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.
LOL That probably sent shudders of horror through all Catholics who read it.
“Be it unto me according to thy word” sounds an awful lot like an assent to me. Do you propose that God would have become Incarnate of Mary anyway had she objected to the Annunciation, rather than meekly assenting?
Asked: Are you claiming that Catholic’s worship idols?
caww wrote:
Of course they do and obvious to any other than catholics. Nothings changed since they first brought idolatry into the church...they just added more along the way...
...colored it in with flavorful language and then taught the people that a duck isn’t a duck....
if one prays to an idol,.. bows to an idol,.. marches in parades with idols,... throws flowers before idols,.... kisses idols,... lights candles for idols,... builds shrines to celebrate idols... statues of idols,.....but it’s not idolatry or worship...R-i-g-h-t-ooooo...Got it.
Rest your case?
You haven’t even made it.
***The whole problem is that Christ died IN time, within the bounds of time, not in the eternity that exists outside of time.***
Why is that a problem? God chose Incarnation which came in His time, not the Jews time and not ours. The fullness of time, as determined by God, not man. It is not as if there was a clock similar to the debt clock keeping track of time for God so that He knew when to come as the Son of God and Son of Man.
The problem, as I see it, is in trying to confine God by our time. Peter advised against this and explained that we do not know time in the way that God does.
Time here is not the question. The question is whether the sacrifice which frees men from sin is eternal or finite. The body of Jesus was finite, only because He chose for it to be the means of our salvation and lay it down.
But all who lived before, and all who lived then and all who live or lived after are saved by the same sacrifice.
Because you have focused on the action of the sacrifice and not the Person who is the sacrifice, it is easy to see where the misunderstanding has come.
***Not only that, but if indeed the sacrifice were ongoing, then it would be more than possible for all the sins I have yet to commit to be forgiven before I commit them, the concept of which gives Catholics the heebie-jeebies.***
Another misunderstanding of Catholics in regards to future sins. Of course, all sins one commits are forgiven, when they are repented. Unless and until one commits sin, there is nothing to repent and nothing to forgive.
This is not the same as saying that there is no need for repentance once one has accepted Jesus as Savior. Repentance is an ongoing thing.
In a sense, the forgiveness is there, it is the repentance though that manifests it.
Oh, Arianism is very much alive. I’ve not noticed it on this thread, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses are definitely Arians.
The church age is not the “times of the Jews”.
Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
Well that is the official teaching on how to read the Bible.
Another example is that Catholics are perfectly free to believe in a literal 6 day creation. They are free to believe in evolution provided they don’t think it was the result of random natural selection in which God has no sovereignty. So we can put with limits our own interpretation of Genesis 1. We also must believe that Adam & Eve were real persons and from them we inherited sin.
You must not be familiar with Catholic teaching on reading of Scripture. Shall I provide some sources?
No, I don’t offend easily.
And if I did get offended, that would just give me another opportunity to practice forgiveness.
i can’t find any posts personally attacking you, can you tell us what you are referring to?
Impossible to carry on a conversation on this because the protestants insist on changing the argument, redefining words and then moving the goalposts.
***The incorruption Paul discussed was a non-biological body, suitable for a non-material relm(sic).***
Really? So, in Acts, when the Apostles and others watched Jesus ascend, bodily mind you, was that in fact an incorruptible body or merely Jesus’ spirit? Did Jesus just explode once He reached orbit? Really, what happened to the body, which the Apostles touched and which ate food? Or was it not a REAL body?
Does the body which was Jesus and which was raised no longer exist? And if not, what happened to it and where is it now? And, please include Scripture to support your answer.
****The universe will be gone. there will be no oxygen to support biological life, in fact there will be no atoms of any kind; it will be the relm of God.***
Really? Scripture, please.
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Agar represents those that are under bondage like Catholics are. Jerusalem is the mother of all the free Christians in Christ.
Now maybe you could show the passage from scripture that shows that the church is the mother of us all.
Ummmm, CB posted the Scripture that states that. If you have issues with it, you need to take it up with the author, the Holy Spirit.
Deflect, deflect and then deflect some more.
Were there or were there not Jews in the Church?
You said the Church was built by the Gentiles, hence my question.
Try to focus and answer that question.
Oh, and nice dodge once again regarding the question as to why Jesus, God, THE ROCK, chose for Simon a name which means rock.
Of course they do and obvious to any other than catholics.
Odd. It wasn't obvious to my current pastor (who spent 25 years as a Baptist minister, most of it in the armed forces and much of that in Germany). It is not obvious to the Anglicans who are fleeing from the obvious outcome of English Protestantism to Catholic Christianity.
The only ones it is 'obvious' to is those who reject the fundamental basis of being creatures (and therefore worshiping outside the self - to God) and who wholeheartedly embrace the worship of the self - the idol in the mirror. I find these folks to be invariably a book whose title (I am a Christian) directly opposes the content of that book.
When the Lord of All Judges you (no man gets a pass from Judgement no matter how he may stamp his little feet or pretend that that awful thing will happen to me), do you think that He will bend to your will and any self declaration of salvation or non Judgement?
Or as St. Paul says in Hebrews 27: 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment.
Or John observed in Revelation 20: 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works.
St. Luke wrote (painted) the first icon of Our Lady. If you do not accept his icon, why would you accept his Gospel and Acts? Why would you accept St. Paul (who Luke accompanied on many journeys) and any of his works on that basis?
Of course they do and obvious to any other than catholics.
Odd. It wasn't obvious to my current pastor (who spent 25 years as a Baptist minister, most of it in the armed forces and much of that in Germany). It is not obvious to the Anglicans who are fleeing from the obvious outcome of English Protestantism to Catholic Christianity.
The only ones it is 'obvious' to is those who reject the fundamental basis of being creatures (and therefore worshiping outside the self - to God) and who wholeheartedly embrace the worship of the self - the idol in the mirror. I find these folks to be invariably a book whose title (I am a Christian) directly opposes the content of that book.
When the Lord of All Judges you (no man gets a pass from Judgement no matter how he may stamp his little feet or pretend that that awful thing will happen to me), do you think that He will bend to your will and any self declaration of salvation or non Judgement?
Or as St. Paul says in Hebrews 27: 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment.
Or John observed in Revelation 20: 13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works.
St. Luke wrote (painted) the first icon of Our Lady. If you do not accept his icon, why would you accept his Gospel and Acts? Why would you accept St. Paul (who Luke accompanied on many journeys) and any of his works on that basis?
Yes, but how are we to believe what’s non negotiable and what’s not?
We have catholics that SWEAR they don’t pray to Mary, yet they do. (you not being one of them) How does a catholic sit back and let something as simple as “praying TO” be an issue when it’s set in stone? For me, it suggests that many don’t know/understand their doctrine.
I’m just trying to nail down what is truly catholic doctrine and what is not. Now that YOPIOS has entered the conversation, I’m simply curious.
In all kindness, you didn’t name a Church. All you did was quote a passage from the Bible.
Seriously, are you the only person in your church?
The Bible you quoted came out of the Catholic Church. Jesus didn’t walk the Holy Lands handing out Bibles. & Nor did God, the Father, reach down from Heaven and hand out Bibles all over the world.
I quoted how I believe the title ‘Holy Mother Church’ came to be in comment #618. The Title indicates a characteristic of the Catholic Church. The Title is used in Catholic documents such as the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. I recommended that you contact a priest.
Please let us know! Are you the only person in your church? Christianity is about what you >Love & not what you hate. We are all commanded to ‘Love one another like Christ loved us.’ If you don’t belong to a church, I recommend you visit one this Sunday.
Also, that Sacrifice covers all of Time. God exists out of Time and is eternal. We are not and we are subject to the laws of the created universe, being creatures of Him. That Sacrifice is as good for us now as it was for the folks at the beginning of Creation and all through Time to the end of All.
They do not understand the very issue of Time versus Eternity any more than they understand that Scripture was not written by King James in 1611 and emailed to Jesus and the Apostles for them to teach from. Apparently the Catholic Church ruthlessly ruled the Interwebs, confiscating all sites and email traces which contained the AV1611 except those carried on flash drives and disseminated person to person.
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou AT THIS TIME restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them. It is not for you to know THE TIMES or THE SEASONS, which the Father has PUT IN HIS OWN POWER." Acts 1:6,7.
It sounds like some philosophical mumbo jumbo intended to change the plain meaning of God's Word into something it simply does NOT say. Once again...
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.