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.
I totally agree with your assessment. The number of people reached by these threads cannot be known but we can be assured that there are those who read and learn. God reaches those He will through many ways. I trust God to use me wherever He places me at different stages in my life and know that He will use my circumstances to His glory. Satan will send those who would try to discourage us but my God reigns.
My dad’s name was Peter and he wasn’t the Pope either. Jesus giving Simon the name Peter didn’t make him the Pope and didn’t change who the church was built on.
Christ is head of the church as a husband is head of the wife. Would you put a “alter husband” between a wife and her husband? Neither did Christ put a “alter Christus” between Him and the church.
With that logic you should convert to Judaism.
That's fine. Was Peter named Rock by Jesus?
Would you put a “alter husband” between a wife and her husband? Neither did Christ put a “alter Christus” between Him and the church.
Whether or not you understand how the Church uses the term "alter Christus" has nothing to do with what I asked. Please try to focus.
Nope, just pointing out that the majority and long history argument that Catholics love to use falls flat. The majority of the Jews rejected Christ. The majority of the Israelites worshiped the golden calf while Moses was on the mountain. The Jewish history is older than Catholic history. The mantra of “we have a history of 2000 years” rings hollow.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
“The mantra of “we have a history of 2000 years” rings hollow.”
Really? The Apostolic Church traces it’s lineage from the first Apostles until now and that “rings hollow”? How odd.
But then again you think that Christmas and Easter are pagan and that going to Church on Sunday is a made up tradition.
“Please try to focus.”
You are asking someone who believes that Christmas and Easter are pagan, that art work is idolatry and that Church on Sunday is a man made tradition to “focus”? How, when the lens is covered in falsehoods, how can it focus?
Would you please post the link as what is posted is unreadable. And I really would like to read it.
Cherry picking scripture and ignoring so much other scripture to promote error is disingenuous and, by default, further error.
God called several people by different names. One thing we can be assured of is that He did not call Simon Peter to change who the church would be built on.
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
Jesus also called Peter Satan in that same conversation.
Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Should we then understand that since Jesus called Simon Satan that the Catholic Church is build on Satan? After all, Jesus called him both names in the same conversation and He called him Satan after He called him Peter.
Jesus also called him Satan in that same conversation.
That was a pathetic attempt at cut and paste.
Oh, I see. You’re now attempting to BLIND us into submission...
A sad day to say that life came though Christ? Are you kidding? Surely you can’t be serous.
Do the think we actually read them if we haven’t been told to stay out? LOL
That explains a lot, including why they do everything they can to avoid answering the simplest of questions. Your point is well taken. Why bother?
And when Jesus seats you in the smoking sedction don't be surprised. Listen unless you can back up your thoughts about the Catholic Church with Primary sources don't bother commenting. and I mean real legitimate sources.
How man times have we seen Catholics kiss the statues? Hmmmm.
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.