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.
CynicalBear: Do the think we actually read them if we haven’t been told to stay out? LOL
Look but don't touch......
Like I'd waste my time reading a link to a thread I've been told I can't participate on.
I don't think so.
The Scripture that Iscool posted that the Catholic church claims it's responsible for because it claims it wrote it isn't a *real legitimate source*?
How telling.......
Was Peter named Rock by Jesus? This requires only a yes of no answer.
http://biblos.com/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said to Peter that he was a Petros (rock) and upon this petra (rock) He would build His church.
While in English both words are translated into *rock*, in the Greek it is more than obvious that the words are not the same.
Now, about that reading comprehension........
GMTA!!!
LOL
“Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see” (Rev 3:18)
I don’t know Greek (perhaps you do) but if it’s anything like Latin, the same noun can take six different forms. For example, God is “Deus” in the nominative case, but in the genitive case it’s “Dei” as in Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) but still means the same. So I’m unconvinced - are you sure that that petros and petra are from different roots? Any Greek scholars out there? I’m just asking - not a rhetorical question.
The Bride of Christ
How many people are in your church?
An uncounted multitude of blood washed saints.
Why is there so much darkness?
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
We are all told to shine the light of Truth on the darkness in this world.
And we do when we post Scripture.
Neither simple nor Christian. They were leading true Christians astray. St. Paul was absolutely correct.
Isn't that gracious of them? Just imagine them deigning to grant Mary anything. What else might they grant? Let's see...
Luther granted wealth to himself. Calvin granted power to himself. Zwingli granted a military end to himself playing soldiers. What did they grant to you?
As far as the quote goes, I'm happy you provided me the opportunity to repost it and correctly attribute it to the second greatest mind in history...
Only the second greatest? Oh come now, are you granting that title to someone else?
While in English both words are translated into *rock*, in the Greek it is more than obvious that the words are not the same.
Now, about that reading comprehension........
Exactly how many hours of Study do you in Koine (New Testament Greek) at the Graduate level and what grade did you receive in those classes.
I have two full semesters and received "A"s in both of them.
So yeah I will stack my reading comprehension against any of you prots.
Every time a protestant gives this quote they ALWAYS leave out the second half AFSD, And fools seldom differ.
The Bride of Christ
I'd hazard that it is Joe's Bar and House of Salvation (second floor). A far cry from the Church.
How many people are in your church?
An uncounted multitude of blood washed saints.
The only question is whether or not it is one hand or two.
We are all told to shine the light of Truth on the darkness in this world.
And we do when we post Scripture
The problem is when you guys post Scripture entirely unrelated to the posts in question.
And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. (Rev. 5:9)
If you stick to the Aramaic, it might be easier for you to understand. Cephas will do.
And the work of practical sanctification is done in this world in which we are tempted by power, pleasure and possessions.
There are an awful lot of Protestant scholars that disagree with your misinterpretatiopn of petros.
ALBERT BARNES
(NINETEENTH-CENTURY PRESBYTERIAN)
"The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion" [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].
JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)
Two quotations from the same work Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, "Thou are kipho, and on this kipho". The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, "Thou are kepha, and on this kepha".... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: "Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre"; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, "Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier." Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
JOHN CALVIN
I grant that in Greek Peter(Peteros) and stone (Petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic[From the Attica region}, the second from the common tongue. New Testament Commentaries The Harmonies of the Gospels Matthew Mark, and Luke Vol. 2 Translated by T.H.L. Parker
J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN) "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254). HERMAN RIDDERBOS ( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303]. DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
DONALD A. CARSON III
(Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminar )
(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock". The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
The word Peter petros, meaning "rock" (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken "rock" to be anything or anyone other than Peter. Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church,Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary) The meaning is, "You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church." Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, "And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church." Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647 Gerhard Maier
(Conservative Evangelical Lutheran theologian)
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate" Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
John Peter Lange
(German Protestant scholar)
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: "Thou art Rock, and upon this rock", etc. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
David Hill
(Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies University of Sheffield, England)
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the "rock" as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. "The Gospel of Matthew" The New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. "Simon", the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the "rock" on which God will build the new community. The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93 Oscar Cullmann.
(Lutheran Theologian)
He disagrees with Luther and the Protestant reformers who held that by "rock" Christ did not mean Peter, but meant either himself or the faith of His followers. He believes the meaning of the original Aramaic is very clear: that "Kepha" was the Aramaic word for "rock", and that it was also the name by which Christ called Peter Religion: Peter & the Rock." Time," Dec. 07, 1953.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,890753-1,00.html
OK with me...
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.