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.

[Rashputin]

ROTFLMAO ....

Can't contest, right. Actually, it shows that some people know what anathema means and won't bother with those who clearly are heretics who have no life in them and deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Keep on feedin that ego and get used to the idea of hearing, “I never knew you”.

[Al Hitan]

And unless you can show me something of mutually-agreed authority

And until you can show us "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, you should speak no further.

[daniel1212]

Well, she/he had a chance, while such responses avoid having actual substantive debate on doctrinal issues and seeing allegations exposed for what they are, and such responses end up being an argument against what they defend.

[BlueDragon]

And until you can show us "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, you should speak no further.

Would you accept that early patristic fathers employed the idea or principle? Here's a brief essay touching upon much of the research which has been done concerning the issue, including some clear quotes from the early patristric ones themselves supporting scripture as the measure to which doctrine must be examined and compared against. Otherwise, how could these early ones ever defeated various heresies, like the Gnostics in particular, whom claimed that some of which they had (and others did not) they received directly from Apostles themselves. The Gnostics were put down using scripture which all the other churches had more or less uniformly. From the [below] link;

The early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura in that it believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced the doctrine was to be rejected.

Sola Scriptura and the Early Church

There is more such as that available. The argument against sola scripture, is one promoting sola ecclesia to the extent that such ecclesia can see or find doctrines not found at all among the earliest church writers, or found in disagreement among them if found at all, nor found solid basis for in the scriptures, and in fact found quite contrary to scripture (when it applies to controversial matters, or else there would be no controversy) unless one focuses merely upon what the ecclesia pusher wishes the discussion to be constrained to --- leaving out all the rest of the Old Covenant and New Testament which may refute the claim.

It is no wonder that Catholics have been programmed to hate sola scriptura, for it is the Word itself which condemns some (but not all!) portions of the ecclesia.

Here's a bit different take, one not so one sided, as it speaks in a hopeful manner;

G.C. Berkouwer

First portion;

The study of the centuries-old struggle between Rome and the Reformation raises an important and inescapable problem: the question of authority. In our own time of confusion and chaos the problem of authority attracts much attention. Since the downfall of national socialism and fascism efforts are being made to find an authority capable of checking chaos and of protecting life from the desperation of nihilism Papal encyclicals issued during the last hundred years often warn against the threat of anarchy. The one and only stronghold of civilization and culture is proclaimed to be the church of Jesus Christ, in its absolute supra-temporal origin. The church is “the only haven of refuge,” ignored by those “who scorn the light of Christian Wisdom and who—sad to say—want to go back to the doctrines, customs, and institutions of pagan antiquity”1 The chief cause of human woe is to be sought in the contempt and the rejection of the exalted authority of the church For it is the church which governs mankind in the name of God, and which maintains and protects every legitimate authority.2 There is a close connection between the legitimate authority of the church, as the only haven of refuge, and Rome s criticism of the Reformation. A standard is lifted up for the modern world, with all its chaotic aspects of unbelief, revolution and dictatorship, a standard that has been raised for centuries in opposition to the Reformation: the authority of the church as a rock in the surging Waves. [snip]

Last portion;

The question is concerned with the a priori character of this stability. In Rome’s view this stability is lifted out of the full coherence of the church. When the Reformation cut this authority at the root and began to understand the original sounds of the gospel anew, a tremendous conflict had broken out in the history of the church. Insofar as one is inclined to speak at all of a venture, it is only the venture of leaving the Bible open in the church, where it can be read, listened to, and preached. The church again became an ecclesia audiens in the full sense of the word.

At least such was the mighty plea of Luther and Calvin. The listening church—thus might the aim of the Reformation be summarized. Such may seem to be an oversimplification, but in reality it comprises everything fundamental that can be said. For this listening is not opposed to the teaching (ecclesia docens) of the church but is indissolubly bound up with it. In such listening everything is set in motion. The time of the Reformation reminds us of the dark times of Israel when the young Samuel stood intently listening to the Eternal: Speak, oh Lord, for thy servant heareth.” Thus he became an immeasurable blessing for his people, and presently the doors of the sacred place were opened and the divine light shone in the dark night of Israel. In Reformation times it was again discovered, right across a tradition of many centuries, what it meant to be under the Word of grace and to bring one’s thoughts into captivity to Christ. We should guard against immediately placing this tremendous event in the twilight of the dissensions. In spite of all differences and even in them we can speak, and we ought to continue to speak, of the fundamental structure of the Reformation. A comparison of Luther’s exegesis of the Epistle to the Romans, which he published before 1517, and Calvin’s Institutes will immediately reveal the profound communion of the new ‘discovery.’ This discovery owed its immense importance, not merely to the common insight into the authority of the Scriptures, but to the hold their contents had on the heart: Jesus Christ and his grace. Between the Reformed attitude towards the Scriptures and the sola fide there is no tension or separation but the profoundest harmony. A new religious reflection, a new authority asserted itself and conquered thousands of hearts when the good tidings were proclaimed as the liberating signal in the listening church. That is why the Reformation has never admitted that it did not ascribe any authority to the church.

[verga]

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.

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 And still Chirping

God has His opinion on human *smarts*.... Yeah because everyone knows that you should just as the guy on the corner to take out your appendix, who cares if he went to medical school or not, or even if he is a real doctor.

Right now you are setting the cause of homeschooling and protestantism back, way back.

Is this anti-intellectualism posture really the pose you want to take?

[verga]

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?

Yeah here is the problem The Time Stamp

I asked you at 3:50 in the afternoon initially, and guess what you still have not answered the question (Protestants dodging questions whoda thunkit?)

[Tramonto]

Are you some sort of inquisitor? Just in case you were wondering, I never studied Greek.

Who is the stone that the builders rejected? Peter or Jesus?

[Al Hitan]

Would you accept that early patristic fathers employed the idea or principle?

I'm being held to the standard that it has to be shown from Scripture. Is it too much to bear that the same standard be applied to Sola Scriptura?

[metmom]

Can't contest, right. Actually, it shows that some people know what anathema means and won't bother with those who clearly are heretics who have no life in them and deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

Oh? So now salvation is based on someone knowing the *proper* definition of *anathema*? And you know who denies the deity of Christ? Mind reading much?

Keep on feedin that ego and get used to the idea of hearing, “I never knew you”.

For all Catholics screech about how no one is going to know if they made it until they get there, they sure are not reluctant to pass judgment on others.

If Catholics can't even be sure about themselves, they're in NO position to make that determination about others. Or did God tell you ahead of time who's saved and who's not?

[metmom]

How much NT Greek do you know?

I never studied NT Greek, but have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide and enlighten me about the things of God.

Besides, a cursory study of the word *petra* does not require that level of study.

[metmom]

Yeah because everyone knows that you should just as the guy on the corner to take out your appendix, who cares if he went to medical school or not, or even if he is a real doctor.

Right now you are setting the cause of homeschooling and protestantism back, way back.

Is this anti-intellectualism posture really the pose you want to take?

Just couldn't resist taking a swipe at homeschoolers could you?

As far as the charges of *anti-intellectualism*, coming from the world. Fine. I'm the foolish thing of the world that the world rejected and God used to confound it. I'll wear it as a badge of honor. God saved the world through the foolishness of the preaching of the gospel which is the power of my salvation.

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.”

Luke 18:9-14

9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt:

10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’

13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

[smvoice]

AMEN, mm.

"Let no man deceive himself, If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. ..." 1 Cor. 3:18-21.

[metmom]

'm being held to the standard that it has to be shown from Scripture. Is it too much to bear that the same standard be applied to Sola Scriptura?

2 Timothy 3:14-17 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Now, from Scripture show us where tradition is to tradition is to be held to the same level of authority as the living, God breathed, inspired Word of God. Or that tradition IS God breathed, inspired, and living.

And tradition is not acceptable. Catholics reject what they call *self-declared* salvation. Well I reject self-declared tradition that says tradition is equal in authority to Scripture. How convenient is that for the Catholic church. *See, tradition is of equal authority to Scripture because our tradition says so*.

Really????

It's beyond absurd.

[verga]

Are you some sort of inquisitor?

No but gosh I would love to be.

Just in case you were wondering, I never studied Greek.

Okay

Who is the stone that the builders rejected? Peter or Jesus? Thank you for giving support to my arguement. Did you really mean tos ay that Jesus was only a pebble?

[CynicalBear]

>> Now, from Scripture show us where tradition is to tradition is to be held to the same level of authority as the living, God breathed, inspired Word of God.<<

Jesus did not talk in glowing tribute to tradition.

Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[verga]

How much NT Greek do you know?

I have two full semesters of formal study at the graduate level for a total os 6, I earned an "A" in both.

I never studied NT Greek, but have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide and enlighten me about the things of God.

I am sorry i can't take your word for that, because I have heard to many of you prots tell me that Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, or what ever minister you disagree with is not saved or does not have the spirit. Since we are talking about an eternal truth and our eternal destiny I need legitimate Bona fides.

Besides, a cursory study of the word *petra* does not require that level of study.

Obviously since there is so much disagreement this requires more, much more than a "cursory study" and since it might have eternal consequences I would say that it really requires more.

[verga]

Just couldn't resist taking a swipe at homeschoolers could you?

Only at the anti-intellectual militant ones.

You see Knowledge of God is vital to our eternal destiny.

[Al Hitan]

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for...

Yes, it is profitable for ... Nowhere does it say anything about Sola Scriptura.

Well I reject self-declared tradition that says tradition is equal in authority to Scripture. How convenient is that for the Catholic church. *See, tradition is of equal authority to Scripture because our tradition says so*.

Sola Scriptura is a tradition. What is in your Bible is a Tradition.

Really????

No, not really.

It's beyond absurd.

Not surprising since it is just something you claimed which has nothing to do with reality.

[smvoice]

"You see Knowledge of God is vital to ur eternal destiny."

...said Templeton von Cadburry III, to his weekly group of pipe-smoking, tweed jacketed "intellectuals" who met to ponder the Universe and have a nice brandy.

"For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward." 2 Cor. 1:12.

...said God to us in His Word.

[Al Hitan]

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men

vs.

"...keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you."

"...stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."