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.
Jesus did not receive his divinity at conception. Jesus was always the divine second person of the trinity before he became man. Remember the alpha and the omega? His divine persona was there at the beginning, and continues.
Jesus received His humanity at conception from Mary. You have it backwards. This is Christology and all Christians never doubted this - certainly not the reformers.
The more modern day cults started to go off track on the nature of Christ’s divinity - the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, the 7th Day Adventists, the Muslims, etc. The Protestant Reformers (correctly) believed the above.
Well, you couldn’t support your contention from scripture so it had to be carnal.
Then either the Incarnation is a lie, Jesus is not God or some combination of these errors.
Ok, let's accept that premise. Therefore sola scriptura is carnal.
>> “why would God have used a stained vessel to bear His son??” <<
.
Because that was his plan from the beginning; he doesn’t have to please your false sense of propriety.
Remember what Yeshua said to Mary when he did his first miracle: “What am I to do with you woman?”
He had said it many years before, when she went to interfere with his youthful ministry in the temple.
“God has no mother”
God the Father has no mother - God the son had no mother as the second divine person in the Trinity before he became incarnate (took on human flesh).
Jesus had a mother who gave him His incarnation - His human flesh. Without her he would have remained incarnate (without flesh).
PS Why is this pagan? Christians have mothers, why not Jesus
Not only did He have a mother - if He hadn’t He would not have had a body to redeem us with.
And thus we have a whole new meaning for Jesus Christ is Lord, the Lord's prayer and so on.
It's like jello, push it one place and it comes out wrong in another. All to avoid the simple truth of the Word became flesh and walked among us, born of a woman.. The simple truth of the Christian faith of the Incarnation: Mary is the mother of God.
Tammuz was the name Istar gave her son, and falsely claimed he was the virgin born reincarnation of her husband NMRD.
Mother of God has been her title for over 4000 years; I wasn’t there, but I believe what God’s word says, and it was borne up by the historical literature long before there was a Mary. That is where Constantine got it; he was a devout pagan himself.
Your logic would support saying the virgin birth of Our Lord has the same source of myth.
>> “ Luke was not an Apostle” <<
Luke was Peter’s scribe. Peter was at that time not a literate man, and what Luke did was to place Peter’s words in writing to preserve them, thus it is really the Gospel according to Peter.
>> “ Luke was not an Apostle” <<
Luke was Peter’s scribe. Peter was at that time not a literate man, and what Luke did was to place Peter’s words in writing to preserve them, thus it is really the Gospel according to Peter.
Your’s is the response of a most twisted mind.
Nothing I said should give rise to such bizzare thoughts.
Precisely what you say gives rise to these thoughts. Comparing Christianity to myths is a time-worn exercise. It's applied to virgin-births, incarnated gods, etc. You can't compare part and say comparing the other parts is verbotten.
>> “PS Why is this pagan? Christians have mothers, why not Jesus” <<
.
Its actually worse than pagan; its psuedo-pagan.
Of course Jesus had a mother, but do you not find it curious that the Bible makes almost nothing of it?
Could it be because the wisdom of God saw this putred twisting of reality, and carefully left his holy word free of it?
The Son of God claims divinity from his Father.
Without a mother, the Incarnation is not the Incarnation. Scripture makes a very big deal of it, the Word made flesh, born of a woman: There are accounts of Mary and Joseph, the Magnificant, the angels appearing to both Mary and Joseph, Mary with Elizabeth/John the Baptist in the womb, the nativity, the birth of our saviour.
It is not God the Father that distinguishes Christians from what came before. It is God became man. Deny or avoid this and you deny or avoid a very great deal of what makes Christ Christ and Christians Christians.
You know this how? Did God tell you that?
And why are you taking those words out of context? They are directed to those who were appealing to their works for salvation.
Our salvation is based on our relationship with the risen Christ, not our opinion of His mother.
And with all due respect, I'm going to disagree that the title given Mary has anything to do with understanding about Christ.
Mary was given no such title in Scripture. That is a man-made construct. Her title is not critical to understanding the Incarnation.
Correct teaching about Jesus and who He was can be imparted regardless of the title given to His mother.
The only thing relevant is that the mother of the Messiah be a virgin. That is the ONLY criteria necessary according to Scripture. It could have been any virgin Jewish girl. Mary just happened to fit the bill.
>> “It is not God the Father that distinguishes Christians from what came before.” <<
It is the belief in the shed blood of Christ that distinguishes. It is the fact that that blood was human blood that makes it efficatious for us.
Which woman delivered him into this world is significant only as to her bragging rights, which Christ went out of his way to diminish, whenever anyone brought them up.
Another label with which to pigeonhole non-Catholics with, no doubt.
and Why did you chop off half of my sentence?
If you get an answer, ping me.
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.