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.
To get out of the rain...
I Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Don’t get caught up as protestants do in the The Rock which is God and the rock which is Peter.
It is the concept of both/and that which must be confusing.
There is no doubt that Jesus gave Peter the name “rock” and followed that naming with the claim that He would build His Church on that rock.
But, that does not mean that Peter is the Church, just as it does not mean that Peter replaces God, Jesus as the rock.
What it means is that Jesus assures us that we can trust the Church, because He is the one that laid her foundation.
*** Now show proof that Peter was head of the church in Rome.***
I will not chase you down that rabbit hole.
Deflect and dodge and then move the goalposts.
Not gonna do it.
I still haven’t seen that directive from God you seem to think you have.
***It wasn’t Peter who was the declarative last word.***
It was James, agreeing with the Peter who received the revelation that was being discussed. It was James that led the others to accept what Peter had declared at the beginning of the council. But, it was to Peter that the Spirit made the revelation.
This does not conflict at all with Catholic teaching.
Odd I didn't notice you copying the prots on this lsit have have said much more outrageous things and engagged in personal attacks.
Let me remove the tree trunks from your eyes.
Do Catholics think that Mary was the first, or only, person to ever say to God, *Thy will be done*???????
Good grief, that’s the heart cry of every born again believer and we’ve all done it when called to do something at some time in our lives.
It’s the natural response of a regenerated heart, not even a consideration of saying *no*.
Her saying that doesn’t make her any more special than any other believer who’s submitted to God’s will for their life.
God called her to carry the Messiah, He calls us to do other things. We all obey in what God calls us to do. She did her job, I do mine, others do theirs.
It doesn’t make any one person any better than any other.
It’s not WHAT we’re called to do but our obedience to do that counts.
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Maybe you know better than God?
We know that God did not reveal this to you or anyone else thru the scriptures...So how did you get this information???
Why don’t you lay out a plan for my time but make sure you attach that directive from God when you send it to me. K?
placemarker
When was Isaiah written? When was the Church established? Is God powerless to name another rock to lead the Church? Was Peter named Rock by Jesus?
It was you telling people how they should spend their time wasn’t it?
>>Do you think this is what you’re doing here?<<
Isn’t that between me and God?
The Church does as Jesus did, which is proclaim the truth.
Some will follow, some will not.
If God is the rock and He says there is no other, then what comes after must be interpreted in that light. If there's a conflict than the interpretation which disagrees with it has to go.
Matthew 5:18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Who or what then goes to purgatory???
AKA There is none.
Please clarify you comment. As all people seem to have motives in religion. Hopefully, it is to spread the message of Salvation through Jesus Christ.
My comment was a continuation of my earlier posts. In the Bible 2 Peter 1: 20-21,> ‘Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will’ but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.’
It was an ongoing discussion that ultimately seemed to express a ‘hatred’ of the Catholic Church. I’m curious about what you interpreted that made this comment ‘personal’? Is this a subjective decision on your part? The ‘motive’ of a numerous group seems to ‘hate’ on the Catholic Church & deny any common discussion of the Bible, History or events in the world.
Hopefully, you’ll be more explicit in your explanation. I did not deem it to be a personal attack but rather an explanation of why there are no common grounds for any discussion.
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Col. 2:8.
I don't know, but I seemed able to see what "man's wisdom" and "philosophy" mean to God. Even through the "tree trunks in my eyes"...
placemarker
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.