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.
I think you’re trapped in a non sequitur.
If I say Lucille O’Neal is the mother of Shaquille O’Neal and therefore Lucille is the mother of Cavaliers center does it follow that she is therefore taller and stronger than Shaq.
Nope.
The first follows by definition, the second is a non sequitur.
I think you may be confusing this with a quite modern colloquial use “mother” as in “Mother of all bombs” meaning greater than all bombs, bigger, etc.
Mother here just means that: mother, conceiving, carrying in her womb, giving birth to, etc.
what a spectacle this thread has become.
one the one side you have the Universal Church ( Latin and Greek ) which has spoken through a Church Council, you even have Martin Luther and John Calvin and the other side?
a mish mash, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Nestorians, Seventh Day Adeventists, Mormons, Hindus, Buddists, etc, etc.
which side is led by the Holy Spirit and which one is not?
They tend to ignore the most important woman in the history of the world, thinking she was some kind of unimportant surrogate mother. They’re misled and on a very wrong path.
No that was not the point, you are right in that.
I think the cloud of witnesses would be lost as well.
:)
Actually, yes.
There’s a great, big catch-all inasmuch as Peter, individually, and the apostles, collectively, are given the authority to declare what is bound (forbidden) and what is loosed (permitted). You’ll see them using that authority throughout Acts. (Sure, Peter SAID he had a dream from the Lord concerning what is permissible to be eaten, but how were the apostles to know it was true?) And you’ll see them appoint others to act in their authority.
But even without that catch-all: If tomorrow, the Pope said “No fish on Tuesday, either!” his command would be morally binding due to DISCIPLINE, not DOCTRINE, and thus, anyone who was not in a position to obey such discipline does not sin. The chair of St. Peter is given worldly authority, but that authority is not doctrine, and if anyone should obey the scriptures without knowing of a given discipline, by no means does he sin. Only when he is aware of a discipline from the chair of St. Peter, and disregards the verses which establish that authority, does he commit the sin of disobedience.
Such discipline is not the “traditions of Men,” since St. Peter’s authority comes from Jesus Christ.
>> “This is thinly disguised paganism.” <<
.
Very thinly disguised!
Especially since they apply the pagan names of Ishtar/Semiramis: Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven, and even bake the pagan cakes Isaiah mentioned with the T for Tammuz on them, but call them “Hot ross Buns.”
You are partially right, but the communicating part is not about asking the blessed in heaven for their prayers it is about summoning the dead by use of sorcery. The actual summoning the dead to live Sheol and come before one to do one’s bidding. Black sorcery of the most evil intent.
If you can not see the difference between prayer uniting Christians on earth and in heaven and foul black magick it is no wonder you object so strongly to the former.
>> “This is thinly disguised paganism.” <<
.
Very thinly disguised!
Especially since they apply the pagan names of Ishtar/Semiramis: Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven, and even bake the pagan cakes Isaiah mentioned with the T for Tammuz on them, but call them “Hot cross Buns.”
Rome uses a very straight forward logic to call Mary the “Mother of God”
Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.
Seems simple enough.
Shaq is bigger than Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore, Shaq is bigger than God.
Its simple and straight forward. Why can’t you admit that Shaq is bigger than God?
You can take this a step further and show that Solomon was wiser than God.
Solomon was the wisest man. Jesus was a man. Therefore Solomon was wiser than Jesus. Jesus is God. Therefore Solomon was wiser than God.
I am using Reductio ad absurdum to show that the Roman logic is flawed.
>> “Martin Luther rejected several Catholic beliefs, saying they weren’t scriptural.
The Catholic Church pointed out where our doctrines were in the scripture.” <<
.
Then there really are some catholic doctrines that are found in scripture?
Please enlighten us, which ones, and where in the scriptures?
.
One thing we do know for sure. It’s not the one that uses idols in it’s worship.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
If one would get down on their knees and pray the Rosary, one would understand. Our Blessed Mother always leads one to her Son. The Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth. Non-Catholic religions including evangelical Christianity have some partial truths, but they are a mere shell compared to Catholicism.
Sometimes when a person tries to convey the truth, it seems hurtful, but to allow someone to remain in their blissful “I’m saved no matter what I do” state is an awful thing.
i didn’t know Martin Luther and John Calvin were “Rome” ( i think they would be suprised as well )
Logic, you’re doing it wrong.
>> “what a spectacle this thread has become.
one the one side you have the Universal False Church ( Latin and Greek )” <<
.
And on the other side you have the Bride of Christ, that meets whever two or more are gathered in his name, and worships in accordance with his word...
Joey Smith agrees with you!!!
chalk up another that agrees with Joseph Smith that the Church was apostate in 431ad.
the Mormons are laughing their *** off at your providing the match and kindling wood for the spread of their falsehoods.
Christians know better and have UNIVERSALLY for 2,000 years.
“To which did she give birth?”
The Blessed Mother gave birth to Jesus who was both God and Man in the hypostatic union. Mary contributed the human nature and the Holy Spirit’s power made it happen. This happened at conception so Jesus was both God and man from the beginning of his incarnation. He was always the divine second person of the Trinity, just not incarnate yet.
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.