I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind. This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15779/5729

The "Clarity Principle" ensures a message be told clearly without any iota of confusion or ambiguity. It seems Jesus' alleged divinity claims (that were forcefully attributed to him) don't follow that principal, which is quite highly unlikely of God to do. If Jesus was God, there would have been non metaphorical verses in the Bible clearly stating Jesus was God, but we find 0. What does this signify? Why did God have to be so shy and hesitant in claiming his divinity that he didn't once order in clear cut non ambiguous terms or told his folks to worship him? P. S : Kindly don't refer to metaphorical verses of Bible that in no case seem convincing enough to be deemed as monotonous when related to other verses or read in full context

The Book [Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth](https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Reza-Aslan-audiobook/dp/B00DYMLQEU/) by Reza Aslan argues that Jesus was actually a Zealot, a Jewish revolutionary attempting to challenge Roman rule. Christians will overwhelmingly reject this hypothesis, but I think the book may help us in some ways to understand the human side of Jesus and is very well argued. I would like to see answers about what readers learned from the book. Those who only saw reviews and excerpts are welcome to answer too, but please provide evidence, not just opinions. Aslan sees Jesus as attempting to fulfill the Zealots' hope for the Jewish messiah, who would re-establish his people's independence from Rome and become the literal king of the Jews. In other words, Jesus actually attempted to do what the Roman government executed him for. Writes [Gary Manning Jr. of the Talbot School of Theology](https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2013/a-response-to-zealot-by-reza-aslan) : > [Aslan claims that] ...like other messianic figures of his day [Jesus] > called for the violent expulsion of Rome from Israel. Driven by > religious zeal, Jesus believed that God would empower him to become > the king of Israel and overturn the hierarchical social order. Jesus > believed that God would honor the zeal of his lightly armed disciples > and give them victory. Instead, Jesus was crucified as a > revolutionary. Early Christians changed the story of Jesus to make him > into a peaceful shepherd. They did this for two reasons: because > Jesus’ actual prediction had failed, and because the Roman destruction > of rebellious Jerusalem in AD 70 made Jesus’ real teachings both > dangerous and unpopular. Paul radically changed the identity of Jesus > from human rebel to divine Son of God, against the wishes of other > leaders like Peter and James. This summary is basically accurate. However, I found important food for thought in the book: - Why does the angel tell Mary the "Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end. - Why does Zechariah prophesy of that: "[God] has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us... (Luke 1) - Why did Jesus begin his ministry in Nazareth by quoting Isaiah to the effect he had been sent to "set at liberty those who are oppressed"? (Luke 40) - Why did he say "I came not for peace but the sword?" (Matthew 10:34) - What was Simon the Zealot doing with Jesus if he was still a Zealot? - Why did Jesus use violence against the moneychangers at the same time that there was an insurrection going on led by Barabbas - Was it just a coincidence that Jesus was imprisoned with these revolutionaries? - Why did he tell his disciples to bring swords to the Garden of Gethsemane? (Luke 22:38) I found myself thinking deeply about the human side of Jesus while reading this book. Particularly, it gave me a possible insight into Jesus' agony in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross. Did part of him pray so desperately that God would "let this cup pass" because he hoped to fulfill the prophecies of a Davidic messiah who would literally restore David's throne? Did Jesus tell his disciples to brig swords to the Garden to protect him from those who would come to arrest him? Did the disciples commit a providential error when they fell asleep? When he cried out "why have you forsaken me?" was he still, even at that moment, hoping that God would rescue him so that he could fight on? Personally I do not think that Jesus was a Zealot, but I do think that he might have had hopes to be the Jewish messiah in some sense. Those hopes, of course, could not be fulfilled if Jesus were to realize God's will that he act as the Suffering Servant. But they might have figured into to the human aspirations he had to leave behind at Gethsemane, and even on the Cross. **What other questions does Aslan's book raise for us, and what insights can we gain from reading his book, whether we agree with it or not?**

**Which Churches or denominations agree that from birth to thirty years old Jesus was "Super Jesus"?** There are no passages in the Bible of a ***"Super Jesus***", who have supernatural powers from birth, and who also displayed divine powers before he was 30 years old. St. Paul's teaching described Jesus this way: >**The Attitude of Christ** 5Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross. - Ephesians 2:5-7 St. Paul teaches that Jesus emptied Himself of divine majesty and powers and took the form of a servant. What is a servant or servanthood according to the bible? >**Biblical Concepts of Servanthood** >**Sacrifice:** The true currency of God's kingdom is sacrificial service to others, rather than pursuing greatness. In fact in one incident in the Bible it would normally appear that Jesus who went to the Temple all by Himself and did not even took the time to inform His beloved Mother and Father, is in all honesty, not a good attitude. In my own experienced conversing and exchanging Biblical ideas and studies about Jesus, most Protestant and denominations esp. the Bible Alone Believers thinks that Jesus is a "Super Jesus" even before the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. **I am looking for Prote >**The Boy Jesus at the Temple** > > …51Then He went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But His mother treasured up all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.-Luke2:51-52

Some Christians reject the doctrine that the punishment of hell is everlasting, instead holding views such as annihilationism or conditional immortality. However, this raises questions about how these views are reconciled with Jesus’ own words. In Mark 9:48, Jesus describes hell as a place “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,” language that appears to suggest ongoing, unending punishment. Similarly, in Matthew 25:46, Jesus contrasts “eternal punishment” with “eternal life,” using the same Greek adjective (aiōnios) to describe both outcomes. For those who deny that hell is everlasting: - How are these passages interpreted in a way that avoids an eternal duration? - Is aiōnios understood differently when applied to punishment versus life, and on what linguistic or theological basis? - How do these interpretations remain consistent with Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Gospels?

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered co-eternal, meaning none was created or came into existence at a different time. However, in John 3:16, Jesus is described as **“the only begotten Son,”** which seems to imply that He had a beginning. How do Trinitarians reconcile this idea of Jesus being begotten with the belief that He is co-eternal with the Father? I’m looking for theological explanations or interpretations that address this apparent tension in Scripture.

With ascension day coming up so quickly, I have a question: According to the Bible, why did Jesus leave? I've read some ideas but few have any actual Biblical backing. Could anyone point me in the direction of this?

This is an honest question and I would just like to know why "Jesus". "God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life." (CCC-1) Weren't we always his children and heirs? It does not make sense that He had to send Jesus. This is what I found in the Gospel: Matthew 5:17 >Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. But why, it does not seem like a good enough reason to be crucified for. Luke 12:51 >Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. Between good and evil, God knew already who is good and who is evil. Why did he need to send Jesus to divide? Matthew 10:34 >Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Okay, this I get to come and punish the people physically on earth, but God can do that from anywhere and have done it before. Why send Jesus to do it? Mark 2:17 >Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Luke 5:32 >I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. All the prophets before him did the same thing, why send Jesus? Mark 10:45 >For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. To give His life in exchange for ours, so we might be saved. This doesn't make sense because just believing in Jesus and repenting is the same as believing in God and repenting why introduce an extra step? Why make it more complicated and divide even people more? Luke 4:18-19 >The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. This made the most sense to me, people at that time did not understand what God wanted. God sent Jesus to explain to the people that it's not just about following rules but cultivating a relationship and that everything that you do matters. You cannot say that you are a Christian but you value money or other things more than Me. You cannot say you are Christian but there are more important things in your life than God. He sends Jesus to make the people understand what is it to believe and to be Christian. He sent Him as an example. That is what I think, and I think this scripture relates to my own thoughts. Many of the previous prophets did the same, what I don't get is why sent Jesus to do this task if John or some of the other prophets could have done it also. Luke 19:10 >For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 3:17 >For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 6:38-40 >For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. I don't understand this. John 9:39 >Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 10:10 >The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 12:46 >I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. Same thoughts as Luke 4:18-19. John 18:37 >Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” I don't understand.

For a while, I have had thoughts on areas of scripture that suggest different degrees of punishments and rewards for different kinds of people both for and against Christ. Starting with Christians, we see Jesus making a statement in Mathew 5:19 where he says: > 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Note how Jesus doesn't say they won't be saved but rather, they will be of a lower status in heaven than those who actively put their faith to action. Paul repeatedly echoes this point in multiple places such as: (2 Corinthians 5:10 ) > 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may **receive what is due us for the things done** while in the body, whether good or bad. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15 ) > 11 **For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ**. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 **their work will be shown for what it is**, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and **the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.** 14 **If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward**. 15 **If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved**—even though only as one escaping through the flames. Paul here also implies that all those who are in Christ will be saved because he is a strong foundation even if the work they build in that foundation is poor. However they will be at a loss when it comes to receiving whatever inheritance (possibly other than eternal life which will be given to all Christians) God has prepared for us. The same also goes for the other side where Jesus mentions the punishment given to the pharisees and those towns that reject his disciples being worse than the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah on judgment day.(Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:24, Luke 10:12 ) or his parable in Luke 12:47-48 : > 47 “**The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows**. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Considering all these (and more), is it safe to assume (and why) that there will be varying levels of punishment and reward within both hell and heaven respectively? If not, kindly explain how and why these verses do not support that idea. Appreciated.

> Mark 6 4-6: > > > 4 Then Jesus said to them, “People everywhere give honor to a prophet, > except in his own town, with his own people, or in his home.” 5 **Jesus > was not able** to do any miracles there except the healing of some sick > people by laying his hands on them. 6 He was surprised that the people > there had no faith. Then he went to other villages in that area and > taught. Like above, there are several examples where He can't heal people because of their unbelief. However, there is a difference: He **won't** vs. He **cannot** - heal someone because of their unbelief and this concept is usually overlooked. Is there anyway to determine if His power was drained or weakened by others and what does that mean for a believer today? Does this mean my level of faith (or vice versa) is analogous to this phenomenon described above? Here we see Jesus only recognizes and heals certain people based on their faith or to demonstrate God's will: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/10192/why-does-jesus-feel-only-certain-people-that-come-into-physical-contact-with-him Any studies, papers, speeches on this?

This is an odd question I know and I'm not very hopeful I'll find a good answer. But has it ever stricken you odd that in Luke 7, the woman who comes to see Jesus just straight walks into the Pharisee's house unannounced? I'm an American, and I could never imagine a random stranger walking into anyone's house and it be acceptable. So, was this a normal thing in Jewish culture at this time period?

We read in Mtt 4:1-4, of the Temptation of Jesus in the wilderness : > Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” Here, we see the Devil using calculated words, i.e. "IF you are the Son of God......"In other words, the Devil was asking Jesus to disclose his divinity, as if he was not sure of whom he was tempting. Elsewhere, we see Jesus forbidding his own disciples from telling others that he is the Messiah ( Mtt 16:20; Mk 8:30). That said, the Devil was presumably tempting Jesus to disclose his divinity much before the appointed time. But, the motifs of the First Temptation we have, are of stone and bread . My question therefore, is: According to Catholic teachings, what was the First Temptation of Christ basically about ?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

There's a variety of perspectives about the use of terminology such as "Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross" (from perhaps "sickness is something that shouldn't affect Christians" to perhaps a focus on the full-application being in the future kingdom) that this statement could cover. What are the background texts to support such a statement (one would not have to agree with the exegesis to present the texts used to support the doctrine). One commonly referenced text would be Isa 53:4-5 which concludes > and with his wounds we are healed What is the range of ideas that "Jesus took our illnesses" covers and what key texts are used to build up that argument.

The word 'Saviour' (σωτήρ, *soter*) is used twenty-four times in the Greek New Testament scriptures. Eight times, this refers to 'God'. Sixteen times it refers to 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'Lord Jesus Christ', and 'The Son'. One notable time, the wording used is 'the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ', Titus 2:13, and here I am quoting the original, literal, in which the Greek idiom known as 'Sharp's rule' should be noted. No other person is called a 'saviour' in the Greek New Testament. Moses is referred to as a 'deliverer', the proper translation for λυτρωτῆς, *lutrotes*, in Acts 7:35, in regard to a national, not a spiritual, deliverance: and Noah is said to have 'saved' his household (from a flood, not a spiritual salvation) in Hebrews 11:7 when God was the Saviour by his warning Noah of the future flood. The salvation of one's own soul ; the salvation from one's own, personal sins; the salvation of oneself in regard to the sin which entered into the world and humanity in general; the salvation of one's body in resurrection: all are the province, solely, of 'God our Saviour' and of 'the God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.' In the light of this evidence, why do some suggest that Jesus Christ is not 'God' when the evidence appears to be, very substantially, in favour of the opposite conclusion? The list of eight references to 'God our Saviour': Lk 1:47, 1 Ti 1:1, 2:3, 4:10, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, Jude 25. The list of sixteen references to Christ as Saviour: Lk 2:11, Jn 4:42, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Eph 5:23, Phil 3:20, 2 Ti 1:10, Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pe 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18, 1 Jo 4:14. -------------------------------------- All references and quotations relate to the TR Greek text and to the KJV translation of that text.

Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter. >**Acts 5:30** 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and **hanged on a tree**. >**Acts 10:39** 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and **hanged on a tree**: >**Acts 13:29** 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, **they took him down from the tree**, and laid him in a sepulchre. >**1 Peter 2:24** 24 Who his own self bare our sins in **his own body on the tree**, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross. >**Matthew 27:40** 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down **from the cross.** >**Matthew 27:42** 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down **from the cross**, and we will believe him. >**Mark 15:30** 30 Save thyself, and come down **from the cross.** >**Mark 15:32** 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now **from the cross**, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. >**Luke 23:26** 26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and **on him they laid the cross**, that he might bear it after Jesus. >**John 19:19** 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it **on the cross**. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

As far as I know [there are 4 Gospels](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18703/what-is-a-gospel-and-how-many-gospels-are-there-in-the-catholic-bible) : Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I am an ex-Christian (currently atheist) who had a debate with a Muslim about a few discrepancies between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Muslims believe that 1. Haman worked for Pharaoh and is building babel tower 2. Mary was a sibling of Aaron 3. Jesus is given "gospel". As a non-Muslim and atheist, I of course think that Muhammad simply made a mistake. Perhaps he didn't get the story right or wasn't consistent with his sources. But of course Muslim apologists will claim that it's a misunderstanding anyway: different Haman, different meaning of sibling, and different gospel. The 3rd point is more interesting though. My Muslim friend pointed out that gospels *already* EXISTED before the Bible was written: - [Mark 1:14](https://biblehub.com/mark/1-14.htm) - [Matthew 4:23](https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-23.htm) - [Luke 8:1](https://biblehub.com/luke/8-1.htm) So it's a bit tricky. In Indonesia the word for "gospel" is "injil". I wonder where that word came from. Muslims seem to think that Jesus got the "gospel" like Muhammad got the Qur'an. But I think that's just not the case. The Gospels we have now, I understand them to be Jesus' late biographies, a bit like Hadith in Islam. However, the fact that the word "gospel" DOES show up in the Gospels themselves is intriguing. **What "gospel" was Jesus preaching because the Gospels as books weren't even written when he was living?** It looks to me that he was a Rabbi who preached typical Judaism stuff that might or might not be reinterpreted by his followers to be something much more than that.