|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 10/13/2013 3:40:25 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Skip to comments.Mary, Mother of God
Posted on 10/12/2013 9:34:46 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The most common objection I get to Mary as Mother of God, especially from Fundamentalists, but not limited to them, is, The words Mother of God are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Therefore, I will not accept it as true.
This line of reasoning fails in dramatic fashion when carried to its logical conclusion when we consider the central mystery of the Christian Faith, the Trinity, is not found in Scripture verbatim as well. And we could go on. The Incarnation would fall by the wayside. Essential terms we use to do theology, like homoousios (Gr.same nature, Jesus has the same nature as his Father), hypostatic union, the circumincessions of the persons of the Blessed Trinity, etc. All gone! The canon of Scripture, the nature of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and so much more we believe as Christians would be out the door because none of these things are made explicit in Scripture.
And this is not to mention justification by faith alone. Can anyone agree there is just a bit of irony in the fact that the same fellow who tells me he will not accept Mary as Mother of God because those words are not found in the Bible, will accept justification by faith alone when the only time those words are found in the Bible the words not by are right in front of them (cf. James 2:24)?
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Straw man argument. I know a lot of Fundamentalists, and the fact that the words “Mother of God” does not appear in the bible is not the reason they disagree with Mary worship....oops, I mean “veneration”.
But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:43)
Unless of course they don't believe that Jesus is God.
Of course, the Fundies I know aren't dumber than a bag of hammers so any Fundies with an earthworm league IQ may see things differently and consider telling lies a normal part of their "Christian witness" facade.
Fundies VS the Cult
I don’t see sufficient Scriptural support for what is usually stated as “justification by faith alone” but the idea of Mary being “Mother of God” is contrary to Scripture in every way.
Naturally the term wouldn’t appear in Scripture.
Using simple logic, that appellation implies that Mirium How blasphemous. Shabbat Shalom
Only if G-d is not the creator of the universe. shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
is the SUPER GOD who created the creator of the universe.
Using simple logic, that appellation implies that Mirium
She did not --- and nobody believes she did.
It means she gave birth to a person who was God: Jesus Christ Our Lord.
Joseph was Jesus' stepfather. Mary was His mother. She gave Him birth. All Christians know that.
If you use that logic to arrive at naming Mary, the Mother of God (Which God Himself does not do)...
...you should just be consistent and also name her the Wife of God, since she bore His child.
Keep going and be consistent...
Mary’s mother should be called the Grandmother of God.
Mary’s father, should rightfully be called the Grandfather of God.
Any sister of Mary should be referred to as the God’s Aunt.
Any brother of Mary should be referred to correctly as God’s Uncle.
What an interesting approach for someone who believes Jesus Christ is God.
Could it be any simpler?
I think the difficulty comes in if someone mistakenly thinks this means that these people were somehow "creators" of God. This is nonsense. God is the creator of everything and everyone, including of His own Mother Mary and all of His ancestors through Mary.
Thus Jesus,our God, had all these relatives and ancestors: on His mother's side.
“I think the difficulty comes in if someone mistakenly thinks this means that these people were somehow “creators” of God. This is nonsense. God is the creator of everything and everyone, including of His own Mother Mary and all of His ancestors through Mary.”
Nor Mary. But consistency demands that if you choose to call Mary the Mother of God, you must follow through.
Of course, none of it is true. Mary is most favored, but the rest of the extra-Biblical nonsense becomes silly.
She gave birth to Jesus, our God. Birth mother, you know? Also genetic mother, lactational mother, social/caregiving mother, and all that. But she did not create Him. Exactly the reverse: He created her, and all things.
I'm not seeing how you could disagree with that.
Not only is it not in the Bible, such a phrase infers meaning where none exists. Mary was the mother of the child, Jesus, after the flesh. After the Spirit, Jesus is the Son of God, having no earthly father.
As Jesus grew to adulthood, at some point He assumed the duties of a son to His earthly mother, Mary, apparently because Joseph died (as he is never mentioned after Christ reaches maturity). On the cross He conferred His earthly responsibilities toward His mother to His trusted disciple John, and ONLY John. He said, “Woman, behold your son.” He did not say sons. From then on Mary lived in John’s house. She did not live with Peter, nor James, nor Paul. She lived with John who also outlived all of the other disciples, being the youngest of them.
The title of God is most often used in scripture to refer to the Father or to all three persons of the Godhead simulateously. My point is that Mary IS NOT the mother of God the Father, nor is she mother to God the Holy Spirit. Though Jesus is God in the fullest sense, yet He is not the only person of the Godhead. Therefore, it is accurate to describe Mary as the mother of Jesus, but it is inaccurate to describe her as the mother of God.
This is the simplest of logical fallacies which is the fallacy of division. If there is one black swan in a lake and some white swans also, it would be wrong to say the swans in the lake are black.
Further, Christ existed before Mary. And He was her Lord and Savior. This is the same theological dilema which the pharisees could not comprehend about Christ being the son of David and yet David calling Him “Lord”. (See Matthew 22:41-46.)
I accept the confirmed authority of the apostles and the words that came directly from their lips and preserved for us on the pages of scripture. I reject the self-proclaimed apostolic authority that meets none of the criteria for apostleship specified in scripture by the apostles. Christ commends those who test those who say they are apostles and find them to be liars. (See Revelation 2:2.) Paul defends his apostleship and tells us what the qualifications are which include having seen the risen Christ, having been personally instructed by Him, and having confirming miracles. Such apostles universally condemn the use of idols, yet the Catholic church claims unfounded apostolic authority and claims we should ignore this commandment to supposedly honor Mary by making images of her supposed likeness and bowing to it and making offerings to it and directing our prayers toward it, and invoking blasphemous names such as “mother of God” upon it. No holy angel or apostle ever accepted men bowing to them but all outright forbad it (though Satan saught for Christ to bow to and worship him, and wicked Herod received worship from his audience for which he died).
Add not to His Word lest you be found a liar.
Of course they must be lying to say the first of act of the current pope was to bow to an image of Mary’s supposed likeness, and to pray to it and to offer flowers on an altar to that image, right?
Am I supposed to believe that Catholics do not do this, or am I supposed to believe there is no possible danger of committing the abomination of idolatry during these acts?
Christians are our own worst enemies. We spend all of our time trashing each other over our slight differences rather than embracing each other in love, as Christ instructed. A pox on the lot of you that always have to bash other Christans without identical beliefs.
Such folks are worshiping their own Most High and Holy Self, an idol if there ever was one, but their own pride and enthroning of their Self keeps them from recognizing the strong delusion they're under.
An idolater accusing others of idolatry is the epitome of spiritual blindness.
Mediatrix of all Graces
"God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that THROUGH HER are obtained EVERY hope, EVERY grace, and ALL salvation. For this is His will: That we obtain everything through Mary." Pope Pius IX"
Thus the Catholic does not need the Lord Jesus Christ anymore but Mary alone according to Pope Pius IX.
You changed it from "Christ and Christ Alone". Why would you want to worship anyone else?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.