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.
***And how could Jesus ‘succour’ anyone had he not experienced temptation and defeated it???***
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
He came to open for us the gates of heaven and to show us the way of redemption.
Honestly, you are saying that Jesus was tempted to sin?
Romans 6:10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
When Jesus died, HE said *It is finished*. If the sacrifice wasn't finished but was still ongoing, then He lied.
But since Jesus doesn't and can't lie, then it IS finished and not ongoing.
ooopsie....
Isn’t that some kind of mortal or venial sin?
CB: Go smash that crucifix you have in your house or the statue of Mary. I dare you.
incoming......
***Corruptibility in most Bible passages refers to biological rot or breakdown.***
And why is it that humanity was subjected to this biological rot or breakdown?
I’ll make it simple for you, it starts with a s, ends in a n and has an i in the middle.
Can you say SIN? Sure, I knew you could.
So, when one posts the passage from Paul regarding the fact that one must put on incorruptibility and that nothing corrupt can inherit heaven in regards to Jesus, then one is saying that Jesus is subject to sin. Heresy
Paul was speaking about to US, about US and about putting on the incorruptibility of Christ, who KNEW NO SIN.
Beautiful, thank you.
That puts you at odds with a lot of Catholics.
“Let it be done to me according to Thy will.”
That is a “yes” to what the angel told her.
Try to read my post and answer the question.
Would God have forced Mary to bear Jesus had she said no?
The physical sacrifice was ended, the fruits of it are eternal. It is not that the sacrifice is ongoing, but that it’s effect is eternal.
Temptation to sin is not sin. It's simply temptation. When we refuse to yield to the temptation, we have achieved victory over it and not sinned.
It is sin only when we yield and engage.
If someone doesn't believe that Jesus was tempted, then Scripture lied.
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
So....YOPIOS is alive and well in the Catholic church.
I would LOVE to see a site that spells which verses they must submit to and which are open to their own interpretation.
Can’t be that difficult as a simple search on the Vatican website “Prayers to Mary” took 5 seconds.
Yes, I’m confused!!
***Temptation to sin is not sin. It’s simply temptation. When we refuse to yield to the temptation, we have achieved victory over it and not sinned.
It is sin only when we yield and engage.***
Agreed and if you read my post, you will see that I did indeed say that Jesus was tempted, but that He had no urge or inclination to sin.
***Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.***
Yet without sin. Jesus can sympathize with our weaknesses, but He has no part in our falling into temptation, i.e. sinning.
That's not what the RCC teaches.
That's the whole rationale of the mass, participating in the continuing, ongoing sacrifice of Christ.
In a nutshell....
A Catholic must believe that Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Any interpretation of Scripture that says otherwise, we are to reject.
A Catholic must believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. Any interpretation of Scripture that says otherwise is to be rejected.
A Catholic must believe that Jesus was without sin. Any interpretation of Scripture that says otherwise is to be rejected.
A Catholic must believe that Jesus is Truly Present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. Any interpretation of Scripture which says otherwise is to be rejected.
A Catholic must believe that Jesus died on the cross, was buried and rose on the third day. Any interpretation of Scripture that says otherwise is to be rejected.
A Catholic must believe that Jesus ascended bodily into heaven. Any interpretation of Scripture that says otherwise is to be rejected.
A Catholic must believe that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Apostles and His Church to all Truth. Any interpretation of Scripture that says otherwise is to be rejected.
These are all explicitly or implicitly found in Scripture which the Church has proclaimed and protected since the beginning.
Thus the continuous sacrifice of the crucifix vs the empty cross.
Nope. People can do as they please. I will however keep warning people and pointing out what scripture says.
The Mass does not continue the Sacrifice on the Cross. Rather it makes that Perfect Sacrifice present to those who have lived after the once for all Sacrifice of the Cross. That is why it is called the unbloody sacrifice.
If one is going to try to speak for what is taught by the Church, at least try to read about and understand it before doing so.
The full theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist is lengthy and easily found. To try to confine it to a few words is impossible and I do not like to cut and paste.
Let it just be said that your understanding of it is lacking.
Catholics can’t even get that right.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
I'm already in the church Jesus established.
***He would not have been able to be the perfect sacrifice for man.***
What made Him the “perfect sacrifice”?
I never said He was not truly man and I am dumbfounded by the attempt to once again, twist the argument and deflect from the heresies proposed here by Protestants.
Man does not sin by being tempted, man sins by succumbing to temptation. Christ never succumbed to temptation.
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.