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.
Please think about what you ACTUALLY REALLY WROTE, not what you think you wrote.
Jesus the second person of the Trinity was always Divine. At the moment of His conception He received a human nature. The human nature had to be incarnated to an already existing Divine nature since the human nature is finite.
in the bible there is reference to Jesus' birth. There are also references to Him being a child and being raised to honor his mom and dad. One might use logic and assume that He was taught, as a tiny lad, to refer to Mary and Joseph as mother and father.He probably did not refer to them to His friends and buddies as my woman and old man...I'll use common sense to conclude that He referred to them as My mother and father.....My mother said I had to be home before dark....sounds better than My woman said it.
I’ll do the same as Christ did. “It is written”. Jesus promised the apostles would be told the things they needed to remember. They wrote it down.
2 Peter 3:15,16 - The apostle Peter classified Paul's epistles as "Scripture," right along with "other scripture." But "Scripture" is inspired by God and provides to all good works - 2 Timothy 3:16,17.
Only the apostles were in a position to be promised that they would “remember” what they heard and saw. No other people on earth could have been given that promise. If we don’t have it recorded in writing from them it can not be relied on.
Paul was referring only to the OT. Do you honestly think he considered his writing sacred. they were not part of the accepted Canon until the late 300's
It becomes a Jefferson Bible application on top of sola scriptura. You throw out all of what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote except when quoting Jesus.
Causes just a few problems elsewhere..
Where is the term Holy Trinity found in Scripture? Where in Scripture does it say that we should believe only what is written in Scripture? What was “Scripture” in the first century?
See 384
Um. Yes, of course.
So is that the entirety of your reply? Sounds like you’ve acquiesced. Nice.
I don't think that there was a "written word" called the bible for about 400 years after Paul was dead. All early christianity was indeed by word of mouth and tradition. The Catholic Church compiled, edited transcribed, and protected the teachings now found in the printed version. Until the 1400's when Gutenberg provided a method for the average person to possess a bible, only the very elite or royalty or libraries even had a copy because they were expensive hand written versions. Word of mouth and tradition were the only tools available to the early church.
I will not trust my eternal future to “assumptions”.
>>I'll use common sense to conclude<<
That would be carnal “common sense” wouldn’t it? You go right ahead and do as you see fit, it is after all your eternity.
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.
So you agree then that Mary was not His mother in the sense that He began when He was conceived within her? Your semantics are turning.
No, I wish to say that the divinity of Jesus was from eternity and didn’t start with Mary.
Then the analogy still holds.
Your daddy parts didn't start with your mother. Is she mother only of your mother parts? Is Mary only mother of the parts that "started with her"?
Here’s my quote: “Only the apostles were in a position to be promised that they would “remember” what they heard and saw. No other people on earth could have been given that promise. If we don’t have it recorded in writing from them it can not be relied on.”
Did the apostles write Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? If so then didn’t I say I would rely on what they wrote? Why would you then attempt to twist my words by saying I would “throw out all of what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote except when quoting Jesus”? Did they not write other things besides what Jesus said?
Please don’t attempt to twist my words to mean something you would like. And don’t attempt to tell me “what I do”.
It answers the question of where in the bible does it show that any of the saints can be prayed to - those are two examples - they’re dead and they were prayed to.
That wasn’t the discussion I was referring to.
You throw them out when they say Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Nope, your contention was the male designation isn’t until later in the term from conception. My contention is that at conception the Y chromosome is already present which designates the fetus a male.
I don’t understand how that Scriptural passage and/or your question is related to what we (you and I) have been discussing on this thread.
A. Her husbandAnd in the context of the first chapter of Luke where "Lord" had already been used by the writer to refer to the Lord God of Israel before Elizabeth's salutation of Mary and where "Lord" was subsequently used by both Mary and Zechariah to refer to the Lord God of Israel, could the answer to the question above conceivably anything other than C? If so, how, without doing violence to the plain language used by Elizabeth? Or was the writer just a clutz who didn't really think about what he was writing and how it could appear to support the claim made by another gospel writer that the boy would be called Immanuel, meaning "God with us"?
B. King Herod
C. Yahweh, the Lord God of Israel, creator of heaven and earth.
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.