was common at that time to call God’s representatives “God,” and the Old Testament contains quite a few examples. When Jacob wrestled with “God,” it is clear that he was actually wrestling with an angel (Hosea 12:4—For more on that, see the note on Genesis 16:7-13).
3. There are many Trinitarian authorities who admit that there was no knowledge of Trinitarian doctrine at the time Thomas spoke. For example, if the disciples believed that Jesus was “God” in the sense that many Christians do, they would not have “all fled” just a few days before when he was arrested. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God…and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21). The Bible is clear that these disciples thought Jesus was a “prophet.” Even though some of the apostles realized that Jesus was the Christ, they knew that according to the Old Testament prophecies, the Christ, the anointed of God, was to be a man. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas, upon seeing the resurrected Christ, was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.
4. The context of the verse shows that its subject is the fact that Jesus was alive. Only three verses earlier, Thomas had ignored the eyewitness testimony of the other apostles when they told him they had seen the Lord. The resurrection of Christ was such a disputed doctrine that Thomas did not believe it (the other apostles had not either), and thus Jesus’ death would have caused Thomas to doubt that Jesus was who he said he was—the Messiah. Thomas believed Jesus was dead. Thus, he was shocked and astonished when he saw—and was confronted by— Jesus Himself. Thomas, upon being confronted by the living Christ, instantly believed in the resurrection, i.e., that God had raised the man Jesus from the dead, and, given the standard use of “God” in the culture as one with God’s authority, it certainly makes sense that Thomas would proclaim, “My Lord and my God.” There is no mention of the Trinity in the context, and there is no reason to believe that the disciples would have even been aware of such a doctrine. Thomas spoke what he would have known: that the man Jesus who he thought was dead was alive and had divine authority.

Originally posted by FMF
It is you who is missing the point. There are posters here who are saying that Jesus was a God. You have said he was a God. Now you are saying he is "100% man". This is surely not only a contradiction in terms, but you are overtly contradicting yourself.

I did not say Jesus is a god, I said it was a term used of nobility, reverence and the like. Jesus was 100% man.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Did God put Jesus as a homunculus into Mary or did he put his seed into Mary (which is rape) so that Jesus could be born through evolution? Or is it easier to believe the whole story is fiction?

You can judge and mock now, but all you are doing is accumulating wrath for yourself.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
You can judge and mock now, but all you are doing is accumulating wrath for yourself.

You can judge and mock now or you can answer the question but I should know better than expecting a fundie to answer anything.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
This is a copy and paste from volumes I have read on this topic...

Oh good thanks a copy/paste... the usual weapon of choice for those in here either unwilling or unable to uphold their position.