Posted on 01/11/2012 7:34:56 PM PST by RnMomof7
Mary: Mother of God?
This article is prompted by an ad in the Parade Magazine titled: "Mary Mother of God: What All Mankind Should Know." The offer was made for a free pamphlet entitled "Mary Mother of Jesus" with this explanation: "A clear, insightful pamphlet explains the importance of Mary and her role as Mother of God."
This is quite a claim, to say the least! Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God. I touched on this subject in a series on "Mary Co-Redeemer with Christ" printed recently.
Question: If Mary is the Mother of God, Who, may I ask, is the Father of God? Does God have a Father, and if He does, Who is His Mother?
The phrase "Mother of God" originated in the Council of Ephesus, in the year 431 AD. It occurs in the Creed of Chalcedon, which was adopted by the council in 451 AD. This was the declaration given at that time: "Born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to the Manhood." The purpose of this statement originally was meant to emphasize the deity of Christ over against the teaching of the Nestorians whose teaching involved a dual-natured Jesus. Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God. The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine. The doctrine now emphasizes the person of Mary rather than the deity of Jesus as God incarnate. Mary certainly did not give birth to God. In fact, Mary did not give birth to the divinity of Christ. Mary only gave birth to the humanity of Jesus. The only thing Jesus got from Mary was a body. Every Human Being has received a sinful nature from their parents with one exception: Jesus was not human. He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to. Read Hebrews 10:5 and Phil 2:5-11.
Please refer to Hebrews 10:5 where we see. "...Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."
The body of Jesus was prepared by God. In Matthew 1:18, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
The divine nature of Jesus existed from before eternity, and this cannot be said of Mary Jesus never called her "mother". He called her "woman".
This doctrine deifies Mary and humanizes Jesus. Mary is presented as stronger that Christ, more mature and more powerful that Christ. Listen to this statement by Rome: "He came to us through Mary, and we must go to Him through her." The Bible plainly states that God is the Creator of all things. It is a blasphemous attack on the eternity of God to ever teach that He has a mother. Mary had other children who were normal, physical, sinful human beings. In the case of Jesus Christ, "His human nature had no father and His divine nature had no mother."
It is probably no coincidence that this false doctrine surrounding Mary was born in Ephesus. Please read Acts 19:11-41 and see that Ephesus had a problem with goddess worship. Her name was Diana, Gk. Artemis. You will not have to study very deep to find the similarities between the goddess Diana and the Roman Catholic goddess, Mary. It should be noted that the Mary of the 1st century and the Mary of the 20th century are not the same. Mary of the 1st century was the virgin who gave birth to the Messiah. Mary of the 20th century is a goddess created by the Roman Catholic Church. A simple comparison of what the Bible teaches about Mary and what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about her will reveal two different Marys. Mary is not the "Mother of God." If she were she would be GOD! There is only one true, eternal God. He was not born of a woman. Any teaching on any subject should be backed up by the word of God. If it cannot be supported by Scriptures, it is false doctrine.
For a more open discussion
Oh, give it a rest.
Some day, I pray, that you will know who Mary is. She’ll introduce you to her son Jesus. Her “yes” to the Holy Spirit changed everything. There is no praise unworthy of Our Blessed Mother.
"By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world" [1 John 4: 2-3]
This faulty theology would split Our Lord into a human person and a divine person, when He is ONE person with a human nature and a divine nature. In other words, it "dissolveth Jesus."
The title Theotokos or "Mother of God" acknowledges that Mary gave birth to a PERSON, not a nature.
Some day, I pray, that you will know who Mary is. She’ll introduce you to her son Jesus. Her “yes” to the Holy Spirit changed everything. There is no praise unworthy of Our Blessed Mother.
My wife and I each went to catholic school for 12 years. In looking back at all this Mary silliness we are embarssed for you. “Immaculate Conception - pul-lease! No disespect, but come on! Sheesh.
If Jesus was God in the flesh as the Bible says, then yes...Mary was the earthly “Mother” of God.
Read the Bible a little closer.
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
>> “Mary: Mother of God?” <<
.
Obviously not.
Mary had absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s God-ness; that was in his spirit, not his body. None of his brothers and sisters were gods.
Seriously uninformed commentary!
Of course Mary is the Mother of God.
The doctrine that Christ was simultaneously God and Man is well established in Christianity.
To attempt to assert that Mary is only the mother of only “the Man Part” is ludicrous.
Just as the Trinity is a mystery we accept on faith and cannot explain in human terms, the same is true of the simultaneity of Christ being both God and Man, and Mary’s role as mother of that same Christ.
>> “Some day, I pray, that you will know who Mary is. She’ll introduce you to her son Jesus.” <<
.
RnMomof7 has already met Jesus; his Father introduced her to him.
.
The title of the source article, “What Does the Bible Say?”, will no doubt be given a thorough beating as it appears what the Bible says will always take second or third place to the traditions and writings of so called “Church fathers”.
Toss in reinventing the meaning of common words and the fall back position of “It’s all a mystery” and you have the makings of a long and salty thread.
But I keep hoping to be surprised. Cheers!
” None of his brothers and sisters were gods.”
True!
He didn’t have any!
” Jesus was not human. “
so Jesus was not human? it’s amazing, that attacks on the Church and the historical, biblical, orthodox Faith always leads to attacks on Jesus Christ Himself.
if Jesus wasn’t human, we are all still dead in our sins and He didn’t really suffer and shed His blood on the Cross.
unbelievable someone that claims to be a Christian could post such heresy.
editor-surveyor wrote:
>> “Mary: Mother of God?” <<
.
Obviously not.
Mary had absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s God-ness; that was in his spirit, not his body. None of his brothers and sisters were gods.
The Nestorian Controversy
Nestorius (d. ca. 451 A.D.) became the bishop of Constantinople in 428 A.D. Nestorius’ view of the person of Christ became known as Nestorianism, or the Logos-Anthropos model of Christology, the second major heresy that faced the theologians. Nestorius effectively taught that there were two Christs. Christ was both fully human and fully divine, but these two natures were in no way united, though they co-existed in a close moral union.14 He greatly objected to referring to Mary as “mother of God,” or theotokos, because humans must remain entirely separate from the divine. Nestorius had correctly affirmed the dual nature of Christ, but offered a disunited person that was unacceptable to orthodoxy.
Cyril of Alexandria was the primary opponent of Nestorius, though his reasons were a mix of the political and the theological. He was a faithful defender of the unity of Christ’s natures, with an emphasis on His divinity. A strong advocate of Alexandrine Christology, he was repulsed by the fragmented Christ of Nestorius. Additionally, a potential condemnation of Nestorius would reaffirm the authority of the Alexandrian church over Constantinople. Rome traditionally favored Alexandria over Constantinople (due to Constantinople claiming equal authority with Rome), and Nestorius treated the Pelagians lightly, a heresy of primary importance to Rome. If the support of Rome was not enough to have Nestorius condemned, Cyril was in control of a great deal of gold, and with it some other powerful authorities supported him.15
Cyril and Nestorius exchanged heated letters pronouncing anathemas against one another, and though Nestorius was condemned at the Roman Synod of 430, the Emperor Valentinian III was forced to call a general council at Ephesus in 431 to resolve the matter. Celestine, the bishop of Rome, immediately condemned Nestorius, who was not present. Four days later Nestorius arrived with John, the bishop of Antioch, who convened their own council and condemned Cyril. But the emporer sided with Cyril and Celestine, and Nestorius was sent away to a monastery in Antioch.
From http://www.basictheology.com/articles/PersonofChrist_Early/full/
>> “Read the Bible a little closer” <<
.
Take your own advice!
Mother of God was Istar’s title 3500 years before the catholics tried to hang that blasphemous handle on Mary.
.
Amen !!!
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.