Skip to comments.Mary: Mother of God?
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 am grateful for the compliment. Heretics, no matter how well intentioned will be Judged to hell. Scripture is clear.
The sneering, snarling hatreds have been re-invigorated in the last few months. One need not a particular gifting in the discernment of spirits, to recognize what spirits are behind the carnality.
Very good. I believe that Asmodeus, one of the princes of hell, was the principal demon behind the Reformation. Since nothing of the netherworld is worth anything over time but only for the moment, it is unraveling as the 'churches' of the Reformation show. I will remind you too, of the Popes versus the various televangelists, their various demeanours.
There is only one true God.
Peter is the apprentice of Jesus.
The Pope prays to God.
The children of the Reformation pray on peoples' souls.
You never see Jesus and his mother Mary...
It's always, Mary the Mother of God and her Son...
The Devil does not want to destroy your religion...But God will handle it as reported in Revelation 17...
That's because it doesn't matter what name you put on it...We know worship when we see it...
***became the new Israel is NOT saying they joined Israel.***
You are right, it’s not because that is not what Scripture says, it ways “grafted on” and “adopted” .
It is a new creation, born out of the new covenant, which is Jesus.
LOL, admit it.
Peter did NOT stay in Jerusalem, did he?
And, why would Jesus send Peter to Cornelius, why Peter and not Paul?
Why didn’t God pour out His wrath on the nation at that point?
What happened to Jerusalem in 70AD?
And what has NOT happened in Jerusalem since that time?
And what happened to the nation Israel since?
Jerusalem, Israel, they are a microcosm of first, the promises and covenants of God with His people. Second, we can look to them to see what is in store for us if we, like they, reject God’s covenant.
Sea of confusion.
And here's the truly funny thing: Person A believes that Person B, because of his position in an apostolic succession going back to Jesus and his charge to his apostles, can speak infallibly on matters of faith and doctrine (though it's happened only twice since the 19th century). Person C scoffs and says that's an example of "fallible human reasoning" while granting to himself, supposedly through the guidance of God's Spirit that he denies to Person B, an interpretation of both scripture and God's will that he, Person C, regards to be at least if not more accurate than that promulgated by Person B and believed by Person A. Just who is being the more credulous?
When the whole point of things is to promote the religion of the self, why then, anything goes.
Exactly which of the many titles belong to Christ?
Queen of Angels? Queen of Heaven? Mystical Rose?
Acts, Chapter 9 will tell you why GOd did not pour out His wrath on the Nation at that point. Romans through Philemon will tell you why God did not pour out His wrath on the nation at that time.
It’s your story...Tell it any way you want...
As usual, deflect, dodge and produce a rabbit you want me to chase rather than just answering my questions.
Good post although we RC’s have to be careful. Take a look at the Fr. Corapi controversy. Have said that, at least Fr. Corapi had to submit to the authority of the Church. To whom does Osteen or Swaggart submit?