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.
Can you ever answer a simple yes or no question with out going off on one of your tangents? Whe one of my students pulls this garbage you just know that he / she has painted themselves into a corner, so try it again.....
Was Peter named Rock by Jesus? This requires only a yes of no answer.
What I posted is what ALL Christians believe.
You find the word must as cold and heartless, but it quite simply confirms what makes one a believer in the True Jesus Christ.
We see today many heretical beliefs about Jesus, many “faiths” that do not proclaim the True Jesus.
That is why there are “must believe” doctrines that, again, ALL Christians believe.
Otherwise, Jesus is not unchanging and eternal God, He becomes whatever the believer wishes Him to be.
These “must believe” statements are not demands, they are doctrines.
WOW what a complete non-sequitor, and sit in the thinky chair in the corner and see if you can come up with an even more irrelevant comment.
Ah, a dubious response...go figure.
Well now, posting passages from scripture s no longer a “legitimate” source? How telling.
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.
It is 2000 years of unbroken Christianity that Jesus taught to the Apostles and they and their successors have handed down to us.
We received Christianity from Jesus the Christ, Lord and Creator of All. He is the Creator of the Church.
I think that the corrupter of desire created the Reformation.
If a teacher is so poor at reading comprehension it may be time to reconsider the line of work. We all can see and understand that indeed Jesus did call him Peter. He also called him Satan. What’s your point?
***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.***
That is all well and good, and I do understand the conflict protestants feel exists here.
But, there is still the fact that Jesus, God, who said that He is the only rock, gave to Peter the name rock.
When He first met him, Jesus knew Simon and knew His plan for him.
John 1:40 aOne of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
41 He * found first his own brother Simon and * said to him, “We have found the aMessiah” (which translated means 1Christ).
42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of 1aJohn; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated 2cPeter).
Note that Jesus says you “shall be called Cephas”. Jesus has not yet revealed why Simon will be called this. That revelation comes later, when Jesus reiterates the name “Cephas” by saying, “You ARE rock” and then follows that with the reason why Simon has been given the name by God.
God gave Simon the name.
The only “conflict” about it is because Protestants must reject Peter in the role Jesus gave him, or they must reject their Protestantism.
lol, nice chuckle first thing in the morning:)
Well there certainly was some corruption that lingered. The were after all bought up on the Catholic faith.
I will not chase you down the rabbit hole as it is a diversion, a deflection, a dodge meant to veer the conversation off into a completely different tangent.
It happens often, especially when one is unable to successfully debate the subject at hand.
Not accurate?
Whatever, Jesus had His mission, which He fulfilled.
He then sent out those He prepared to further spread the Good News.
That is what they did, and what the Church still does.
There will be those who hear it and believe.
There will be those who hear and don’t believe.
If that is inaccurate to you, then so be it.
It is the Truth, whether one recognizes it or not.
Yes, the woman is Mary, and also the Church.
I understand the need to reject it as true.
****And you teach this to other lesser biblically educated Catholics???****
Yes, just as I learned it from great theologians and Biblical scholars from the first generations of Christians.
***Nope, just pointing out that the majority and long history argument that Catholics love to use falls flat.***
More complete misunderstanding of Catholicism and the Church.
It is not the “majority” that shows the Church has done as Jesus commanded. It is that the Church is present throughout the whole world, “all the nations”. That people respond to the truth they hear from the Church is an action of the Holy Spirit.
It also is not so much that the Church has been here for 2,000 years, it is that the Church has prevailed, as Jesus promised it would. That it has been 2,000 years is only because, gee, it’s been 2,000 years since Christ lived and died and rose again.
Neither of these things would be or could be true, if the Holy Spirit does not guide and protect the Church, just as Jesus promised.
Acts 5:39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”
40They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. 41So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. 42And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
“God called her to carry the Messiah”
God calls all believers to carry the Messiah for a longer term than 9 months:
(Col. 1:27), “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory”
So you think the RCC has taken the place of Israel?
Islam was started in 622. Does the length of time they have been in existence indicate they also are “protecting” them?
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.