Mary: Mother of God?

What Does the Bible say? ^ | 01/11/2012 | Bro. Lev Humphries,

[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.

[editor-surveyor]

I believe it was #683

[aruanan]

To: aruanan >>Do you bother to read things before you reply? Look again. You give the appearance of raising a point no one is contesting in order to avoid acknowledging something else.<<

Nope, your contention was the male designation isn’t until later in the term from conception. My contention is that at conception the Y chromosome is already present which designates the fetus a male.

As I asked at the top, do you bother to read before you reply? Look again. You're putting words in my mouth by saying that "your contention was that the male..." I never said anything of the sort. You're the victim of reactive reading. Certain words and phrases you see trigger, because of your own unique background, presuppositions, and hurried reading, images and feelings to which you react as though those images and feelings were contained in those words or phrases or meant by those employing those (poorly read) words and phrases.

And if you saw someone who was genotypically a male but who was born without androgen receptors or with defective androgen receptors, you would never be able to tell, unless you were a gynecologist and were specifically trying to determine the cause of the patient's amenorrhea, that the person was not a female. And if it is your "contention is that at conception the Y chromosome is already present which designates the fetus a male" what do you call an XXY fetus?

[narses]

editor-surveyor says: "For the Biblically illiterate, and ignorant:"

[CynicalBear]

>>I don’t know if I understand CynicalBear and other’s take on the humanity of Jesus but it seems to me they are claiming the two natures of Christ human and divine acted separately and were distinct one from the other.<<

Catholics really need to understand what their own church teaches before discussing issues they are unclear on. Here, I’ll help you.

The church council that met in Chalcedon in A.D. 451 produced one of the most complete statements of this doctrine. It reads in part: "Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same God, perfect in divinity, and perfect in humanity, true God and true human ... Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, manifested in two natures without any confusion, change, division or separation. The union does not destroy the difference of the two natures, but on the contrary the properties of each are kept, and both are joined in one person" (Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, volume 1, HarperSanFrancisco, 1984).

Please don’t give us the heresy crap.

[smvoice]

I’ll tell you what I’m looking for. More and more “Mary apparitions” appearing all over the place. With her usual “Peace and Unity” message. With the accompanying “wonders” and “miracles”. That’s what will bring all religions into one unified satanic organization. The one in Rev. 17. After all, who can argue and dispute a “loving” “Mother” who only wants us to “come together for the sake of peace and love and unity”? Fatima, Lourdes, places in South America, Mexico, USA, Russia, China, India, wherever apostacy reigns and people believe and trust “visions” and “apparitions” because, hey, they MUST be from God. She’s the one to watch. She’s going to be everywhere and people are going to flock together, to please her. And Rome smiles and smiles and lights another candle...

[verga]

The scriptures do not indicate that Mary said yes, nor that she had any say whatsoever.

Luk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Luk 1:38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.

Here in America this translates to: "Yes".If you are not able to understand something this simple you really need to stay out of these debates

[narses]

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)

[Jvette]

That does not support your contention that there will be no oxygen and atoms, for the glorified bodies of the resurrected.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

We have no idea what is coming with Christ when He comes.

1 Cor 2:9 But as it is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him.

Claims by some otherwise is unScriptural.

And, of course, all this is again another rabbit for me to chase, rather than remaining focused on the discussion, i.e. the reality of the resurrected body of Jesus.

Scripture says, in fact Jesus says, “It is I, Myself, touch me and see.”

That Jesus’ body was not truly resurrected is not a new heresy.

That Jesus ascended bodily to the Father is truly found in Scripture.

So, what happened to Him? Where is He now?

And, more importantly, how is that one can so misunderstand the purpose of the Incarnation, which is the uniting of the Spirit, which is God, with the flesh, which is man.

That union was Jesus, the perfect uniting of God and Man; and when we believe on Him and follow Him and abide in Him, we too will have life everlasting.

[daniel1212]

You are correct, but so is the RC.

Some info on the Imprimatur: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/imprimatur-watch-what-youre-reading-my.html

“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent…”

“The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” — Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp)

Robert Sungenis: In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. Of course, the Church could go back and analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of infallible papal teachings. — http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Dave_Armstrong_Teaching_Falsehoods_About_Galileo.pdf

But at least they don't get as physical about Bible verses as compared to what their interpretation my allow: he Battle of Bethlehem: 100 rival priests clash at church built to mark birth of Jesus.

[lastchance]

I agree with you. I appreciate the clarification as I had misunderstood you.

[CynicalBear]

>>And it is just coincidence that the very next thing He says, in the same sentence, is “and upon this rock, I will build my church.”<<

No it wasn’t a coincidence. Throughout scripture it is established that God is the only Rock. Peter has just confirmed that he believes Jesus is that Rock and Christ then says “upon this Rock I will build my church”. It’s the same Rock that God says "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none." Once verse does not change what has been established throughout the rest of scripture.

>>Peter leads the Church on earth after Christ’s ascension<<

Only in the minds of Catholics. Even James was more the leader in Jerusalem. Paul wrote to the Romans and didn’t even mention Peter. There is no proof that Peter was even over the church in Rome nor that he was leader in any capacity other than to the Jews.

>>There were some Jews who rejected Christ and some that did not.<<

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles

Through their fall is talking about the Jews. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, the church, not Peter as the RCC would like to portray.

[caww]

do you think that He will bend to your will and any self declaration of salvation or non Judgement?

Judgment for sin was met at Calvary in the person of Jesus Christ...He said..."It is finished"...I believe He meant that.....also... It is written..."there is NOW no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus"...I believe this as well.

As for idols....Yes, if catholics are kneeling before a wooden figure made to look like mans idea of what she looked like then yes they are worshiping an idol....if they are praying to it, building shrines around it, parading it thru the streets, kissing it etc....yes then they are worshiping it...Just as I stated.

[caww]

do you think that He will bend to your will and any self declaration of salvation or non Judgement?

Judgment for sin was met at Calvary in the person of Jesus Christ...He said..."It is finished"...I believe He meant that.....also... It is written..."there is NOW no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus"...I believe this as well.

As for idols....Yes, if catholics are kneeling before a wooden figure made to look like mans idea of what she looked like then yes they are worshiping an idol....if they are praying to it, building shrines around it, parading it thru the streets, kissing it etc....yes then they are worshiping it...Just as I stated.

[CynicalBear]

>>You don’t have what most people would call a ‘real’ church. Apparently, you have a small personal church & you have become the Pope of your Church.<<

I can’t begin to express the lack of understanding of scripture that comment exhibits. The “church” is not an earthly organization.

[lastchance]

“Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, manifested in two natures without any confusion, change, division or separation.”

I again would like to understand if you are claiming the divine and human natures of Christ acted separately and were not always in union with each other. Retaining the properties of the natures perfectly joined is not the same thing as separation.

[smvoice]

well ok then...;)

[CynicalBear]

>>So why does anyone build a church building?<<

You tell me.

>>Why do you go to church, or do you?<<

What church do I go to? You “go to” a church? Is that what church is to you? Something you “go to”? When you walk out of the doors of that building do you then leave the church? I belong to the universal church of believers and assemble with believers every day.

[lastchance]

Well that’s one way to keep those annoying pledge cards at bay.

[anglian]

THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY Father Clifford Stevens At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven." In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: "Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth." All the feast days of Mary mark the great mysteries of her life and her part in the work of redemption. The central mystery of her life and person is her divine motherhood, celebrated both at Christmas and a week later (Jan. 1) on the feast of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The Immaculate Conception (Dec. 8) marks the preparation for that motherhood, so that she had the fullness of grace from the first moment of her existence, completely untouched by sin. Her whole being throbbed with divine life from the very beginning, readying her for the exalted role of mother of the Savior. The Assumption completes God's work in her since it was not fitting that the flesh that had given life to God himself should ever undergo corruption. The prayer for the feast reads: "All-powerful and ever-living God: You raised the sinless Virgin Mary, mother of your Son, body and soul, to the glory of heaven. May we see heaven as our final goal and come to share her glory." In 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution , Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption of Mary a dogma of the Catholic Church in these words: "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven." With that, an ancient belief became Catholic doctrine and the Assumption was declared a truth revealed by God. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

[CynicalBear]

So do you believe that God did not exist prior to Mary? How about the “Word” did He exist prior to Mary?