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.
Not when that interpretation fits with other portions of scripture.
[Luke 1:43; NASB] And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
The first chapter of Luke's Gospel frequently uses the title, Lord, for example: "the commandments and requirements of the Lord" [Luke 1:6], "the temple of the Lord" [Luke 1:9] and "an angel of the Lord" [Luke 1:11]. This title exclusively refers to God. It would be quite strange if "Lord" in Luke 1:43 would be an exception.
One may argue that Elizabeth uses the phrase "my Lord" instead of "the Lord", so it means something else. This argument is weak at best. Elizabeth as a devout Jew recognized God as her Lord. The psalmists refer to God as "my God" and "my Lord" as in Psalm 35(34):23.
This thread has exceeded all my expectations in terms of shrill obtuseness.
Answer to my question? Given what has been the tone so far, I’d rather not.
How does believing that all beliefs should be supported by scripture translate to “doctrines of man”?
Same quewstion that your cohort refuses to answer, was the Epistle of Barnabas "Scripture", The Gospel of Peter, the Didache?
I read your post CB, and just FOFLOL! “Closes off the teaching of the Holy Spirit”... It’s so closed off it’s gasping for air! They’ve got a choke-hold on anything the Holy Spirit could teach them. Sad, funny, but true.
It also denies the words of Jesus that we all can go directly to the Throne of the Father.
The rending of the veil meant something.
Yeah, they deny that you will “meet Jesus” until after you die, deny that anyone can understand scripture with the RCC even though scripture tells us the Holy Spirit will teach us and deny that going directly before the Throne of the Father is better than going to Mary or some supposed Saint. Why don’t they pray to you and me? We are told we are all saints who believe. Maybe we could start something new? OH, and charge for it! LOL
What do you think believers did for the first 300 years? Sat around waiting to be told what was true and what was not? Do you not know the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the Bible and what they wrote? Do you not know that believers have the Holy Spirit indwelling them? And that the Holy Spirit bears witness with the believer's spirit? Each and every one of us. Not some group of men, sitting around deciding what God "meant to say" or "meant to be His Word". The Bible exists as it does because it's God's Word, and His desire that ALL men be saved. We have His Word because He made sure of that. Not the Catholic Church.
Sola scriptura is not supported by scripture. Therefore, according to you, it is a doctrine of man.
They don’t pray to you and me because they KNOW what we’ll say...;)
Yeah that makes all the sense in the world.
1. The title Theotokos is older than Constantine; the synod discussed it when it was first rejected, not when it was first promoted. So Constantine’s former paganism is irrelevant. Church fathers who used Theotokos before Constantine (325) include Origen (250), Gregory (268), Dionysius (275), Peter of Alexandria (304), Methodius (305) and, if Augustine is to believed, the apostles themselves.
2. The wording of “Theotokos,” admittedly lost in translation to English, does not suggest the passing on of a divine nature; That Jesus got solely from his Father, as Catholics understand quite well. Theotokos means, “one who bore (in childbirth) God,” and that is the understanding held by Catholics.
3. Nimrod was a mortal king. He is of no relation to Tammuz, other than he plausibly worshipped Tammuz.
4. Tammuz was not the son of Istar, nor was he born of virgin birth. In fact, Ishtar was the goddess of prostitution, and was very promiscuous, “the courtesan of the gods.”
5. Istar was never called the “mother of the God.” In fact, to my surprise, she is not called the mother of any significant god, even though it’s common for pagan gods to be called mothers or fathers of other pagan gods.
It's just DENIED by Catholics. That's not our fault that you do not care to see and understand what is CLEARLY written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Sola Scriptura simply says that all doctrine and belief must be supported by scripture. If it is supported by scripture it is NOT doctrine of man.
Will you pray for me?
“Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people, on the golden altar in front of the throne. 4 The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of God’s people, went up before God from the angel’s hand. 5 Then the angel took the censer, filled it with fire from the altar, and hurled it on the earth; and there came peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning and an earthquake”
The Revelation of St. John The Divine.
PS. I agree the rending of the veil did mean something.
Aren't you missing a 'sola'? Or have you changed your mind?
How does this support Sola Scriptura? Do you think that Catholics somehow believe that Scripture is not God-breathed, or is not useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting or training in righteousness?
2 Tim 3:15-17
15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
"Knowing this first, that NO prophecy of the SCRIPTURE is OF ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. For the prophecy came not in old time by the WILL OF MAN: but HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST."2 Pet. 1:20,21.
Just what is it you don't get about God's Word? Let me make it easier. God's operational manual is the Bible. Even though He chose men to write down the rules, HE gave them the words to write in the Book.
And as soon as you can show me IN SCRIPTURE that says Mary is the Mother of God, I'll consider it.
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.