Trinitarian Training

[amazing grace]

Mark 11:1-3 "... He sent two of His disciples, and said to them, 'Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, on which no one yet has ever sat; untie it and bring it here. If anyone says to you, 'Why are you doing this?' you say, 'The Lord has need of it', and immediately he will send it back here.' "

If Jesus was only man, then he just told his disciples to steal a colt from total strangers, breaking the 8th commandment - You shall not steal.

Even when you are a human being - how is it stealing when you explain to someone, if they should ask, the reason for you taking the colt? And you are going to return it ---- isn't that called 'borrowing'?

However, if He was God in the flesh, since ALL things belong to Him, He was simply telling his disciples to get something that already belonged to Him.

Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lord's, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it."

"For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine." Psalm 50:10-11

Yeah, if people knew Jesus was God they probably wouldn't question him about it in the first place!

Jesus knew they would see a colt tied there in that village.
He knew that no one had ever sat on that colt before.
He knew that the bystanders, who were the owners (Luke 19:33), would question what they were doing.
He knew that if His disciples simply answered "The Lord has need of it.", that miraculously the owners would give them permission to take the colt.
He also knew that He was fulfilling Zechariah 9:9.

Yep . . . Jesus knew the scriptures and therefore knew what Zechariah had said concerning him.

If Jesus was not God in the flesh, then He was telling His disciples to steal a colt that belonged to total strangers. But why would total strangers give them permission? Apparently God miraculously directed them to do so. Sort of like when Caiaphas prophesied "it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." (John 11:50) But verse 51 says "Now he did not say this on his own initiative ..."

Yet ANOTHER proof that JESUS IS GOD, which of course agrees with the concept of the Trinity.

You ever think that Jesus lived in a much different culture and a different time . . . borrowing from your 'neighbor' could have been a regular occurrence - no one gave it a thought. I agree that God COULD HAVE TOLD THEM to do so.

But none of this proves that Jesus is God.

And in the same manner what Peter said when Jesus asked him: He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. This definitely proves that Jesus is not God but the Son of the Living God.

 

[mikesw]

Yep its God alone who is called the Savior. Its YHWH alone who is the Savior/Lord. Yet we know Christ is both Savior and Lord.

things that make you go hmmmmmm

Some can see this truth and accept those facts while others will deny it until they are blue in the face.

Isaiah 43:11
I, yes I, am the LORD, and there is no Savior but Me.

Above we see YHWH is the only Savior, there is no other.

But we know that the Son is the Savior of the world, mankind. Paul includes both the God the Father and God the Son as Saviors. There are none but Them.


Titus 3:4-7
4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Below in the same book we read Paul calling the Son- Jesus Christ our Great God and Savior

Titus 2:13
as we await the blessed hope and glorious appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

And Peter tells us the same thing. I will conclude with the inspired Apostle Peter in his 2nd Epistle and tie it all together.


2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.


τοῦ is the same.

ἡμῶν is the same.

καὶ is the same.

Σωτῆρος is the same.

Ἰησοῦ is the same.

Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if Unitarians wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then have to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise they are being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is proof positive one has an agenda when reading scripture and using eisegesis rather than exegesis of the biblical text in question.

Peter refers to Christ as our God and Saviour- Lord and Saviour just the same as Paul in Titus 2:13 and it’s the same Greek construction in Titus 2:13 as it is in 2 Peter 1:1and 1:11.

conclusion: the unitarians cannot exegete scripture properly, their bias reading will not allow them to read scripture objectively but only through their biased lens.

hope this helps !!!

Thanks for sharing another example of this match of NT with OT. The unitarians have to deny the relevance of the quotes of the Old Testament. It is not just a desire to sound like a prophet. Instead, they are quoting fulfillment (or applicability) of the prophets.

 

[dwight92070]

Even when you are a human being - how is it stealing when you explain to someone, if they should ask, the reason for you taking the colt? And you are going to return it ---- isn't that called 'borrowing'?

The very fact that you are taking someone else's property without asking for their permission, which is exactly what the disciples did (because Jesus told them to), is called stealing.

Yeah, if people knew Jesus was God they probably wouldn't question him about it in the first place!

It wasn't Jesus they questioned. They questioned His disciples, who they definitely knew were not God. In fact, we have no indication that the owners even knew that these men were disciples of Jesus.

Yep . . . Jesus knew the scriptures and therefore knew what Zechariah had said concerning him.

You ever think that Jesus lived in a much different culture and a different time . . . borrowing from your 'neighbor' could have been a regular occurrence - no one gave it a thought.

Again, this is the "definition" of stealing, not borrowing. We're not told that the owners even expected that they would get their colt back.

I agree that God COULD HAVE TOLD THEM to do so.

But none of this proves that Jesus is God.

I guess I have to say it again because it hasn't sunk in. If Jesus was only man, then "a man" told his followers to steal a colt, which they did.

So Jesus is either a thief or He is God - who owns all things.

And in the same manner what Peter said when Jesus asked him: He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. This definitely proves that Jesus is not God but the Son of the Living God.

That proves no such thing. The Word who was God became flesh in Jesus, who Gabriel called the Son of God. So He was both God AND the Son of God. By the way, Jesus was and is also the Spirit of God. 2 Corinthian 3:17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, ..."

There you go - we have the Trinity!

 

[civic]

Thanks for sharing another example of this match of NT with OT. The unitarians have to deny the relevance of the quotes of the Old Testament. It is not just a desire to sound like a prophet. Instead, they are quoting fulfillment (or applicability) of the prophets.

Exactly brother their biases will not allow them to get a clear picture who , what , how, when, why and where God has revealed His true identity.

We talked about this very thing this morning at our church in our men’s discipleship group as I led the discussion on Gods plural material from OT beginning with Genesis 1 through the NT.

We also discussed the false teachings of Mormons and JW’s , Christsdelphians, Oneness etc ….

 

[mikesw]

Yeah, if people knew Jesus was God they probably wouldn't question him about it in the first place!

Your remark shows that you fail to comprehend the synoptic gospels. Maybe the thing you were trying to find was whether the general people thought he was God (as if they realized the Trinity yet). They were not expecting God to be among them because they did not understand prophecy except in a dim light. Nor did Jesus often mention being the Messiah. So they only could speculate of him being the Messiah -- or less so -- just thought he would be a good candidate to be King.
Only the High Priest recognized Jesus's claim to divinity when Jesus quoted Dan 7:13-14, as we see in
Matt 26:64-65.
Is your denial of the divinity of Christ (in the Godhead) because you do not see people recognizing this in the gospels until around his death and resurrection?

You ever think that Jesus lived in a much different culture and a different time . . . borrowing from your 'neighbor' could have been a regular occurrence - no one gave it a thought. I agree that God COULD HAVE TOLD THEM to do so.

Nowadays the equivalence is borrowing a car on the street and hotwiring it. Everyone know that is just borrowing from them. Sorry. Had to throw that idea in here.

But none of this proves that Jesus is God.

To the absolute skeptic, no details or arguments prove anything.

And in the same manner what Peter said when Jesus asked him: He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. This definitely proves that Jesus is not God but the Son of the Living God.

You are using your denial that the Son of God means Christ's divinity.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Oh, I apologize I thought you would understand that I was just qualifying what was said in its context not repeating myself just to be repetitious.

Did God come in the flesh? according to you Yes . . . 'and in pre-existence God became flesh.' (the latter in italics and in quote marks is the response from mikesw) and now bolded.

So Jesus is God ---- If Jesus is God and Jesus is the Son of God; then God is his own Son ----- then please explain IN YOUR WORDS how that statement is not true?

They are 2 separate persons.

If they are not 2 separate persons how could one be walking on earth while the other is sitting on his throne up in heaven or
doing whatever He would be doing up there?

Jesus said to Baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

He was talking about 3 separate but equal parts here who share the same divine essence. This means that while they are individual persons, they are united in their nature as one God.

Jesus made a point to specify each individually and not as if they were blended together.

 

[amazing grace]

The very fact that you are taking someone else's property without asking for their permission, which is exactly what the disciples did (because Jesus told them to), is called stealing.
It wasn't Jesus they questioned. They questioned His disciples, who they definitely knew were not God. In fact, we have no indication that the owners even knew that these men were disciples of Jesus.

Again, this is the "definition" of stealing, not borrowing. We're not told that the owners even expected that they would get their colt back.

I guess I have to say it again because it hasn't sunk in. If Jesus was only man, then "a man" told his followers to steal a colt, which they did.

So Jesus is either a thief or He is God - who owns all things.

If you want to believe that the Lord Jesus asked his disciples to steal, i.e. sin go for it. And since you believe Jesus is God - it makes it even worse!

That proves no such thing. The Word who was God became flesh in Jesus, who Gabriel called the Son of God. So He was both God AND the Son of God. By the way, Jesus was and is also the Spirit of God. 2 Corinthian 3:17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, ..."
There you go - we have the Trinity!

Who told Peter who Jesus was?
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Because the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High would cause Mary to conceive is the reason why the child would be called holy---the Son of God.
Jesus is called the 'Spirit' AFTER his resurrection when he became a life giving spirit. . . . Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [1 Cor. 15:45]
The first Adam - a mortal human being; the second Adam, a mortal human being who died, whom God raised from the dead and became immortal - a life-giving spirit.

 

[amazing grace]

Your remark shows that you fail to comprehend the synoptic gospels. Maybe the thing you were trying to find was whether the general people thought he was God (as if they realized the Trinity yet). They were not expecting God to be among them because they did not understand prophecy except in a dim light. Nor did Jesus often mention being the Messiah. So they only could speculate of him being the Messiah -- or less so -- just thought he would be a good candidate to be King. Only the High Priest recognized Jesus's claim to divinity when Jesus quoted Dan 7:13-14, as we see in Matt 26:64-65.

Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” ----- am I to believe the High Priest recognized ANYTHING about my Lord Jesus when he is part of a group seeking false testimony against Jesus???
But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Jesus answered the High Priest in the affirmative then made a Messianic statement about himself - Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy . . . I don't believe this High Priest was a very godly man because tearing his robes would have been a sin. [Lev. 21:10] They accused him of blasphemy - They did not believe him to be the Messiah, the Son of God.

Is your denial of the divinity of Christ (in the Godhead) because you do not see people recognizing this in the gospels until around his death and resurrection?

Nowadays the equivalence is borrowing a car on the street and hotwiring it. Everyone know that is just borrowing from them. Sorry. Had to throw that idea in here.

To the absolute skeptic, no details or arguments prove anything.

You are using your denial that the Son of God means Christ's divinity.

Correct, to the absolute skeptic no details or arguments prove anything.
The Son of God means Jesus was the Son of God . . . Jesus was anointed by God, i.e. the Lord's Christ, the Lord's Messiah, the Lord's anointed.

 

[amazing grace]

They are 2 separate persons.

If they are not 2 separate persons how could one be walking on earth while the other is sitting on his throne up in heaven or
doing whatever He would be doing up there?

Jesus said to Baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

He was talking about 3 separate but equal parts here who share the same divine essence. This means that while they are individual persons, they are united in their nature as one God.

Jesus made a point to specify each individually and not as if they were blended together.

CORRECT! Finally - we have 2 separate persons - one God is in heaven, i.e. as the Father while the other God is on earth as the Son - count em . . . . TWO GODS! To be ONE God they would have to be blended together.

 

[mikesw]

Now the chief priests and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” ----- am I to believe the High Priest recognized ANYTHING about my Lord Jesus when he is part of a group seeking false testimony against Jesus???

You reject the testimony here. The High Priest reasonably would be expressing basis for identifying Jesus as blasphemous (i.e. if Jesus were not truly shown in his divinity when he spoke this) If Matthew had seen this as pure slander, he readily could have identified this as such. Nor should Jesus' divinity be missed when seeing him in relation to the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:13-14

But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Jesus answered the High Priest in the affirmative then made a Messianic statement about himself - Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy . . . I don't believe this High Priest was a very godly man because tearing his robes would have been a sin. [Lev. 21:10] They accused him of blasphemy - They did not believe him to be the Messiah, the Son of God.

Certainly it is true that he was ungodly. Yet John 11:47-57 shows that the High Priest also spoke prophecy accurately in that scenario. So John 11 also shows that the High Priest was ungodly in being a bloodthirsty one. This again is to say the priest did speak accurately of the perception of Dan 7:13-14 and thus Jesus asserted his divinity.

Correct, to the absolute skeptic no details or arguments prove anything.
The Son of God means Jesus was the Son of God . . . Jesus was anointed by God, i.e. the Lord's Christ, the Lord's Messiah, the Lord's anointed.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[mikesw]

CORRECT! Finally - we have 2 separate persons - one God is in heaven, i.e. as the Father while the other God is on earth as the Son - count em . . . . TWO GODS! To be ONE God they would have to be blended together.

I see that you cannot even comprehend the argument being made so you end up treating it as two gods. Why distort things so much?

 

[amazing grace]

You reject the testimony here. The High Priest reasonably would be expressing basis for identifying Jesus as blasphemous (i.e. if Jesus were not truly shown in his divinity when he spoke this) If Matthew had seen this as pure slander, he readily could have identified this as such. Nor should Jesus' divinity be missed when seeing him in relation to the Ancient of Days in Dan 7:13-14 Certainly it is true that he was ungodly. Yet John 11:47-57 shows that the High Priest also spoke prophecy accurately in that scenario. So John 11 also shows that the High Priest was ungodly in being a bloodthirsty one. This again is to say the priest did speak accurately of the perception of Dan 7:13-14 and thus Jesus asserted his divinity.

I haven't rejected any testimony . . . As with everything - my understanding of scripture is in view of Jesus NOT being God therefore I do not read the Trinity/Triune God into the scripture as is you have a propensity to do. The blasphemy = in using a Messianic prophecy in reference to himself - the religious leaders took it as insulting to God’s reputation that Jesus would refer to himself as God’s Messiah.

The Ancient of Days is Yahweh and the son of man, i.e. Jesus is presented before the Ancient of Days and the son of man, i.e. Jesus was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom so that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him . . . it is prophecy concerning 'in that day', 'in the Lord's day' when Christ returns and Jesus just claimed that prophecy for himself.

Thanks for proving my point.

The Son of God means Jesus was the Son of God . . . Jesus was anointed by God, i.e. the Lord's Christ, the Lord's Messiah, the Lord's anointed. . . . You're welcome!

 

[mikesw]

I haven't rejected any testimony . . . As with everything - my understanding of scripture is in view of Jesus NOT being God therefore I do not read the Trinity/Triune God into the scripture as is you have a propensity to do. The blasphemy = in using a Messianic prophecy in reference to himself - the religious leaders took it as insulting to God’s reputation that Jesus would refer to himself as God’s Messiah.

that is a very clever distortion to make. That is the problem with unitarians messing up passages to fit their ends.

The Ancient of Days is Yahweh and the son of man, i.e. Jesus is presented before the Ancient of Days and the son of man, i.e. Jesus was given dominion, glory, and a kingdom so that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him . . . it is prophecy concerning 'in that day', 'in the Lord's day' when Christ returns and Jesus just claimed that prophecy for himself.

Not sure what more to say. This is a distortion to the max. Jesus told the High Priest he would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds. I doubt the High Priest is two thousand years old now. Or else everyone has to be a liar except the unitarian -- i.e., that scripture reveals things wrong.

The Son of God means Jesus was the Son of God . . . Jesus was anointed by God, i.e. the Lord's Christ, the Lord's Messiah, the Lord's anointed. . . . You're welcome!

Just like Isaiah was the son of Abraham. Same lineage. Same nature. Was not a different "kind" from his Father.

 

[mikesw]

I honestly see unitarians trying to hard to avoid recognizing Jesus being divine in the Godhead. Nothing is evidence to them since they just find an excuse to reject the obvious meaning of texts. I am not quite inclined to think this deception is intentional, but it is rather a determined effort on their part.

I do assert that people do not have to be aware of the Triune essence of God to be saved. But this should only be due to misunderstanding of scripture or a lack awareness of the testimony of scripture. Questioning of the concept is acceptable to an extent. Sheer opposition to the Trinity seems more of a dangerous thing.

 

[amazing grace]

that is a very clever distortion to make.

Thanks.

That is the problem with unitarians messing up passages to fit their ends.

Pot calling the kettle black . . .

Not sure what more to say. This is a distortion to the max. Jesus told the High Priest he would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds. I doubt the High Priest is two thousand years old now. Or else everyone has to be a liar except the unitarian -- i.e., that scripture reveals things wrong.

Your accusation - 'this is a distortion to the max.' HOW, IN WHAT WAY.

The bold is just a ridiculous statement . . . Jesus second coming was not an immediate event but an event which would happen in the future.

Show me how I am presenting the scenario wrong and WHY the High Priest would have to be two thousand years old. Daniel's vision is future . . . “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." . . .

Just like Isaiah was the son of Abraham. Same lineage. Same nature. Was not a different "kind" from his Father.

Yes, I know Jesus genealogy. What's the 'seed' of the Father which would produce after His kind?

 

[mikesw]

Thanks.

Pot calling the kettle black . . .

Your accusation - 'this is a distortion to the max.' HOW, IN WHAT WAY.

The bold is just a ridiculous statement . . . Jesus second coming was not an immediate event but an event which would happen in the future.

Show me how I am presenting the scenario wrong and WHY the High Priest would have to be two thousand years old. Daniel's vision is future . . . “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." . . .

Jesus said the High Priest would see Jesus coming on the clouds. I know this is not just a unitarian mistake. But Jesus spoke this and it is unwise to reject Jesus words -- as if unitarians are bothered doing that.

Yes, I know Jesus genealogy. What's the 'seed' of the Father which would produce after His kind?

uh. that Jesus would carry forth divinity from his pre-existence.

 

[amazing grace]

Jesus said the High Priest would see Jesus coming on the clouds. I know this is not just a unitarian mistake. But Jesus spoke this and it is unwise to reject Jesus words -- as if unitarians are bothered doing that.

It's not a rejection of Jesus words. Doesn't 'coming in the clouds' reference the second coming of Christ? Doesn't that happen at the resurrection? Since the High Priest will be in the resurrection - won't he see Jesus 'coming in the clouds'?

Do you think Jesus knew there would be a period of time in between his death, resurrection and exaltation and his return - his coming in the clouds? The administration of grace that Paul talks about in Ephesians?

uh. that Jesus would carry forth divinity from his pre-existence.

Jesus carried forth the seed of the Father by being God incarnate?

 

[mikesw]

It's not a rejection of Jesus words. Doesn't 'coming in the clouds' reference the second coming of Christ? Doesn't that happen at the resurrection? Since the High Priest will be in the resurrection - won't he see Jesus 'coming in the clouds'?

Jesus said what he meant. The High Priest died after seeing Jesus on the clouds.

Do you think Jesus knew there would be a period of time in between his death, resurrection and exaltation and his return - his coming in the clouds? The administration of grace that Paul talks about in Ephesians?

Uh oh. I'm not surprised if you are sharing dispie doctrine too

Jesus carried forth the seed of the Father by being God incarnate?

No seed was needed because he was divine already. (Well. I cannot say what happened physically. This was a miracle conception.) If I have told you earthly things and you do not understand, how can you expect to understand spiritual things?

 

[amazing grace]

Jesus said what he meant. The High Priest died after seeing Jesus on the clouds.

hmmm. . . . . when did Jesus 'come on the clouds'? Can we find a time reference?

Uh oh. I'm not surprised if you are sharing dispie doctrine too

sheesh - I only asked about the dispensation of grace Paul talks about:

assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, ;how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. . . .

No seed was needed because he was divine already. (Well. I cannot say what happened physically. This was a miracle conception.) If I have told you earthly things and you do not understand, how can you expect to understand spiritual things?

So you agree with the Catholics that Mary was the mother of God?

 

[mikesw]

hmmm. . . . . when did Jesus 'come on the clouds'? Can we find a time reference?

If you can figure out when the High Priest died, you will have the time reference

sheesh - I only asked about the dispensation of grace Paul talks about:

it is just Paul's obligation to gentiles, not a dispensation.

So you agree with the Catholics that Mary was the mother of God?

Some people use that provocative language. However, I do not deny the divinity of Christ he God from his Father. duh