₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
So why did God make male pênis foreskin that he's just gonna ask people to cut off?

Does this have to do with, raring to poison the well or this is about, perhaps, you, missing the foreskin taken off your pênis?

Which, out of the two,
is the reason behind the "why did God make male pênis foreskin that he's just gonna ask people to cut off" question?

annyplenty:
but He asked us to do it.

As oppose you giving the brother greater knowledge and proper understanding about the subject (i.e. circumcision),
you instead, gave a careless and lazy response

When and where did He ask "us" to do it annyplenty?
What exactly is the "it" He asked "us" to do?

LordReed:
Then he stopped asking us to do it so he is just confused I guess.

annyplenty:
God is not confused and can never be.
He never asked us to stop male circumcision.
Even if He asked us to stop, He is God and sovereign. His decision cannot be faulted.

Squandered another opportunity with a response like this

LordReed:
LoL the confused interpretation of the confused mess called the bible.

You reason this way because you've missed the point(s)

budaatum:
asked you how you came to that conclusion and your response was to accuse me of inviting you to argue!

²²Peter took Jesus aside and told him to stop talking like that.
He said, “God would never let this happen to you, Lord!”
²³Jesus turned to Peter and said,
“Satan, get away from me!
You're in my way because you think like everyone else and not like God.”
- Matthew 16:22-23

---

---

"³²Then Jesus explained clearly what He meant.
Peter took Jesus aside and told Him to stop talking like that.
³³But when Jesus turned and saw the disciples,
He corrected Peter.
He said to him,
“Satan, get away from me!
You are thinking like everyone else and not like God.”"
- Mark 8:32-33

I gave you the above "Your KISS wish is my command" response. Didn't I?
You're smart now,
you can see from Mark 8:32-33 how I came to the conclusion without me rambling or spelling anything out

budaatum:
And you never provided any evidence nor reason for making that assertion, and now you state it as if you had and its true!?

You made a request by saying:
"If I have wrongly accused you of pie in the skying,
I would gladly be corrected.
But please to the point, and without rambling, just so my tiny head can get around it."
and that is exactly what I did,
kept it short and simple to the point without any rambling

solite3:
A mother is the female from whom a child originates.
answer this question, if the egg of a woman A was fertilized in her and then transfered to another woman B who carried the child and birthed the child.
who is the mother of that child?

Both are mothers of the child
Woman A, who provided the egg that was fertilized in her, is the natural mother
Woman B, who carried the child in the womb and birthed the child, is the surrogate mother

solite3:
whether great grand father or grand father they are still your father but on different level.
if Mary is from the seed of Mary does that not make David father of Mary?

No, it does not make David, father of Mary
because it isnt David's name that's going to be written on Mary's birth certificate

solite3:
speaking about biology, you know God did not follow the natural law in the case of Christ birth

I know God, to some extent, followed the natural law, in the case of Christ birth
For example, Christ, at least, was born naturally
I also know we serve a miracle working God

solite3:
so how did you come to the conclusion that an x chromosome was taken from Mary

Mary, just like how other females do, would have had an XX pair of sex chromosomes.
When the Y chromosome combined with one of the Xs in Mary's XX chromosomes to make a boy (XY), she had a Son.

solite3:
we only knew the word became flesh

Yes, that's true.
The Word, supernaturally and naturally became flesh

solite3:
The word of God is a person, rhema is not a person.

I knew suggested rhema is a person
I merely asked, that, have you ever physically seen rhema or has anyone else ever physically seen rhema? (i.e. spoken word)
If you havent seen rhema (i.e. spoken word), what chance do you think you have in seeing Logos?

solite3:
I don't see the correlation with topic at hand

"the word became flesh
did God change from being the uncreated, eternal, without having father or mother God?"
- solite3 ©

My comment there had nothing to do with the topic
but more to do with responding to your comment reproduced in the above inverted commas

solite3:
You are wrong, God cannot change
God never changed he is still the way he is.

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

You are talking and writing this way because you have a parti pris approach to theology
Since you want to talk about "God cannot change. God never changed he is still the way he is", let me ask you a few simple questions

1/ Do you see any change in the nature of God in Jesus?
>>>
The nature of God doesnt change
Have you got it now?

2/ Do you know what that Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" means & the context it was used in?
>>>
It is talking about the unchanging nature of Jesus, the immutability of Jesus Christ, as it is
so Jesus, all the way, it is. No need for another change in another

3/ Do you know what Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not..." is about and actually saying
>>>
It is saying, you're lucky, I do not go back on My promises, that's why you are not destroyed
God is staying to His nature. God doesnt in that respect change

solite3:
do you agree that Jesus divine nature is separate from his human nature or they are mixed?

I agree that Jesus' divine nature is separate from His human nature

solite3:
kindly point it out from the bible

What are you asking me to kindly point it out from the bible?

solite3:
envy mary the mother of my Lord, Mr mutty however Mary is not the mother of God.
I would rather follow Mary's example by pointing people to Christ than herself.
If Mary was alive today she would weep for what people have turned her to.

Yes, I agree.
She will weep for people like you.

solite3:
now you are seeking for context?
offspring means the one that continues Davidic lineage
and Paul said Jesus is the son of David according to the flesh not title.
remember that God promise to raise a son for David from his loins, his own seed.
tell me did God fulfill this promise? who is this seed?

"And I will cause hostility between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring.
He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel."
- Genesis 3:15

"And I will put enmity Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."
- Genesis 3:15

I am not going to drag this with you,
and that's why I am only going to drop Genesis 3:15 up there,
just to show you that, it isnt today yansh has been at the rear end.
Genesis 3:15 doesnt need explaining.

It, all the way back, from the very beginning, started with Eve (i.e. Eve, the original woman)
The journey of God coming to earth in human form started with the first Woman (i.e. Eve)
This through the passage of time, extended to Abraham then to David before actually having cause to happen in Mary

Remember, Jesus using Woman, to call Mary, His mother
and I once typed, it was Jesus talking to the Eve in Mary when He called her Woman,
but budaatum flew off the handle at that then comment I made
https://www.nairaland.com/4636184/mary-not-mother-god/13#71348868

solite3:
why are you splitting hairs trying to disprove facts?

and yet uptil now you have not showed me a single verse that teaches that Mary is the mother of God

"you have not been following my posts,
I never argued that Mary is not the mother of God but on what level.
is it as God or as a man." sic
- solite3(m): 7:18am On Sep 27 ©

Can you now see from your comment reproduced above, how you're bent on splitting hair?
Also I have more than once shown bible references that teaches that Mary is the mother of God

solite3, since you've accepted and agreed that Mary is the mother of Jesus (i.e. is the mother of Christ)
will showing you, with scripture, that, this same Jesus, is God,
and then, by deductive reasoning, makes Mary be the mother of God, appeal to you?

vaxx:
Yes, I am aware Einesten kind of God ideology is akin to that of Spinoza.
an interpersonal kind of God rather than an anthriphormophic one which is very related to Yoruba tradition.

I am also aware he believes in something higher than physics.

I think you meant to type "impersonal" instead of "interpersonal"
as that will seat well with the God of Spinoza that Einstein said he believes in

Obi1kenobi:
You "don't do arguments", but you have time to quibble over trifles that have nothing to do with an argument. That's funny.

I explained, where or when I said I slightly disagree with you
and because I dont do arguments, further suggested we pack it in, if you see it as trifle.
What more do you want? Your pound of flesh?

Obi1kenobi:
"Acknowledging" does not change anything in what I said.
The worst kind of argument is one where you have to go back-and-forth addressing trifles.
What does your "slightly" changing the narrative add to the argument,
or do you just like the sound of your voice
(or in this case, just like watching yourself type)?

I dont do arguments
I've already said, if you feel its splitting hairs, we can put on okra soup and jettison this ewedu.
What more do you what?
Please, spare me, sly innuendoes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrZBnej_hds
Adebayo Shittu Alleges Ajimobi Does Not Have NYSC Certificate

After watching this 30/09/2018 entire interview slot he had with Seun,
I now understand Adebayo Shittu better,
now understand why he berated Sowore with the infamous "Inconsequential" line
now understand where his braggadocio comes from
now have dropped most, if not all, of my prejudices against him

Ever heard the saying "keep your grass cut short, to see the snakes"
Ajimobi, "Mr Consituted Authority", there is no greener snake than he is
Always sneaking behind peoples' back to demolish their properties, after giving assurances nothing like that will happen
Its not only Ayefele's radio station Ajimobi's government demolished,
it even demolished an ICT construction Shittu was doing for a community

Adebayo Shittu and Ajimobi from day one were at loggerheads for Oyo gubernatorial seat since 2011
There's no love lost between them

Obi1kenobi:
Incase you somehow missed what I was arguing about, I said theists are often only theists to the deities they believe in and atheists to the deities of other religions.
This means that for example, the Israelites believed in their God,
but thought the pagan tribes were savages who worshipped statues and useless inanimate objects.
I can't see anything you are saying that is different from what I was saying,
so I'm not sure what this back-and-forth is about.
There was nowhere I was arguing about acknowledging statues and idols and not acknowledging them.
What does that have to do with anything?

"Theists ARE NOT atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
Theists a Christian acknowledge the existence of gods other than the supreme God"
- muttleylaff ©

If you look at the contruct of the above inverted comma quote, it's pretty clear where I slightly differed with what you typed
I shifted the discourse from believing, to bring in acknowledging.
I brought in acknowledging, slightly changing the narrative

It's like this, though I dont not believe in the divinity of the Osun river, Amadioha etcetera
I however do acknowledge the existence of the Osun, Amadioha deities etcetera

If you feel its splitting hairs, we can put on okra soup and jettison this ewedu

Obi1kenobi:
Then again, the very passage you quoted was the wrong one to use in supporting your point.
It was a passage mocking pagans who fabricate inanimate objects and accord divinity to these objects.
It doesn't recognize these gods of the pagans. It mocks the fact that the pagans declare their fabricated idols as gods.
These means the Israelites were pretty much atheists to those idols which they only saw as useless objects.

The choice of word I used was "acknowledge"

The comment which it was used was supported with scripture showing recognising the existence of deities worship

The Israelities believe in the existence of gods (i.e. Jacob's wife, Rachel stole her father's household gods)
but dont worship them based on considering the deities, to mostly be, worthles, useless man made inanimate objects

Obi1kenobi:
I can't quite make out if you're agreeing with what I said or not.

"Infact, theists by nature are atheists to other deities other than those they worship
A Christian doesn't believe in Thor or Jupiter or Sango."
- Obi1kenobi ©

"Theists ARE NOT atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
Theists a Christian acknowledge the existence of gods other than the supreme God"
- MuttleyLaff ©

I think where we might slightly disagree is evident from the above

vaxx:
I am reluctant to flap your ass tonight....maybe you will not go Scot free next you do it..

Pygophilia and kinky erh? Bwahahahaha
The only person's ass, I am willingly and boys scout ready inclined, to flap is my better half's.
Nobody and no one's else. Mba mba mba

budaatum owns private libraries vaxx .

Obi1kenobi:
The very passages you quote pretty much makes it out that idols are inanimate useless objects.
It doesn't lend any validity to the divinity of the man-made idols.
Maybe read it again.

"Their land also is full of idols;
they worship the work of their own hands,
that which their own fingers have made:"
- Isaiah 2:8

"⁹How foolish are those who manufacture idols.
These prized objects are really worthless.
The people who worship idols don't know this, so they are all put to shame.
¹⁷And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol, and falls down to it and worships it.
He prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”"
- Isaiah 44:9,17

Exactly my point, it acknowledges the existence of gods worshipped as deities, based on divinity belief(s)
Remember in 1 Kings 18:27, where Elijah once taunted the Baal worshippers saying to them about Baal:
"Shout louder! Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened"

The earlier referenced Jeremiah 10:3-5 already confirmed them to be "inanimate useless objects" (i.e. using your phrase)

Horlaboy51:
Na your kind dey write out of context during examination

www.nairaland.com/attachments/6248100_obasanjosayingntor_jpeg19035170b7f2fc4a2c166956c808e236
Who tell una dis na exam?
Nobi playplay we dey?
So pesin cannot play with una again now
Na your kind dem suppose to advise to take chill pill

OneJ:
"Nephesh> a soul, living being, life, self , person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion".

Where U see ghost there ?

"KJV translates Strong's H5315 (Nephesh) as follows: Soul, life, person, mind, heart, creature, BODY, himself, yourselves,, DEAD, will, desire, man "

Source :blueletterbible.org

Soul is synonymous with the BODY,
Soul is synonymous with the DEAD.

Your kJV Bible say soul is DEAD, die.
Lol.
Receive sense.
Case closed.

Primesky:
I totally disagree with you!.

Discipher this statement by Jesus Christ in Mark 8:36
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Just use your primary school sense and objectively look at that verse.
Do not twist the meaning, you will see the truth and answer, if only you will be honest.

How else can a man not lose his soul, if it is only the body like you said, do we all not die and rot away?.

The address by Jesus Christ clearly suggest that the personality of man called soul is unique and distinct though being a part of the man.

May God open your understanding.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul:
but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
- Matthew 10:28

I agree without demur with Primesky on this

Obi1kenobi:
Buddhism is not a theistic religion.
Being a Buddhist is not incompatible with being an atheist.
What am I denying. I can't make head or tail of what you're saying so maybe you need to provide clarity.

Of course it's irrational to people who have spent their entire lives in irrationality.
There is nothing rational about committing oneself to deities you have no personal relationship with.
Whether you're a pagan or Christian or whatever, same applies.
A lack of belief in gods is no different from a lack of beliefs in fairies and unicorns.

Infact, theists by nature are atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
A Christian doesn't believe in Thor or Jupiter or Sango.
I guess his lack of belief in those things is irrational, right?

"For all the gods of the nations are idols,
but it is the LORD who made the heavens."
- Psalm 96:5

"¹⁵The gods of the nations are made of silver and gold;
they are formed by human hands.
¹⁶They have mouths, but cannot speak,
and eyes, but cannot see.
¹⁷They have ears, but cannot hear;
they are not even able to breathe.
¹⁸May all who made them and who trust in them
become like the idols they have made!"
- Psalm 135:15-18

"³For the practices of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
⁴They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter (i.e. so it won't fall over)
⁵Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried because they cannot walk."
- Jeremiah 10:3-5

Theists ARE NOT atheists to other deities other than those they worship.
Theists acknowledge the existence of gods other than the supreme God

MetroBaba1:
Biko, Where Did You See
0-0=0
3-3-0=0
3x0=0 On The Blackboard?

And You Told Me You're A Graduate?

[img]https://s1/images/stirringMuttleylaff.gif[/img]
The error spotted on the blackboard was 3-0=0

You dont have to be a graduate to know that 0-0=0; 3-3-0=0 and/or 3x0=0
has each of several possible ways to correct the computation to zero error

amaniro:
3-0=3

emmanuelpopson:
3-3=0

0-0=0
3-3-0=0
3x0=0

budaatum:
I did ask for your point at the time but you gave none.
If there was one, you'd have remembered.

It wasnt me bud
You have mistaken me for OkaiCorne who did

budaatum:
I'm not surprised.
You threw it in as a distraction at the time
and I refused the bait

[img]https://s2/images/MuttGimmeBrkLaff.gif[/img]
You're such a party pooper

budaatum:
But do you see how chicken eggs relate here?

Not quite
Besides, I need to have where and when I threw in the "chicken and egg question" please.
There surely will be a context and valid reason for chipping it in then

budaatum:
No they werent!
The hip adapted to humans walking upright and got better adapted over time.

Muttley, remember that chicken and egg question you once posed? This is a clear example.
Its like saying the course of a river made the water in the river flow along the course it flows along.
When in actual fact, the water in the river creates its own course.

I am so sorry bud, I dont remember the chicken and egg question posed

vaxx:
i do not have to explain it in details since that will stair us away from the main discussion, I only wanted to highlight some needed details. But anyway thanks for your observation.

I doubt the truthfulness of this comment though:
"...therefore with enough evolutionary advantage, primate with two leg (human ) will walk, without having the drive to do so"
but OK, I hear you

vaxx:
i wish i can give you more than a hundered likes for this video.

There used to be one poster that had multiple monikers
This poster must have found a backdoor, because this poster was able to paste hundreds of likes to most of his/her comments
I started noting down his/her monikers but stopped at five.

I am pleased to see and say, that Seun or the Mods have caught up with poster,
and have taken down his monikers plus hid away the posts with the fraudulently acquired likes

vaxx:
I will like to see my flaws in that sir? The bolded.

I have already said that the flaw is that you hurriedly, carelessly & in a weak way,
tried to explain away, why human & other primate babies have to learn to walk, slower than other animals

Martinez19:
I made a mistake with that INTRA-specie stuff.
An organism can learn from anywhere.

I admire your intellectual honesty

vaxx:
In a developmental psychology class, your thought might not be consider. Why?
Because they are number of factors involved in walking partanning to primate.
Firstly, while agreeing walking is a learned behaviour to some primate.,
there is probably that some innate drive the learning.
This the way the human brain is wired.
Most other primate are able to walk, without any learning, within a couple of hours of birth.
Foal will walk without any needed asistance.
Primates, who are born comparatively feeble and for whom walking is a much more complex skill (two legs hard, four legs easy) take a lot longer, therefore with enough evolutionary advantage, primate with two leg (human ) will walk without having the drive to do so .

vaxx this is a disappointed, done too hurriedly, carelessly
and feeble explanation to why human and other primate babies have to learn to walk slower than other animals

vaxx:
Innate don't disappear when not in used, it is part of what make you.

In fact researchers has proven innate behaviour can be turn on by itself .
the researchers found that the innate behavior is initiated by a "command" hormone that orchestrates activities in discrete groups of peptide neurons in the brain...

This might be goal post shifting

I accept without demur that compassion, empathy, sympathy, consideration and sensitiveness are innate, that they don't disappear when not in used, because they are part of one's make up.

I equally agree without demur that innate behaviour can be turned on by itself

budaatum:
Seriously?

Empathy is a broad concept that refers to the cognitive and emotional reactions of an individual to the observed experiences of another.
The Psychology of Emotional and Cognitive Empathy

When empathy relies on emotions alone, it functions as the equivalent of just kicking a ball, or a baby swimming.

You guys both are familiar with the story of the traveler who fell into the dastardly hands of robbers and got stripped of clothing, beaten and left half dead alongside the road.

Notice, the pastor or the Daddy G O or Bishop (i.e. the priest), the choirmaster or usher or church worker (i.e. the Levite) switched off the "compassion, empathy, sympathy, consideration and/or sensitiveness" innate behaviour button

The priest was going down the road the man was left half dead, but when the priest saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
So too, the Levite, when the Levite came to same spot and saw him, he passed by him, by crossing on the other side of the road.

I believe it goes deeper and beyond emotions.
You either have it or you dont

Just in that popular narrative, some just dont have it anymore in them, to switch it on.
Some have become desensitized, some have misjudged priorities.
Some are selective to whom and/or when to show or give "compassion, empathy, sympathy, consideration and/or sensitiveness" to
Some dont know when its right to show or give "compassion, empathy, sympathy, consideration and/or sensitiveness"

tintingz:
What interest does a specie of animal want from another specie?

I don't get, you mean animals in the jungle actually observe and learn what other animals do, there's nothing innate about thier emotions

Martinez19:
INTRA-specie.

Since what you typed in response to that tintingz above post was:
"budaatum was talking about intra-specie learning
That is where I talked about religious and cultural upbringings "
I then turned "INTRA-specie learning" on its head to INTER-specie learning,
to ask about the cat and puppies example watched in the video

The cat apparently was a good observer of what the other specie was doing to its puppies
The cat then acted upon something as a result of wanting so bad,
this other something from this another specie, which the another specie was meant to be doing to its puppies

Martinez19:
lol. A question for budaatum. If a given set of animals(A) learnt empathy from other animals(B), where the B learn there morality from? We can keep on tracing to a given set of animals for whom empathy is inherently either genetic or invented. The only thing that comes close to learned empathy is pretence.
That FEELING of sadness towards a perceived innocent victim is inborn but to direct that empathy/compassion towards the victim depends on if we reason them to be innocent and worthy of empathy.

Edit: budaatum was talking about intra-specie learning.
That is where I talked about religious and cultural upbringings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-9VolGmZP0

What of this cat and puppies interspecies example?

vaxx:
They are some knowledge that are genetically built in animal,
for example no ones teaches a spider how to weave its web.
It is an instinct quality, just like reflexes that is built on baby animal.
sucking is inbuilt on them, they never learned it.

Borrowing from your links on the type of reflexes.

The rooting reflex goes "whenever anything touches your face, turn your head toward it."

The sucking reflex goes "whenever anything touches the inside of your mouth, suck on it."

With those two reflexes, the mother can get the baby to nurse by putting her nipple in or near the baby's mouth.
If you touch the baby animal's mouth with your fingers or a bottle, the reflexes will make the baby animal suck on the fingers or bottle, too.

Denying that human do not have empathy inbuilt in them is like rejecting the functionality of the gene.
And trying to only limit empathy to learning is like position it to the level of intelligence.
Your man "'Daniel Goleman"" said empathy has nothing to do with intelligence.

Human/animal by nature has genetic capacity for empathy to develops as we grow.
However, it is also a characteristic that can be and is learned thru our environment.
Therefore empathy is both genetic and environmental.

budaatum:
I've dealt with this 'trick' explaining that a "capacity" to do a thing may well be genetic, or innate,
but if the "capacity" (like your capacity for swimming in infants) is not developed, that baby will not swim,
but drown. If the baby drowns, would you say it swam?

A "capacity" to do a thing is not the ability to do that thing.
A baby has the genetic capacity to walk, one might say.
One may look at the baby moving its legs while laid on its back and say "reflex".
One could claim that capacity is innate.
But baby still has to develop the ability before it takes it's first independent step,
and parents invest heavily in ensuring it fulfils the capacity which may be genetic, and innate but still has to be learnt.

Do note that the acquisition of intelligence is not the only product of learning.
There are many who have been taught, and have learnt, to be unintelligent!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdXa1XFl0es


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO7OvqDFMCs

I wonder when and/or where the compassion was learned from,
wonder how the dog(s) had the capacity in the first place
and what's or who's responsible that heavily invested in the dog(s) developing this amazing caring ability

enemyofprogress:
The minister of communication
is finished politically and e sweet me for belle

[img]https://s2/images/MuttleyDriveLaff.gif[/img]

E sweet me for belle, pass you
Pride comes/goes before a fall
Bet Mr Inconsequential didnt know that

enemyofprogress since the disqualify
boys arent smiling, but Sowore is

brocab:
Praise the Lord for ever more-have a good day!

Praise the Lord for ever more-have a better day!

brocab:
And anytime you want to say Hello, feel free to do so! I am just around the corner..

And anytime you want to have a natter, feel free to do so!
I am just down the road, just out to sea

solite3:
no doubt Mary gave birth to a son who was both man and God but she is not the mother of God.
A woman can only be the mother of what originates from her fact.
God didn't originate from Mary but only Christ humanity originates from mary.
so how is Mary the mother of God?
still waiting for your proof

I am grateful to you for being intellectually honest up to the point of accepting and agreeing
that Mary gave birth to a Son who was both man and God
I undertstand you hesitate and/or you're unwilling to accept Mary being called the mother of God
You even raised a question, by asking:"... so how is Mary the mother of God?"

Well, why dont you, in an inexhaustible way, say what is meant by the word "mother"?

solite3:
Is David not the father of Mary?

In the real sense, no, David is not the father of Mary.
Is your great, great, great, great, grandfather your children's father?
Your children came from his seed, but you are their daddy, not your great, great, great, great, grandfather

solite3:
how did you come about this your assumption?

Its not assumption
and you would have easily come about this knowledge from biology class 101

solite3:
the word became flesh
did God change from being the uncreated, eternal, without having father or mother God?

The word became flesh, yes, that is true
but solite3, I am not talking of Logos right now, have you or anyone ever physically seen rhema?, (i.e. spoken word)
Ordinary human spoken words you are yet to have seen, talkless rhema

Yes, God did change from being the uncreated, eternal, without having father or mother God
God, became a Father, the very moment, Mary gave birth to Him, and has His Son

solite3:
did God stop being a spirit?

No, God did not stop being a spirit
Why should God stop being a spirit?
What does God have to stop being a spirit for?

solite, let's unravel this together,
Now give a honest reply to these 2 below:
Is it possible or impossible for God to be in two places at the same time?
Is it possible or impossible for God to be simultaneously and concurrently in heaven Spirit mode by default and on earth in the flesh?

solite3:
how can Mary be a mother of what didn't originate from her?

In the simplest terms, because she gave birth to God incarnate

solite3:
Did the apostles teach this?

Yes, because the apostles knew and said, Jesus is God

solite3:
for what?
Mary giving birth to Christ was just a favor from God.
hope your know what favor is?
she was not qualified, not because she was holy or righteous.

There is an air of envy towards Mary in your comment
I think you really will do fine with some or if not all same favour from God, Mary had

Well, according to you, Mary was not qualified, not because she was holy or righteous
but this I know, Mary had the humility, to accept what was proposed to her

solite3:
so you are willing to ignore all the scriptural proof?
not surprised.

You were whistling in the wind with those verses

solite3:
and if we trace that chromosome down are you sure it is not the chromosome of david.

I guess you were an Art student

solite3:
Jesus referred to himself as the offspring of david. Remember.
even the apostle Paul called Jesus son of david.

If I may ask you, in what context did Jesus referred to Himself as the offspring of David
and in what context did Paul called Jesus son of David?
Who were the audience(s)?

solite3:
nobody can be mother or father of God, unless it is not literally.

Literally or not literally, at least you're warming to the idea of someone, apart from Mary, called the mother of Jesus, who happens to be God incarnate

solite3:
calling Mary mother of God means nothing because she is not the mother of God
just an invented name to what the Bible does not teach.

Calling Mary mother of God means a lot because she is the mother of Jesus, who happens to be God incarnate

The bible numerous times, teaches and shows Mary as mother of Jesus, who happens to be God incarnate

You're trying to split hair over calling Mary mother of God

solite3:
it has?

It hasnt

solite3:
am still waiting for scriptural proof that teaches Mary is the mother of God.

Are you pretending you dont know, that Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 said:
"The virgin will conceive a child!
She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (i.e. which means 'God is with us')."

Look up Isaiah 8:8 and Isaiah 8:10, blueAgent, to see who Immanuel is

Immanuel (i.e. "God is with you'') is simply saying "God living among us"
God, incarnated Himself in man, appearing as Jesus, to physically live amongst us

solite3, the child is God,
the angel that brought the message to Mary, told her and us, that the child will be called Immanuel (i.e. "God is with us'')
which simply means "God living among us"

The same angel, that brought the message to Mary, told her and us,
that the child will be called the Son of God, to convey the understanding
that the child, is God, appeared on earth without the intervention of a human father.
No earthly father was involved with the birth of Jesus.

Mary provided X chromosome, no earthly father provided Y chromosome
and since no human father took part in the conception,
then the child who is God, rightly is called, the Son of God

solite3:
are you switching base to God incarnate?

"''became flesh'' is what incarnate is about"
- MuttleyLaff: 1:56am On Jan 11, 2016

"With the exception of God, spirits, whether good or evil ones
(e.g. demons, satan angels, other celestial being),
cannot or do not become flesh (i.e. incarnation)"
- MuttleyLaff: 1:56am On Jan 11, 2016

No I am not switching base to God incarnate
solite3, them two above shows, it's not recently I've been talking about the God incarnate

solite3:
Mary is not mother of God fact.

By simple equation, Mary is the mother of God

solite3:
God incarnate never existed before Mary? wow

God who is a spirit, existed before Mary
God, however, embodied as a human being
or represented in human form (i.e. incarnated) existed after being conceived in Mary and birthed by her

solite3:
Mary worshipping taken to another level

No, not Mary worshipping,
but rather giving credit where credit is due

solite3:
hear what John said about God incarnate

John 1:27
He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

John 1:30
This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

and look at what Jesus said,
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

And so?
What's so hard to understand from the verses

solite3:
you have not been following my posts,
I never argued that Mary is not the mother of God but on what level.
Is it as God or as a man

On a biological level
By a technicality, Mary is the mother of God because God became man

solite3:
you carefully avoided my question now answer mine
is David the father of God?

Nope, David isnt the father of God
It wasnt David's chromosome that decided the gender of God, so therefore, David isnt the father of God

solite3:
it has nothing to do with me, but a deception aimed at giving Mary what is is not.

Just answer the question please
Would or does Mary getting called the mother of Christ seat well with you?

solite3:
rather you are to prove how Mary is the mother of God.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy

solite3:
not once was Mary called mother of God
nor was it taught that Mary gave birth to God.
prove it

Calling Mary mother of God, is nothing
It really isnt nothing more than a simple fact and truth.
Jesus hasnt got a problem with it
God hasnt got a problem with it
You can be a mother of God. You know that, dont you?
You do know that you can be a mother of God too?

solite3:
Rapture and Trinity are only mere names, the real deal is they are taught in the bible you can replace it with another word.
Mary mother of God is false teaching, the real deal is to prove it.

solite3:
same question

Matthew 22:42
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

Matthew 22:43
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

Matthew 22:45
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

Mark 12:35
And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?

Mark 12:36
For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Mark 12:37
David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

Luke 20:41
And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?

Luke 20:42
And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Luke 20:44
David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

Acts 2:34
For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

solite3:
Jesus called himself the son of man and the son of God
do you know what Jesus meant by those two phrase?

Yes, I do
and I have previously touched on the meaning of the phrase

solite3:
are they the same?

No, they aren't the same.
God, as Jesus, is identifying Himself with us as being an offspring of a human being (i.e. Son of Man)
and, when God projected Himself into Mary's womb, that which was projected, effectively became the Son of God
This is just so marvellous

solite3:
if they are not, that means there is difference btw, the two natures.

Of course, there is the difference of the supernatural and natural

solite3:
plus state some differences between Jesus human nature and his divine nature?

Jesus, in the natural, wept and cried, was tired, thirsty and hungry

blueAgent:
I laugh at you.
I don't think there is anything too hard for me to comprehend in the Bible
its obvious you don't know what to say.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/6248100_obasanjosayingntor_jpeg19035170b7f2fc4a2c166956c808e236
I know what to say
and its so simple to understand
Let me pop out, come back, for a second