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.
“he most certainly did”
good, we agree on something!
now, i am sure we also agree the true Church is visible, where was the true Church in 431ad and can you name just two Christians alive that year?
Only false to you, and not to Christians all over the world.
But, hey, I’m glad at least one of us understands Scripture, maybe the other will learn something in this exchange.
Jesus did indeed give to us His mother as He died on the cross. You may choose to reject her and that is your right, but that denial and rejection by you does not change what Jesus said or why He said it.
Do you deny that there was sorrow as Jesus died and then returned to His Father in heaven? Do you not think that Mary was sorrowful when she watched her Son as He was crucified?
Did Jesus not prepare the Apostles that He would have to die, that He would have to go away so the Holy Spirit could come?
The Church was born from the death of Jesus, so yes, it was indeed born out of sorrow.
are you confused also about the Sabbath and what it represented?
Actually I was asking you personally. Read the two paragraphs in juxtaposition again, if you would, and tell us what they represent.
You must have it right. Thank you for the message.
****Israel was always about a people of God and the covenant was with Abraham and his descendants, both physically, through Isaac, and spiritually, through the faith by which God accounted him justified.****
Physical as in a race of people, though there were certainly converts, but the Israelite people were a people bound by race to their religion.
Good post, thanks.
I'm sure that it was underground, passing the AV1611 around on flash drives from person to person, since the Catholic Church interdicted all email traffic and took down all sites that had Bibles on them. I'd estimate that two of the true Christians at that time were named CynicalTapeworm and CynicalNematode. Possibly a CynicalHyena might have been around, but that is only conjecture.
I will tell you this, not ALL the signs of the "day of the Lord" appeared at Pentecost. There were the "signs in the earth beneath" but not "wonders in the heaven above." There were the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, the tongues, and visions, and prophesying, but NOT the "'blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke,". Nor was the "sun turned into darkness and the moon into blood." Acts 2:17-20. Why? Because Israel was given the chance at Pentecost to turn to Christ and accept Him as Messiah. But the nation, as a whole did not. Why didn't God pour out His wrath on the nation at that point? The beginning of the propechy of Joel concerning the Last Days happened..the completion of his prophecy did not. Why not?
What else could it be? :)
No.
The new Jerusalem is the heavenly Jerusalem.
The Holy City is the heavenly Jerusalem.
And though Rome is called the Eternal City, it began long before the Church was there.
Jesus was the eldest was He not? According to Jewish law and tradition it would have fallen on Him to ensure her being looked after and cared for.
>>I have given you the Scriptural support for why Christians from the beginning have regarded Mary as their spiritual mother.<
All of which were stretched beyond credible and in contradiction of scripture itself.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
\ The church in Rome is of the bondwoman.
>>rather than accept Scripture that fully supports the Catholic belief<<
Then of course you could give scriptural proof of the bodily assumption of Mary and of the “universal consent” as to the woman in Revelation 12?
Roman Catholic theologian Father Hubert J. Richards agrees that the Revelation 12 woman refers to Israel. His book, What The Spirit Says to the Churches: A Key to the Apocalypse of John, carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church.13 Concerning the woman of Revelation 12, Father Richards writes: (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2831799/posts?page=1343#1343)
You’re SURE that the CC does not believe that Rome is the “New Jerusalem” and the “Holy City”?
LOL
As I said, protestantism is a SEA of confusion.
I understand it.
One can believe in the new Israel without believing in replacement theology.
I don’t believe that the Church replaced Israel.
I believe that Jesus has made all things new with His new and everlasting covenant.
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new.
No. Catholicism is a SEA of deception. Any Catholic would seem CONFUSED by Protestantism. The deceived are often very confused. Hence, the need for the Cart of Catholic Knowledge. Overflowing with reasons and ways to explain away the plain truth of God’s Word of Truth.
The position of the typical antiCatholic rests in part upon the repudiation of Peter as the leader of Christianity after Pentecost, and in the embracing of a distorted Paulian version of Christianity in contrast to Petrine Christianity.
In spite of the Protestant position of Paul - Gentile and Peter - Jew, let us look at the facts. Paul spent most of his ministry with the Jews (Acts and his Epistles bear that out). Peter spent most of his time with the Gentiles (Scripture and various Christian writings of the era bear that out). Peter converted the first Gentile. He raised the first person from the dead (after Christ). His shadow was enough to heal people.
He also led Christianity in Rome. His crucifixion was upside down so that he would not equal Christ in any way. Peter is portrayed by Protestants as a bumbling, stumbling fool, no match for the articulate and educated Paul. Yet Paul himself had an inferiority complex a mile wide and complained his whole life about not being accepted as much as the Apostles that Jesus spent three years with.
Now do you see that philosophy mirrored in the juxtaposition of your two paragraphs?
Plain truth? If you get 100 Protestants to describe God's Plain Word of Truth, you'll wind up with 125 descriptions.
Once one takes it upon one's self to proclaim doctrine, why then, anything goes. Jesus created the teaching Church. All of the Gospels and Epistles hammer home the role of the Church as teachers and the need for orthodoxy. The role of the Reformation was to convince people that there was no need for orthodoxy and that anything that they happened to imagine that morning was as good as anything else anybody else could come up with. Including the Tradition of the Church and the Teachings of the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, and Church Fathers.
No, actually we wouldn’t agree on that.
where was the true Church in 431ad and can you name just two Christians alive that year?<<
Some of them were probably attending the apostate RCC and some of them meeting privately.
Only those invited by Christ and indwelled by the Holy Spirit are true Christians, and these are the Church exclusively. This group can be said to be invisible, because only God can know who they are with certainty. They are marked by the invisible Spirit of God. [http://www.versebyverseministry.org/resource_library/questions_and_answers/the_visible_vs._invisible_church/]
No, actually we wouldn’t agree on that.
where was the true Church in 431ad and can you name just two Christians alive that year?<<
Some of them were probably attending the apostate RCC and some of them meeting privately.
Only those invited by Christ and indwelled by the Holy Spirit are true Christians, and these are the Church exclusively. This group can be said to be invisible, because only God can know who they are with certainty. They are marked by the invisible Spirit of God. [http://www.versebyverseministry.org/resource_library/questions_and_answers/the_visible_vs._invisible_church/]
Now that is one heck of a waffle. I suppose that you will not name names...
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.