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.
"Mary, Mother of Just Another Man" works for you?
:)
Again, you can call Mary "Mary" if you wish. That's ok. What we are arguing about is who she is the mother of. Having trouble acknowledging her as the mother of God indicates an incorrect Christian theology.
Wasn’t Mark Peter’s scribe?
1. Gal.1:14. Refers to JEWISH TRADITION of the Jewish regulations handed down by the rabbis that ruled his life as a member of the Pharisees (Phil.3:5). BEFORE HE FOUND CHRIST.
2. Col. 2:8. Speaking of deceptive doctrines that false teachers were trying to introduce into the church in Colosse: Jewish legalism and Greek philosophy. Paul warned the Colossians that the result of following the traditions of men is spiritual slavery.
The remaining three references by Paul to tradition refer to the teaching of Paul.
1. 1 Cor. 11:2. Paul praises the Corinthians for CONTINUING to practice that which he had previously HANDED DOWN by his oral teaching.
2. 2 Thess. 2:15. The truths he had received by revelation from the Lord and had HANDED DOWN to the church in Thessalonica.
2 Thess.3:6. What he had HANDED DOWN while he was with them.
All of these demonstrate that Paul HANDED DOWN the Christian faith to the early church not only by his letters but also by his oral teaching and example. To know the content of Paul's oral teaching, we need not invent a second font of revelation such as Roman Catholic Tradition. Paul's 13 epistles provide and INSPIRED TRANSCRIPT of WHAT GOD REVEALED to PAUL and he PASSED ON TO THE EARLY CHURCH. -The Gospel According to ROme. James G. McCarthy "New Testament References to Tradition", pp343,344.
Now, what are you going to do with 2 Pet. 3:15,16?
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in ALL HIS EPISTLES, speaking IN THEM OF THESE THINGS; IN WHICH are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do ALSO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction.
Are you saying that your first Pope was wrong in calling Paul's epistles SCRIPTURE? Or did Peter live until the late 300's so he could write this in order that Paul's epistles be considered SCRIPTURE? Or does the RCC simply think she has ALL the answers and if SHE didn't write it, or put it together, then it wasn't done? Do you believe that people were so stupid that they had to wait until the 300's to understand? If I had lived in 66 AD and had read this epistle from Peter, I would have understood what Chapter 3, verse 16 meant. That Paul's writings were considered Scripture, as the OTHER SCRIPTURES were. ANd that's from your first "pope's" mouth.
Which means nothing unless Christ is God.
It is the fact that that blood was human blood
Which means God Incarnate, born of a woman, Mary.
Hence Mary, mother of God.
If you have problems with this, you have problems with your own statements here.
Mark gave his own account as a witness, not Perer’s.
The problems are all yours; my posts align with the scriptures, both OT and NT.
Not necessarily. Catholicism has too interwoven them and attributed too much importance to Mary and too much importance to someone's opinion of Mary.
That is the point of Theotokos, the point of the council in rejecting Nestorius. It was his belief about Jesus that was revealed in his statments about Mary.
Only for those looking for a reason to oppose him. It's well enough known that he opposed the up and coming Catholic church and what better way to silence someone than brand them a heretic.
The Incarnation interweaves the two. Get either one wrong and you get them both wrong as well as the Incarnation.
The long and short of it is that understanding the Incarnation *properly* or completely, is beyond the pay grade of any finite, sinful human being. There is no way that an in depth understanding of it is required for salvation. It is enough to know that Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. HOW that came to be is obviously not of import to us otherwise God would have told us in Scripture.
THAT it IS is all we're required to believe.
Logic always applies, and so does the KISS principle. The first statement is a conclusion that is a blatent error. If it were true, then Jesus would not be human and the Scriptures referring to the birth of Jesus would be wrong. Since Jesus was born of Mary, Mary IS Jesus' mother. That can not be denied. If it is believed that Jesus is God also, then Mary is the mother of God. It's really that simple!
Now the second statement contains a bad conclusion also, because being someone's mother does not make them the same person as their offspring! Again, simple...
Well if you say so I guess we can quit: I’m wrong you’re right.
Or.. I could say:
The problems are all yours; my posts align with the scriptures, both OT and NT.
Yea!! [ I’m Tebowing here...]
:)
How about those books & letters that were generally accepted as scripture even earlier than that. For that matter - absolutely NONE of the books, Old Testament, New Testament, or even the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha) teach that Mary was the “Mother of God”. So there’s a starting point.
Another, very much related, would be the “perpetual virginity of Mary” and the “immaculate conception of Mary), which again is not recorded in ANY book, pre or post-1611.
Both of these originated in the writings and teachings of “church fathers” far after the apostolic age (death of the last of the first-century apostles).
Jesus is God, Mary is His mother is simple enough I think.
It is enough to know that Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. HOW that came to be is obviously not of import to us otherwise God would have told us in Scripture.
I think we know how that came to be quite clearly in Scripture. The Word became flesh, born of a woman, her name is Mary. The Word is God, the Incarnate Word is Jesus, His mother is Mary.
The bible makes nothing of it? His first miracle came about as the result of his mother’s instructions - that is rather important!
His human nature is as alive today as it was when He walked the earth.
( remember, you were supposed to have been Catholic once, i shouldn’t have to keep explaining the Faith to you )
Try reading comprehension lessons. It can only help.
I did say that Jesus was still dead. I asked you which nature of it of His it was that died on the cross. You said His human nature didn't die. By default that leaves His divine nature to die.
Do try to keep on topic this time.
His human nature is as alive today as it was when He walked the earth.
( remember, you were supposed to have been Catholic once, i shouldn’t have to keep explaining the Faith to you )
Try reading comprehension lessons. It can only help.
I did say that Jesus was still dead. I asked you which nature of it of His it was that died on the cross. You said His human nature didn't die. By default that leaves His divine nature to die.
So re-read post 167 and answer the question instead of changing the subject.
I was simply saying that trying to stretch the meaning of that verse to fit the “doctrines of man” from the RCC is just that. A stretch. Trying to make that verse more than what it is with other scripture that contradicts that interpretation shows intent to deceive.
It does become obvious that the RCC has restricted the study of pure scripture and instilled a corrupted interpretation that closes off the teaching of the Holy Spirit doesn’t it.
It seemed to me you were interpreting Elizabeth’s “Lord” differently than elsewhere. Is that not correct? Is that not a stretch on your part?
I believe you have it backwards. Luke accompanied Paul, who was very educated. John/Mark was the one that accompanied Peter. But there is also a separate Gospel of Peter, which is non-canonical, just like quite a few other writings.
“The saints are not dead, I repeat, the saints are not dead!”
I’m not arguing against that. I *am* arguing that necromancy is wrong, and that necromancy isn’t merely about revealing the future, but communicating with post-death humans.
King Saul spoke with the post-death Samuel, as recorded in 1 Samuel 28, and that was deemed wrong. King Saul wasn’t looking for anyone to “foretell the future”; he was simply wanting to communicate (i.e., “pray”) to Samuel, to get some counsel.
What was the post-death Samuel’s response: He rebuked King Saul.
So, there’s your example of a pre-death human communicating with a post-death human — it’s condemned in Scripture, and those who are prayed to are “disturbed” (see v. 15) by the communication.
Just don’t do it. Talking with God is sufficient. He is enough. The post-death “saints” don’t contribute anything to what God Himself is able to do. If you want someone to join you in prayer, communicate with a pre-death human.
Does this mean you've up your doctrine of sola scriptura?
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.