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.
Deflection is the Protestant’s best friend in these debates.
The simple truth of the Incarnation is that it's about Jesus, not Mary.
The Incarnation isn't a description of who Mary was, it's a description of who Jesus was and is.
Is celebrating Christmas pagan? Catholics celebrate Christmas CynicalBear - does that make us pagan in your opinion?
We always have a Crucifix visible in Our Lord’;s House, does that mean you think we worship idols?
So is Jesus saying that John's Mother gave birth to someone greater than Mary's Son? So what exactly does that make Elizabeth, in the Catholic Church? Is Elizabeth the Queen of the Queen of Heaven? Is she standing beside Mary as Mary is standing beside Christ? Telling Mary what to tell Christ to tell us? Do you pray to Elizabeth to intercede with Mary when she intercedes with Christ? If not, why not? Was Elizabeth immaculately conceived and bodily assumed because, after all, in Jesus' words, she, among all women, bore John the Baptist, none greater than John existed.
No. Having trouble acknowledging her as the mother of God indicates having trouble implying that God had a mother and that she is superior to Him and He was a created being.
With this right perspective, we need to consider whether she had the attributes of God, Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipotence? I do not believe she did and the scriptures rightly present her as being confused almost every time she is mentioned.
I do not mean this in a negative way, rather that she is sorting out who and what Jesus is. It leaps off the pages of scriptures. Like all other believers in Christ, we lack the eternal perspective of reality and are left to respond accordingly.
She was very human, as presented in the passages that include her, and loved her son very much, doing her best to be a great mother for Him. Exemplary person, but still a sinner in need of a savior.
Yet, the description you are objecting to is a description of whom Mary was the mother of, i.e. who Jesus is and was.
I'm with Cyril on this, it's really perplexing why this is.
Deflection , denial and deceit.
yep
Why do you get these implications? Should we change the facts of the Incarnation to avoid them? Change who Jesus is? If you get that Jesus is not God because He had a mother, then just drop it.
He is God, He had a mother, her name was Mary; that's the fact of the Incarnation.
Wow, didn’t see THAT one coming...Let me put on my thinking cap to see what’s next..pot calling kettle black..seriously, get some more “put down” responses. It’s like you seem to be the Henney Youngman of posting. “Take my tripe, please...”
It's in the Catechism of the Catholic church itself.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1J.HTM
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
Tell me, anyone on the other side, what does this mean?
"That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, How God ANNOINTED JESUS OF NAZARETH WITH THE HOLY GHOST and WITH POWER: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was WITH HIM." Acts 10:37,38.
It never means what it says. It always means what the RCC says it means.
Honestly, that is so old.
Is the Catholic church that literately challenged that it can't write something that means what they want it to mean?
the mask is slipping again.
ok, here we go , one more time.
you are supposed to be an ex-catholic, keep the story somewhat plausible by at least TRYING to come close to what the Catholic Faith teaches. i am trying to prop you up, but you keep embarassing yourself with posts that a first grader knows aren’t true.
my search continues..........
Here are a couple interesting things to ponder:
The original sin was passed down through Adam or to say the man's contribution to the fertilization. If the Holy Spirit used Mary's egg and provided a perfectly holy “sperm” male half of the genetic package, Jesus would not have been subject to the original sin. He also would have maintained his lineage back to David and Judah because of Mary's genetics.
I personally believe God was foiling Satan's plan to destroy the Messiah in this way, by bypassing the curse that Satan inflicted on the first couple Adam & Eve.
The alternative is that the Holy Spirit provided the perfect and Holy entire genetic package sans Mary's egg, which of course He is capable of doing. This would negate the lineage that is so stressed throughout the Old Testament.
Either way, Mary's necessity of being being Deity is removed from the equation, and makes the most sense based on the text. She may have contributed the egg, which would make her the mother of Jesus, but not need the perfection that calling her God's mother necessitates.
Should I get out the popecorn?
Where is worship mentioned in that verse?
Where did I mention worship?
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.