If the Bible says Jesus was the son of God, the Holy Spirit, and Mary was His mother, I think that means that Jesus had a father who was the Holy Spirit and He had a mother named Mary.
How simple can it get? If this is incorrect, if God has always been the Father, and Jesus has always been the Son, then who has always been the eternal mother? Just one verse will do if you can point one out. What was her name?
That is all I intend to say on this matter. Anyone is free to take that to mean that I am ignorant or dogmatic or hard headed if they want to. The fact is, that it is not something important enough to get steamed up over. He is my Savior, no matter what you or I conclude on this issue.
Blessings,
Terry
Well, what I included was certainly not a logical approach by John Smithson to the Sonship issue -- it, too, was quite biblical. It seems that you have some work it do, if you choose, to reconcile what the Bible says as presented above (your words) and what the Bible says as presented in my post. Name calling does not fit you well, Terry, especially when it is used by you to describe you. :-)
I personally do not think the virgin birth was sexual. It certainly was not typical. So why do you feel that it confines Christ to a incarnate Sonship exclusively. If you do not believe that God was born on that day, why do you insist that the Son was. I know, the "mother" of all arguments is your reason. If Christ was always the Son (as per the biblical record presented in my post, at least), why is it not true that Mary was always (in the mind of God) the mother. I mean, if we can be appointed to redemption before the foundations of the world, why does God not see Mary in His plans from the very beginning?
Just asking
John
