Are these folks, therefore, idol worshipers? Why or why not?
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.
***There is no other Rock.***
Scripture says otherwise, indeed, Jesus says otherwise.
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Remind me again, what does Peter mean? And, who was it that changed Simon’s name to Peter?
Oh, that’s right, it was JESUS.
Why did He change Simon’s name to rock?
As opposed to your definition of idolatry? How convenient. And we should take your opinion, why?
Would you even know an idol if you saw it?
Does your soul and spirit die when your body quits breathing???
They can look the same even if they aren't in essence. The human body as it is cannot survive out of this environment. It HAS to be changed intrinsically.
Was Christ not full human?
The Incarnation.
God Himself sent us an image of Himself. Now I will agree to form an image and claim that it is God the Father and to adore such an image would be idolatry. But to replicate in art our idea of what Jesus looked like when He was in His human body is not idolatry. To adore that image as if it really were Christ and not just a depiction of Him would be idolatry.
Unless you think Christ is a graven image. Which I am sure you don’t.
God the Father is spirit and it would be impossible to make an image of Him. The 2nd commandment which you bludgeon Catholics with forbids the making of images that are worshipped as gods (idols). That’s the whole you shall not bow down and worship them. But perhaps you believe the first part of the that passage is a stand alone part. If you do then I assume you follow the Islam or Amish practice of not permitting any photos or other depictions of the natural world.
Abstract art is o.k. though so your walls don’t have to be bare. Though I think Amish may believe collecting art is vanity and a sign of pride.
What baffles me is how millions of catholics cxan ignore God’s word, and willingly march into hellfire for their beloved traditions, yet refusing the word of God, and the gift of God.
ABSOLUTELY. The images of the Roman Mary are very probably more recognizable world wide than any other. That must have a purpose.
But what does that matter..it's what is means to the Catholic Church that matters../s
You already admitted that they are in the likeness of man and meant to portray God.
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.
There can be no doubt that those images fit the passage of Romans 1:22
Well you are not Catholic so you are free to define it as you see fit and need to worry about the Iconoclastic controversy.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the “corner stone”, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.
If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
Please, please tell me you do not believe that Christ could sin? Can God sin? Would God sin?
Christ is fully holy, incapable of sin. That is the nature of capital D Divinity.
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.
Do you see anything about adoring in there?
>> That’s the whole you shall not bow down and worship them.<<
Did you see anything about bowing down or worshiping in that passage?
>> But perhaps you believe the first part of the that passage is a stand alone part.<<
The passage above stands alone.
Sure I am... Reason dictates that all the evidence must needfully apply. Surely the Roman church understands the need for reason.
[...] In this case Christianity with ancient myths - and denouncing any similarities in Christianity.
Firstly, Mithras worship is not a myth - the procedures, rites, and rituals are historically defined.
And as to similarities, of course: YHWH states explicitly not to do as the heathens do and apply it as worship to Him... He finds that to be an abomination... The implication IS comparative.
If this is your position, integrity would say: do the same for Christ.
I have. Christ, as Rome teaches, could not withstand that scrutiny. But Yeshua, the Hebrew Messiah surely can.
I rejoice in God’s gift of Salvation.
I know my Reedemer lives and is seated at the right hand of God.
Are these folks, therefore, idol worshipers? Why or why not?
Since the message of the apparitions that have been approved for private devotion are very consistent with their message, which is; repent and return to Christ for a great chastisement is coming; I would presume the purpose was to make the faithful take heed of their sins and to get right with God.
What does your link have to do with the Mary/Fatima connection (which was the subject bonfire was replying to)?
****Scripture clearly states that making images of God is against His will and gives clear results for doing so.***
***What does “changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man” mean to you?***
As this is from Romans, we should look to Romans in the context in which this is written so that we can understand fully what lesson Paul is trying to impart to us.
***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.***
Note that this does not say say “making images of God” as you imagine it to say. Rather nay, it says “changing the uncorruptible God into the image of corruptible man.”
Paul is speaking here of men who knew the glory and power and attributes of God but who did not, and in fact, even refused to acknowledge God’s glory.
“21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
So, you understand that Paul is saying that, though God had revealed Himself to them, they did not think Him worthy of their worship, but instead had made God as just another created being.
Paul says, they have no excuse, they know God but do not worship Him as they should and therefore God has given them up to their own foolishness and unrighteousness.
****25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.****
***30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.***
Paul is not speaking here of physical images of God, but the image of God that these backbiters, haters of God etc...
preach and follow.
Nice try though.
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.