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.
Whatever echoes you hear in your head, your statement that it's the same reasoning is still false. Tintinitis does not necessarily cause poor logic skills.
:)
By your logic you have Christians getting Christ from a babylonian god uncombined.
Same problem.
I’m glad you posted Col 3:5. It shows what I’m talking about. Prayers like what you posted earlier are not “inordinate affection”. And as I’m sure you’d agree, Col 3:5 doesn’t forbid all displays of affection.
You may disagree that the level of affection shown in the prayer you posted isn’t “inordinate”, but you would be ignoring the first post I posted to you on this thread, and what it contains. Thus, if your next post to me is to say something to the effect that, “How can you not say such a prayer is inordinate affection?”, it will be ignored, for ignoring the initial points I made to you and this being a circular argument. Also, any response that complains, “Mary is not the mediator between God and Man therefore you shouldn’t be praying to her anyway” will also be ignored as, not only has the concept of the Communion of Saints been argued as nauseaum here, and I have no desire to be drawn into such a debate, but more to the point, Christ’s status as mediator is not in dispute here, at least not to me.
FYI
"That's quite obviously what you've done,"
In order to support your dogma, you pull out several obscure, unrelated scriptures and gerrymander a thesis. This is why it is so hard to have a coherent discussion with many Catholics, your doctrine doesn't stand up to normal hermeneutics, so you muddy the waters.
It is easier to believe that Joseph and Mary, a normal married couple would have normal sexual relations and normal offspring. Mary would have no special standing whatsoever had she not been chosen by God to bare Christ, it is only because of His merit, not hers.
Mary cannot be the mother of God.
Only if Jesus is not God or Mary is not His mother.
Mary is the mother of Jesus;
Jesus is God;
therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
For "God" substitute: "President of the Student Council" or whatever, and it's the same.
It is a simple, clear, true statement of the Incarnation, fundamental to the Christian faith.
Luke 9:28 says nothing of the sort. He was not praying to either Moses or Elijah, but to the Father. He did go on to converse with Moses and Elijah, who seemed to have physically joined him there on the mountain.
In Luke 16, the rich man has died. So you have a post-death person communicating with another post-death person.
Are those two examples all you’ve got?
I can think of one example of a pre-death human trying to speak with a post-death human: In 1 Samuel 28 a godless King Saul attempts to communicate with Samuel, a practice forbidden by Scripture.
Necromancy is forbidden (see Lev. 19:31, 20:6, 20:27, Deut. 18:10, etc.). 1 Chronicles 10 says that King Saul died in part because he sought to communicate with post-death humans.
In any case, there is no example of any person — pre-death or post-death — receiving any kind of help from a post-death “saint.”
What I understand, based on the ample evidence here and elsewhere, is that the way the Christian God set the religion up, He must really like to see people confused and arguing among themselves.
Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Sounds to me like everything needed for “perfection” is already found in scripture.
>> There's just no way to make profitable or useful mean "all that's needed" or "entirely sufficient."<<
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." (John 5:24)
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
What more would you say is needed when scripture says we have it all?
God had no mother..come on now! Jesus , the son of God had an earthly mom, but he had existed far before that in heaven. Silly and ridiculous stuff that religion comes up with sometimes!
Carnal knowledge falls short. I didn’t exist prior to conception. The divinity of Christ did. No analogy can be shown.
I used to think Christians were unique in this aspect. Or maybe we could also include a few other religions. Then I read more and more comparative religion and saw that arguments were the rule in religion rather than the exception.
Perhaps Confucianism is simple and clear and unarguable? But then it barely would qualify as religion. Taoism, perhaps?
In any case, I wouldn’t blame God but humans for what arises here.
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 point here is that “adelphoi”, refers to relative, NOT brothers and sisters.
Additionally, James and John were sons of Zebbedi(sp?)(no access here)
Look around a Catholic Church and Catholic homes. Any images of God made like to corruptible man?
So you are not going to accept the OT, Just as the raqbbinical school at Jamnia did in 90 AD. Seriously that is the case you are trying to make?
No confusion among any of us who “hear His voice” and have Him “in us”. God didn’t set up “religion”. The differences you see discussed here is because of the “religion” men set up.
Jesus simply said you either believe in Him and go to heaven for eternity or if you don’t you go to eternal punishment. It’s that simple.
So you are not going to accept the NT, Just as the raqbbinical school at Jamnia did in 90 AD. Seriously that is the case you are trying to make? Corrected for error should ahve been NT not OT
Where did you get that from? Wasn’t the OT written? Jesus did say often “it is written” did He not?
The analogy is that conception requires mommy parts and daddy parts. You seem to wish to say mothers are only mother of the mother parts.
praying is communicating and/or conversing.
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.