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.
Well, we keep saying that the term *Mother of Christ* is more accurate.
The margin between guessing and informed study are not in your favor.
Examine Mt 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25. In these James and Joses (Joseph), who are mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Judas (Jude) as Jesus’ “adelphoi”, are called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas, a different Mary from the Mother of Christ.
The Orthodox view of Tradition isn’t a mathematical equation, but expresses the broader view of the entire Church, not just a few theologians.
The Quinisext Council was even regarded by Roman Catholic canonists such as St. Francis De Sales as ecumenical.
And first besides those of the first rank whether of the new or of the Old Testament, about the year 364 they were received at the Council of Laodicea, Canon lx., (which was afterwards approved in the sixth general Council *),
http://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy/protestant-scripture.html#CHAPTER_III
So the Council of Trent was not the first Ecumenical Council to touch on the place of the disputed books in the canon.
If the opponents of those books are consistent, and I don’t think they are, then shouldn’t they toss 2,3 John, James, and Revelation out of their Bibles. Not to mention the Book of Esther, which St. Gregory the Theologian didn’t consider canonical.
If the Church has the power to reverse earlier decisions against their inspiration, then why doesn’t it have the authority to discover that the books of the Maccabees, Judith, etc. are canonical and inspired?
If they are logically consistent, then they should concede that their attack against the Roman patriarchate as the “Whore of Babylon” is rooted in an apocryphal book? Not to mention that the attack on the Divine Liturgy as a sacrificial banquet, considering many considered Hebrews apocryphal.
only the Catholic Church has been defending the person of Jesus Christ and His Divinity and His humanity for 2,000 years against all types of heretics.
the non-Catholics weren’t there and have no experience in these matters.
The ‘faith’ you are ‘explaining’ is not of God, but of the accuser.
Did Jesus have a human soul?
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!
And no Catholic alive today was there either.
You are SOOOOO funny.
He did not call her mother He called her as Woman. It was John who wrote mother not Jesus.
>> “Do mothers give birth to natures or to persons?” <<
(not sure who wrote the above) but your answer was,
“Not necessarily either of them, but they do give birth to bodies, dead or alive.”
In all seriousness if a woman does not necessarily give birth to a person then obviously the child in the womb can not be a person. If it is just a body (which you seem to imply in your statement) there can really be no reason to declare abortion is wrong based on the teaching that an unborn child is indeed a person. If it is only a body it is no different than other flesh except that it is contained within the womb.
I would be glad for you to explain just what you meant.
we are the same Body of Christ that was here in 100ad, 200ad, 300ad, 431ad, 2012ad.
we reject the Joseph Smith apostate falsehood, don’t you?
They were in Missouri building mounds and living in tents. They probably had names like Daryl, Bubba, Little Dripping Water, and Buffalo Hump.
You're confused, yet again. That's the sound of the BB rattling around inside your grape.
St. John was in error. Mary was not His mother. Mary was Jesus’ woman.
“Mother of Christ” (or rather in Greek, Christotokos) was the title Nestorius (and before him Theodore of Mopsuestia) preferred. The problem with it can be seen on this thread: folks who (like Nestorius) object to Mary being titled Theotokos end up separating Christ’s divinity and humanity in some way which does not reflect the reality of the Son’s Incarnation, if not the way Nestorius did, then in some way even further from the truth.
The person whom Mary bore is fully God. She did not give birth to Jesus’s humanity only, but to the Divine Logos who in His conception according to the flesh has assumed our nature entirely (excepting sin). The title Theotokos safeguards the correct understanding of this mystery. It is not about Mary, but about Jesus.
you heard the crickets chirping on that one as well huh?
Where in Scripture will one find the word trinity?
Semantics will get you no where. Jesus human form received it’s divinity at conception.
To help increase your "understanding":
Well, it’s become about Mary and the best thing to safeguard the correct understanding of Christ is good teaching.
Besides, it doesn’t affect Jesus if someone denies either His divinity or His humanity. He doesn’t need someone to stick up for Him. What it does make a difference to is the person who denies either aspect because then they aren’t believing in the Christ of Scripture and that false Jesus is not someone who can save them.
I know one thing, though, and that’s that many people come to Christ and are saved by Him without having all of their theology all hammered out ahead of time. Some people haven’t been raised with the theological teaching necessary to get an in depth understanding of who Jesus really is but they do know that He can save and He does.
Then the Holy Spirit will take care of the details.
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.