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.
Pretty straight, actually.
When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?If Brother Lev could understand what he read, he would be able to answer the question below:
--Luke 1:41-43
Elizabeth, the Jewish wife of a Jewish Temple priest around the beginning of the first millennium was miraculously pregnant after her husband had received the news from the angel Gabriel, who said he "stood in the presence of God." When she referred, after being filled with the Holy Spirit, to "the mother of [her] Lord" she was talking to Mary about Mary. To whom, speaking about the unborn infant, was the wife of a Jewish Temple priest referring when she said, "the mother of my Lord"?[SFX: Jeopardy Music]
*
Just So we are clear, you don't beleive Jesus was divine until His conception, here on earth.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
It was not crerated/ written by them, it is a summation of the truths that they held.
Very respectfully,
Wintertime
....”It’s not the same reasoning”...
As the sounds of ‘Has God not Said’ echoes from the garden.
In my entire walk with the Lord I have never crossed the paths of such nasty mouthed and mis-guided catholics as I have on this thread. It’s no wonder at all people are leaving the church if those here are reflective of it’s people’s faith.....nor that Christians are being called as Missionaries to the catholic church....it neede God’s intervention as it has for centuries and still it refuses to rid itself of the atrocities and teachings which are destroying the faith of those within.
May God in Mercy rescue the perishing before it’s too late.
Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, true Man and true God.
Only ignorant pagans would insist that being the mother of God is equivalent to being the creator of God.
This stuff is not hard.
If you are full of grace, then you have no room for sin in your life.
Wintertime would you care to chime in here to straighten out one of your sycophants
Seriously, seriously, You do know that Jesus Ascended BODILY into heaven!
Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be the mother of God.
But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? -- Luke 1:43, NKJV
Your OP falls flat on its face in an outright error about Scripture almost before it begins.
Welcome home brother.
The Father of God the Son is God the Father. DUH.
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.
And Chalcedonian Christology is what all orthodox Protestants supposedly affirm.
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.
Wrong. All orthodox Christians believe in a "dual-natured Jesus". Nestorians believed in a Jesus who was two persons sort of "stuck together".
Their teaching was that the person born of Mary was only a man who was then indwelt by God.
Correct. This also seems to be the error of the writer, as he makes clear later!
The title "Mother of God" was used originally to counter this false doctrine.
The title Theotokos ("God-bearer"), preceded Nestorius, which is why his rejection of it caused scandal.
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.
And here's the Nestorian part. If Mary did not give birth to God, then the Jesus she gave birth to was not God. And if the divinity of Jesus was not born (NB, I said "born," not "created" ... there's a very big difference) in the stable at Bethlehem, where was It and what was It, exactly?
He was divine God in a flesh body. This is what Mary gave birth to.
First he says Mary didn't give birth to God. Now he says she did. This piece is full of error and confusion!
Ishtar was above all associated with sexuality: her cult involved sacred prostitution; her holy city Uruk was called the “town of the sacred courtesans”; and she herself was the “courtesan of the gods”. Ishtar had many lovers;
Hmmm... No.... That doesn’t sound like the Catholic idea of the Blessed Virgin.
The pagan said all their gods had sex and thus childbirth. So, it would hardly be weird for Ishtar to be a mother of God.
>> The pagan said all their gods had sex and thus childbirth. So, it would hardly be weird for Ishtar to be a mother of God. <<
This is interestinng...
On further review, Ishtar had her own husband, Tammuz, cast into the underworld. She was never a mother. (An older understanding of the myth presumed that she had gone to the underworld to rescue him.)
So, no, she is not even a “mother of God.” You’re just simply 100% incorrect.
Poor baby. Stop insulting our mother, and stop insulting our faith.
AMEN!
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.