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.
Maybe there is some hope for you after all.
I post scripture sources for my beliefs and you say I “make things up”? Yet you can’t show scripture for what you believe but consistently tell me what the RCC believes and teaches without scriptural support.
>>Please keep reading the Bible.<<
You can rest assured I will. The more I learn the more I understand just how wrong the RCC is.
Read “The fourth cup” by Scott Hahn. Jesus statement IN CONTEXT is referring to the passover that He and the Apostles were celebrating.
***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.***
***without any confusion, change, division or separation.****
Oops, this part of the quote that was not highlighted was missed. But, hey, I fixed it, after all, if one is going to try to blast Catholicism, one should include ALL of what is said and not the part that one thinks gives them the chance to crow and pat their own back, as they ping their brilliance to all their buddies.
But, to be fair, let’s look at what WAS highlighted.
***perfect in divinity, and perfect in humanity, true God and true human ... Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, manifested in two natures***
The Church teaches here that Christ Jesus was perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly human, manifested, or made known in two natures.
What do you think might be meant by perfect in divinity?
Could that mean that as God, Jesus was eternal and unchanging and incapable of sin? I believe it does.
What do you think might be meant by perfect in humanity?
Is that even possible? Humans are sinful so they can’t be perfect.
What would or could make a human perfect? Could it be complete obedience to God, the Father? Why, I believe it is.
Now, were Adam and Eve created perfect in their humanity, and able to be in the presence of God without suffering death? Why, I believe they were.
It was not until sin entered the world that Adam and Eve were subject to death and the corruption of their bodies by death.
So, if the Church says that Jesus was perfect in humanity, might the Church be saying that Jesus was perfectly obedient to God, the Father? Why, I believe that’s exactly what the Church means here.
For, Jesus redeemed what was lost, not that which was never had by Adam and Eve. He did so by being perfectly obedient, that is perfectly united to God.
***The union does not destroy the difference of the two natures, but on the contrary the properties of each are kept, and both are joined in one person”****
“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11).
Jesus came to show us the way of being perfect. “Be perfect as Thy Father in heaven is perfect.”
More and more I am beginning to realize the utter loss of the understanding of the magnitude of the Incarnation, by Christians, no less.
Pledge cards? Is that what you do? Just pledge? If you only knew what we do out here.
Did God die on the cross or was it just the “flesh” that died?
being a devotee of Ellen White is an attack?
either one is a Sabbath keeper or one isn’t, but there are many SDA that would take it as a compliment to be called a devotee of EW.
***No it wasn’t a coincidence.
Peter has just confirmed that he believes Jesus is that Rock***
So, it was Peter who called Jesus the Rock and not the other way around? Hmmmm. Here I was thinking that Peter had just confirmed that Jesus is the Son of the Living God and that Jesus then called Peter, rock.
***Only in the minds of Catholics. Even James was more the leader in Jerusalem. Paul wrote to the Romans and didn’t even mention Peter. There is no proof that Peter was even over the church in Rome nor that he was leader in any capacity other than to the Jews.****
All of this has been thoroughly gone over and shown to be in complete contrast with what Scripture actually says and what history has recorded.
But, I thoroughly understand why one must cling to these beliefs.
***Through their fall is talking about the Jews. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, the church, not Peter as the RCC would like to portray.***
So, as I thought, in the mind of one who thinks as you do, there were no Jews in the Church.
Hmmm. What does St. Paul say in Ephesians?
Brothers and sisters:
You have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace
that was given to me for your benefit,
namely, that the mystery was made known to me by revelation.
It was not made known to people in other generations
as it has now been revealed
to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:
that the Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body,
and copartners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
With whom are the Gentiles now coheirs, members of the same body and copartners with?
"And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree." Acts 10:39.
"And when we (Paul's missionary journey) were come to Jerusalem, the BRETHREN received us gladly. Peter and the 11 were still at Jerusalem. Acts 21:17-20.
Where Peter and the 11 may have gone AFTER Acts 28, when Israel was fully set aside, isn't of importance in this conversation. The fact is Peter and the 11 remained in Jerusalem, preaching the Kingdom Gospel to Israel, in hopes that she would accept Christ as her Messiah, and He would return to set up His Kingdom. Remember, Christ told them to go to all nations preaching the gospel, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM. Until Israel was saved and brought to Messiah's feet, they remained there. Which we know never happened. She, as a Nation, rejected Him until they were finally set aside. Before Paul is saved in Acts 9 and sent to the Gentiles with the gospel of the uncircumcision and the grace of God, the ONE Gentile family to which Peter ministered to dwelt at Caesarea, in Palestine. (Acts 10:24). And that was through a vision, a trance, where Jesus Christ gave him specific instructions to go to Cornelius. This was done so that when Paul came to the 12 (Gal. 2:11-14) the twelve would understand that Paul was indeed sent to the gentiles. Notice in Gal. that the 12 agree to confine their ministry to the circumcision; the Jews.
The church that Peter and the 11 were ministering to in Jerusalem was the Messianic Church, made up of the little flock and those who believed at Pentecost. Notice they were ALL JEWS. Waiting for the Kingdom to be established. And waiting for Christ's return to set up His kingdom
Yes I read something awhile back about that but didn't take a closer look at the time.......these Goddesses Romes Mary, Islam's, and most false religions and cults have a female idol,... the thread which flows thru all religions and the common demominator among them which very likely will be instrumental in this unifying effort , and as you say already at work. ....Very interesting times is it not?
I think it's really quite amazing God is letting us see the beginnings of what He has said will come....I think most Christians recognize this even if some may differ in the order or developements there is still a sense of things happening very much in the open now.....and of course for that there will be the outcry from those who deny.....there always will be just as in Noahs day....still...very interesting watching Europe and the asian countrys etc. lining up just as was written.
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!!
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-verses-defined-by-catholic-church.html
Rom 5:12 - Council of Trent, June 17, 1546, "Decree on Original Sin", section 2.
Jn 3:5 - Council of Trent, March 3, 1547, "Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism," canon 2.
Mt 26:26 ff; Mk 14:22l; Lk 22:19 ff; 1 Cor 11:23 ff - Council of Trent, October 11, 1551, "The Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist", chapter 1
Jn 20:22 ff - Council of Trent, October 25, 1551, "Canons on the Sacrament of Penance," canon 3
James 5:14 - Council of Trent, October 25, 1551, "Canons on Anointing of the Sick," canon 1
Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24 - Council of Trent, September 17, 1562 "Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass," canon 2
Mt 16:16; Jn 21:15 ff - Vatican I, July 18, 1870 "The Institution of Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter," chapter 1
Actually took about 30 seconds.
Please read the Bible. Please read all my posts. I did post Scriptures on how Jesus created his Church. You just have your own church & you are the ‘Pope’ of your church. You interpret the Scriptures to suit your purposes.
Your posts make sense to you, I guess. But as I pointed out in Acts, God demonstrates that His Church explains Scripture.
Bless you & keep reading the Bible. It sounds like your Church exists to ‘hate-on’ the Catholic Church. Please remember Christianity is about ‘Loving God above all things & loving your neighbor as yourself.’
Human in all respects.
>>So, if the Church says that Jesus was perfect in humanity, might the Church be saying that Jesus was perfectly obedient to God, the Father?<<
Please show that explanation from the RCC. You wouldn’t want us to think that you speak and interpret on your own would you?
>>And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
So did God die on the cross?
It isn't so "disordered" at all simply because even Catholics agree that the Bible is the Divinely-inspired word of God and is infallible. Because that is a true statment, we hold that all doctrine for the Christian faith should be able to be proved by Scripture. In fact, we had the exact same section of Revelation brought up in a thread a few weeks ago - things do have a way of repeating themselves here. This is a good site to go to to see a Biblically-based interpretation of that chapter in Revelation: http://www.biblrytr.com/revelation11.htm.
Remember: this chapter is dealing with symbols. The woman is a symbol, the child is a symbol and other creatures (soon to be introduced) are also symbols of persons or groups. The woman is a relatively easy symbol to interpret. She is a picture of the nation Israel. Similar symbolism appears throughout the Scripture, as far back as Joseph's dreams in the book of Genesis. This woman is apparently greatly favored by God: you'll notice the glory of the sun as her clothing, and the moon under her feet. The crown on her head speaks of the 12 tribes of Israel, each destined to benefit from the timeless promises of God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Please notice that there are not 24 stars in her crown; the woman is NOT a symbol of all believers of both the Old and New Testaments, like the 24 elders are. This is Israel, greatly beloved and uniquely favored by God.
It's un Christian to think Christ did not exist before our concept of time and since He Did exist before the fall, Adam and Even and Moses, His Sacrifice is eternal being the 2nd person in the Holy Trinity.
Mark Bsnr expressed this perfectly in post 999 when he wrote...
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.
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."
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
>> All of this has been thoroughly gone over and shown to be in complete contrast with what Scripture actually says and what history has recorded.<<
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
It wasn’t Peter who was the declarative last word.
>>So, as I thought, in the mind of one who thinks as you do, there were no Jews in the Church.<<
I never said there were “no Jews” in the church. Please don’t twist my words.
Now show proof that Peter was head of the church in Rome.
First off you axctually have to sit down and THINK about it, not jsut fly off the handle with an inane response. Second, you do need at least a little understanding of philosophy and be willing to look at what is meant by "sacred Time"
http://roadmapsforworship.com/?page_id=57 Gives a good basic introduction
LOLOLOLOL...
Perhaps in you “philosophy” off-time, you could learn to spell...
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.