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.
Seriously, do you have a Church? Or do you just make things up as you go along?
It’s a simple question that doesn’t require a miraculous intervention by the Holy Spirit.
What’s going on here? What are you people hiding. We are commanded to ‘Honor God’ by attending Church. I’m simply asking about your church. Do you belong to a secret church. Many people simple get a hold of a Bible & start making things up as they go along. Where is this church that calls Jerusalem its mother?
..maybe because some of the bone-headed things he did as a disciple earned him the nickname “dumb as a box of Petros”...
The question was what in Scripture is definitively interpreted by the Church, the interpretation of which no member can reject or interpret differently from the Church.
The examples I gave, are in fact the doctrines of Christianity which are accepted by Christians, ALL Christians, whether in communion with the Church or not.
For me, it suggests that many don’t know/understand their doctrine.
Many don’t and many are not interested in all the debate about doctrine and such. It is not that they are incapable, but that they are just people of simple faith and have no need to get into all the nuts and bolts.
Marian prayer and intercession is a part of the Catholic church and when one trust that Jesus gave her authority which began with the Apostles and was then handed on throughout the ages, one can accept that Marian prayer is not problematic.
Mary intercedes for us with her Son, this is what the Church teaches. But, no one is compelled to pray to Mary, or to pray the rosary.
When a Catholic claims they do not pray TO Mary one must understand that it is a reaction to the accusation that prayer to her bypasses or supplants those to Jesus.
It is not and the Church never teaches that it is.
The confusion is caused by protestants, not the Church.
I didn’t attempt to name a church. You said the church was your mother and I showed that scripture teaches that the church is not our mother.
>> All you did was quote a passage from the Bible.<<
All I did was quote a passage from the Bible? All I did? Seriously? You discount scripture as a source for truth? Good grief!
>> The Bible you quoted came out of the Catholic Church<<
Oh really? So the writers of scripture was the Catholic Church? Did they just use the names of the apostles etc? Can you quote the verse please that names the RCC and “the church”? I would be interested in seeing that as would many of us I’m sure.
>> The Title indicates a characteristic of the Catholic Church.<<
Well, that’s just wonderful for those who belong to that cult. The rest of us are more concerned with what God has said through scripture.
>> If you don’t belong to a church, I recommend you visit one this Sunday.<<
I belong to the universal church of all believers. No cult memberships for me.
I do want to clarify one thing. Always Catholics read the Bible in the context of Church teaching. Part of that teaching involves schools of Biblical hermeneutics. If you are familiar with the Jesus Seminer that would be an example of a use of a type of Biblical hermeneutics which Catholics may not use. Another example would be the whole modernist school of exegesis that arose from Kantian philosophy and which was expressed by the 19th century German school of Higher Criticism in the writings of such theologians as Schleiermacher.
Bottom line if the Church has spoken the faithful must submit to what the Church has stated is official teaching binding on the faithful. If she has not spoken and my view does not contradict the broader teaching of the Church I am free to interpret for myself.
Of course there were but the focus was no longer on the Jews as a whole because they had rejected Christ.
>>Oh, and nice dodge once again regarding the question as to why Jesus, God, THE ROCK, chose for Simon a name which means rock.<<
I don’t believe anyone really knows but it certainly wasn’t to replace God.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
God even says there is not other Rock.
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Paul said there is not other than Christ who the church is built on.
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
From Leo XIII’s “ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE”
“A wide field is still left open to the private student, in which his hermeneutical skill may display itself with signal effect and to the advantage of the Church. On the one hand, in those passages of Holy Scripture which have not as yet received a certain and definitive interpretation, such labours may, in the benignant providence of God, prepare for and bring to maturity the judgment of the Church; on the other, in passages already defined, the private student may do work equally valuable, either by setting them forth more clearly to the flock and more skilfully to scholars, or by defending them more powerfully from hostile attack. Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or her ordinary and universal magisterium(35) - to interpret these passages in that identical sense, and to prove, by all the resources of science, that sound hermeneutical laws admit of no other interpretation. In the other passages, the analogy of faith should be followed, and Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.”
The Catholic Church and those who follow the teaching of that church are using “images of God” and are practicing idolatry.Look, finally an answer, CynicalBear calls all Catholic's idolators. He also calls those who celebrate Christmas and Easter PAGAN. How odd.
I AM the church, part of it, as all true believers are.
The true church is composed of and comprised of all true believers for all time.
It is NOT an institution, organization, or religion that someone established.
Jesus said He would BUILD His church, not establish it.
By whom and where? The only Scriptural injunction is to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together. It says nothing about having to go to *church* once a week or it's a sin.
Many people simple get a hold of a Bible & start making things up as they go along.
Nobody who gets a Bible and reads it has the option of making stuff up as they go along. As far as calling Jerusalem our mother, Paul did that in his letter to the Galatians.
Perhaps you are not familiar with it so I will post it again, with the chapter and verse.... Maybe you didn't recognize it as Scripture, God's word to us.
Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
It's the only reference in the Bible that calls anyone or anything a believer's mother.
Nowhere is Mary called our mother and nowhere is the RCC even referenced, much less called our mother.
The church is the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. The bride of Christ is we believers. The *Church* is not our mother as if she gave birth to us.
I don’t know if I understand CynicalBear and other’s take on the humanity of Jesus but it seems to me they are claiming the two natures of Christ human and divine acted separately and were distinct one from the other.
I can’t recall the name of this heresy but am pretty sure it was refuted by St.Anathasius.
Catholics always like to parade out that mantra of how many have agreed with them. May I remind you that there was only one family saved out of the entire world when Noah and his family entered the Ark? The there was Lot and his two daughters who were the only three saved out of Sodom and Gomorrah. That nonsense about who all agrees with the RCC and how large and old they claim that organization to be falls flat in comparison doesn’t it.
***I don’t believe anyone really knows but it certainly wasn’t to replace God.***
So, it was just some superfluous thing that Jesus threw out? He had nothing in mind by doing that? And it is just coincidence that the very next thing He says, in the same sentence, is “and upon this rock, I will build my church.”
The Church does not teach or hold that Peter was to “replace” God. Peter leads the Church on earth after Christ’s ascension and as there is no doubt that the Church still needs leading, his authority as given Him by Christ is handed down through the ages, along with the faith.
Well, at least you gave what seems an honest answer.
****Of course there were but the focus was no longer on the Jews as a whole because they had rejected Christ.****
There were some Jews who rejected Christ and some that did not. Just as there were some Gentiles who rejected Christ and some that did not.
The first disciples were Jews, the first martyr for Christ, a Jew and there were Jews throughout the known world who accepted the Gospel of Jesus Christ and who helped to build His Church with their lives and their deaths.
The Gospel is the same for all of us.
Good post. Glad there’s a few kindred spirits out there. You expressed so well what I wanted to say and saved me the trouble. Awesome!!
Scripture please. The only thing I can find is the assembling together which could be any group of saved people having a picnic. No “church” building or anything. Then there is “where two or three are gathered in my name”. But I can’t find a command to “attend church”.
Which is totally backwards. It puts the wrong thing in authority and makes the wrong thing subservient.
Scripture should be read and interpreted in context with itself.
If Scripture appears to contradict itself, then further study needs to be done with it to determine the actual meaning.
The Word of God is Truth. Putting it in second place to anything opens one up to error.
Only truth can be in authority and can be used as authority.
Now it makes sense. You don’t have what most people would call a ‘real’ church. Apparently, you have a small personal church & you have become the Pope of your Church.
History is full of people that decided they are the Pope of their own Church. & It is impossible to discuss any religious subject when someone seems to ‘make things up’ as they go along.
Bless you! You are reading a Bible & that is a real blessing from God. I recommend you attend a ‘real’ church with a church-building & other Christians. Obviously, I think the Catholic Church is the True Church. But even if you attend> a Protestant Church such as ‘The Big Oak Tree Church where Jesus lives’ is better than NO Church.
With God is the important part of that statement. Or do you believe that God is restricted by time?
It is God who is outside of time not man. Our time is chronos. God’s time is kairos.
God is eternal. Eternal means much more than just lasting forever.
The church is the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ. The bride of Christ is we believers.Yep, like those who call Easter and Christmas pagan? Or those who claim that Catholic's are idolators? Sorry, bzzzt, wrong. 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.