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.
1 Peter 2:4-12 4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
You have a very good theory, but the problem is that you are disagreeing with Jesus Himself and ALL of the Protestant scholars. If you can gett hem to change their minds bully for you. But please don't agrue with me when it is your own people telling YOU that YOU are WRONG.
Rather than interacting with what i wrote, your reply is another rant that ignores the very points i first made in response to you (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2831799/posts?page=1410#1410), which refutes the premise that SS renders one assuming infallibility, while pointing out that the Catholic himself “makes a fallible decision to submit to Rome, which use of fallible human reasoning he also engages in when interpreting what Rome has taught, including which teachings are indeed infallible in which was are not, in which he cannot be absolutely sure.” Thus we both claim infallible authorities as supreme, but not assuredly infallible interpretations of them.
Instead you want to me to deal with the posts of individuals, which solves nothing, as the real issue is the premise you rage against. If you you want to engage in reasoned exchange on that, than do so, if not, your broadbrushed immature run ons warrant no more of a response than those of atheists may.
http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_authority.html
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/552-was-peter-the-rock
If Jesus has said, *and on YOU, PETER, will I build my church* then I would have nothing to argue against, but He didn’t.
As far as other *Protestant scholars* (and not ALL of them by any means), I don’t give a rip about who says what and what kind of credentials they have or how many letters before or after their name. If it doesn’t line up with a clear reading of Scripture or if it contradicts other Scripture, they’re wrong, plain and simple.
Well the the way I read it and those really smart men and women read it that is exactly what Jesus said.
As far as other *Protestant scholars* (and not ALL of them by any means), I don’t give a rip about who says what and what kind of credentials they have or how many letters before or after their name. If it doesn’t line up with a clear reading of Scripture or if it contradicts other Scripture, they’re wrong, plain and simple.
So is it that they disagree with you that makes them wrong or that they agree with what has been taught and understood for 1500 years that makes them wrong.
And I really hate to keep asking (actually I know that you are scared/ terrified to answer) Exactly how many hours of credit do you have at the Graduate/ Master level in New Testament Greek? and What grade did you earn in those classes?
After that portion, everything is simply more noise to pretend that discussion is being attempted. Let's try one very simple question at a time. Do you believe that the Pope of the Catholic Church is now or at some point in the future will be either the prophet of the AntiChrist or the AntiChrist? I don't see how it's the least bit unreasonable for any Catholic to know at least that much about what an obvious anti-Catholic believes prior to discussing anything with them.
If someone won't answer some very simple questions prior to engaging in conversation there is no reason to believe they want to have a conversation or that they are in fact a reasonable person worthy of engaging in conversation. Those who will not answer such simple questions are in reality saying, "yes, birds of a feather flock together, but I like to pretend I'm not really one of the vultures".
The real question is; was it justified by the teachings of Christ (and the early Apostles?) to lay into their necks quite literally with battle-axes and other implements of death and destruction, for the "crime" of opposing the Latin church?
You say "they were leading true Christians astray". there is no evidence for that, other than the Waldensian growing opposition to certain doctrines of the Latin church which they themselves [Waldensians] had scriptural foundation for.
Jon Huss, for similar reasons, was himself burned alive for alleged crimes of opposition, to this very same Latin "church".
It is only by convoluted reasoning and application (misapplication?) of "tradition" that brought those of that time to the point where they concluded murder was sanctioned.
If one is to invoke Paul at this point (and I do know the scriptural passage alluded to) then it would be like saying Paul sanctioned such "destruction" to be visited not only upon unbelievers, but also those actively preaching Christ, but disagreeing with some aspects of the Latin church, with such destruction directed to be visited upon the offenders, by members of the Latin church, themselves.
There is a religion in the world today whose texts clearly instruct them to slay those in opposition to their own religious teaching, and it is not the Christian one.
Well the the way I read it and those really smart men and women read it that is exactly what Jesus said.
As far as other *Protestant scholars* (and not ALL of them by any means), I don’t give a rip about who says what and what kind of credentials they have or how many letters before or after their name. If it doesn’t line up with a clear reading of Scripture or if it contradicts other Scripture, they’re wrong, plain and simple.
So is it that they disagree with you that makes them wrong or that they agree with what has been taught and understood for 1500 years that makes them wrong.
And I really hate to keep asking (actually I know that you are scared/ terrified to answer) Exactly how many hours of credit do you have at the Graduate/ Master level in New Testament Greek? and What grade did you earn in those classes?
CRICKETS CHIRPING
Let's try one very simple question at a time. Do you believe that the Pope of the Catholic Church is now or at some point in the future will be either the prophet of the AntiChrist or the AntiChrist? I don't see how it's the least bit unreasonable for any Catholic to know at least that much about what an obvious anti-Catholic believes prior to discussing anything with them.
No, i do not believe that the pope is the The False Prophet or the AntiChrist, nor anyone i know of now, though i can think of someone more fitting.
As for whether a pope could be either, i certainly allow that, but it seems some of your own did, or at least those of your schismatic sedevacantist brethren, (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/section1.pdf) though they seem to be more tolerated.
The Catholic bishop Arnulf of Orleans was the first to apply the 'man of sin' prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 to the papacy.[7][26] The same interpretation was given by the Catholic abbot Joachim of Floris in 1190[7] and the archbishop Eberhard II in 1240. — EB Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume IV, Appendix I, fifth edition, 1862; Leroy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, volume I (1950) pages 541-542
However, if your interrogation is for the purpose of determining whether i am anti-Catholic, then i think i have made that clear, as you have that you are anti-Protestant. The issue is on what basis. On our part the question is whether it is a result finding Scripture to be the assured word of God and thus seeking to go whether Scripture leads, and resulting in affirming truths we both affirm on the weight of Scriptural evidence, and contending against those who deny them, as well as against those teachings we find as being a product of Rome making dogma out of mere traditions of men. Or whether opposition is due to some other reason, as often is alleged.
I am not motivated by any personal animosity toward Rome, and had no real negative personal events there, and my leaving many years ago was done prayerfully. And here i have sought reasonable exchange, and a higher level of substantive debate than simply name calling and such, though this can be hard. But neither are we to sit docile in the midst of the constant (and i meant constant) promotion of teachings of Rome and here as the one true Church©. And if you will assert such, then you cannot complain when it is challenged point by point.
And rather than broadbrushing, you have more reason to deal with opposition as individuals, if such are not preaching a particular church, as you do. Yet we also must deal with Roman Catholics as individuals, as some are more Traditional and others are quite liberal, and some want JP2 canonized while others blast him. But rather than interrogating every Roman Catholics i think that if one show them self reasonable then exchange may be possible.
If someone won't answer some very simple questions prior to engaging in conversation there is no reason to believe they want to have a conversation or that they are in fact a reasonable person worthy of engaging in conversation. Those who will not answer such simple questions are in reality saying, "yes, birds of a feather flock together, but I like to pretend I'm not really one of the vultures".
Rashputin, i saw interrogation as a regards herring in contrast to their real issues, and your one-size-fits-all response of overall misrepresentation (which was not in response to my post) and responsive interrogation hardly evidences openness to discussion, but which i think my reasoned reply to the veracity of the substantial issues behind your unreasonable rant did, rather than replying in kind. But if your defense of Rome means that you cannot engage anti-Catholics who seek to stick with real issues, and allow they can have sincere reasons for doing so, without you resorting to your manner of response at issue, then continue to do as you have.
And unless you can show me something of mutually-agreed authority (perhaps the Catholic Bible?), then I refuse to believe the Pope has any authority. It simply looks pulled from one’s butt.
Her silence is deafening.
Verga, I don’t expect that 15 minutes after I post to someone that they will be able to get back with me.
However, it appears there are quite a few Catholics who are unable to respond to my comments throughout this thread with tangible evidence from the Catholic’s own Bible that could use your assistance.
Care to step in and help them?
Actually, I only know a few Catholics who I've met of late since deciding the Catholic Church is right and no matter who doesn't like it, it is the One True Church founded by Christ Himself and entrusted to His Apostles. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches the same things today it has taught ever since Pentecost. Not a single one of the Self Alone groups that grew out of the Self focused revolt against the One True Church still exists as it did at that time and none of the tens of thousands of fragments those Self centered doctrines have bred teaches all of Christianity as it was taught by Christ and His Apostles. That's not anti-Protestant a bit and the fact I that spend the majority of my time with Lutherans and Southern Baptists rather than Catholics hadn't crossed my mind. I really do need to spend more time with Catholic folks, you're right about that much at least.
What I am is very much against those pretending to be Protestant Christians but who are in reality not Christian, not Protestant, and not anything else except Self Centered anti-Catholics cooperating with the humanist crowd to fragment non-Catholics and constantly attack Catholics.
The fact is, the only place I run into those who claim a) to be Christian, and b) to be Protestant Christians, and who cannot live without attacking the Catholic Church while claiming to infallibly interpret Scripture as they take their daily walk across the surface of the local lake, is right here. Here those who insist they are not anti-Catholic in the least ignore every one of the openly anti-Cathlic liars even when they insist that Christ was not fully human and fully God. At the very least, its interesting that such an assertion seems to bother so few non-Catholic folks. Obviously, they ignore the known numbskulls and just stay on the sidelines most of the time although now and then the numbskulls do wonder into a thread they didn’t start and are quit clearly put in their place by some of the many fine non-Catholic Christians who frequent FR.
"But neither are we to sit docile in the midst of the constant (and i meant constant) promotion of teachings of Rome and here as the one true Church©. "
Well isn't that sweet, you can't remain docile in the face of history. Do you also refuse to remain docile when someone says the Moors once ruled Spain or that there was a revolution in Russia in 1917?
"But if your defense of Rome means that you cannot engage anti-Catholics who seek to stick with real issues, and allow they can have sincere reasons for doing so, without you resorting to your manner of response at issue, then continue to do as you have. "
I don't defend "Rome" , do recognize the use of “Rome” rather than Catholic is a deliberate slur, and only defend the Catholic Church when someone posts an article attacking it. Something those who each have their own “Christian in Name Only" religion, deny the Deity of Christ, and consider Christmas and Easter both to be pagan holidays, can't seem to resist posting in an endless cycle repeating the same handful of lies as topics and using thinly veiled repetitions of anti-Cathlic lies from a popular comic books series as their primary source. Each and every one continues to repeat lies from sources long after many posters have produced more than adequate proof that their sources are lies. Lies from sources that have been debunked as lies not only by Catholics, but by academics who are shocked that shoddy research mixed with fantasy is accepted as nonfiction material are only repeated by liars, right?.
Such folks routinely slander not just the Catholic Church, but with their non-Christian definition of Christianity they slander all Christians, as well. Such is the result of those who each and every one interpret Scripture for themselves. Side with such folks, continue your own personal argumentation and discussion, while ignoring the lies and total fabrications mixed in with your comments, never even take notice of or correct those lies and fabrications, and it's obvious that simply not "remaining docile" is the least of your objectives. Joining liars and ignoring their lies is collaboration with those liars, not some sort of aloofness. As for not being Catholic? Fine with me, I'm not the Holy Spirit. Those who sincerely study Christianity will become Catholic or Orthodox if they are not now, and if they do not, may God have mercy on their souls.
So much for one borderline pseudo-answer that very carefully avoids distancing yourself from the professional liars who routinely post slanders against Christ, Christianity, and the Catholic Church. I like the, "some of my best friends are black folks" non-denial denial that you do in fact believe the Pope will be the AntiChrist or the prophet of the AntiChrist, too. It must hurt to attempt such verbal tap steps when you only know how to polka and square dance.
Now, do you agree with those who say both Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays, and how can you possibly object to anything anyone says they get from Scripture since you advocate and practice self interpretation of Scripture?
I began to reply, but it quickly became apparent that you are back on your 4,000+ word breathless diatribe and diversive interrogation again, and still fail to interact with my post which examined the doctrinal premise behind your SS strawman, etc. And as you indicate you have too much venom to deal reasonably and objectively with the doctrinal issues, then i have no interest in more attempts do so with you but will await certain other Catholics who may be want to do so.
Over and out.
God has His opinion on human *smarts*....
1 Corinthians 1:18-31 18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 2:11-16 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
There is no other rock than Jesus. Matthew 16:18 is misinterpreted if someone says Peter is that rock because it contradicts the clear statements by God about Himself in other Scripture and Scripture CANNOT contradict itself.
Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
And this.....
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
Rock in verse 4 in both uses of it is *petra*.
Here is a link to the Greek...
http://biblos.com/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
And it doesn't take a Greek scholar to read that.
As a matter of fact, here are all 15 occurrences of *petra* in the NT.
http://concordances.org/greek/strongs_4073.htm
The following verses besides the 1 Corinthians one, reference Christ as being the rock - petra. NO mention of Peter at all......
Romans 9:33 ...as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
And by Peter HIMSELF......
1 Peter 2:4- 8 4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense .” They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
And, yeah, it took more than 15 minutes to compose that, not counting the other stuff I had to do around the house this evening.
Catholics tend to be a very controlling and demanding lot. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen that kind of impatience and derision over the length of time it took for a response to one of their posts.
Catholics having control issues. Who woulda thunk?
Oh, and I don't think anyone believes that tired old "some of my best friends are black folks" approach to avoiding questions anymore. Those who accept the fantasy heresy of "Scripture Alone" have worn it out trying to pretend they really don't apply the Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation" in order to find whatever is convienent within the Scriptures. You know, the Self Alone Interpret Your Own crowd who ordain queers, marry queers one to another, accept abortion as "unfortunate" but not murder, and all the other things based on every bit as much personal interpretation as are the snark posts denying the deity of Christ around here are.
You know, when people start by refusing to accept the Christian canon of the Old Testament and instead accept the Pharisee canon, they're bound to end up going astray no matter how they try not to.
Good job, daniel. Look at the derision you received for that reply.
A sure indicator that they can’t contest it.
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.