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.
Nope.
Scripture is God breathed words from God.
Of course, anyone not accepting that will never recognize the absolute and final authority of Scripture above all else.
Appealing to Catholic tradition to support Catholic tradition is like pulling themselves up by their boot straps.
Only an outside authority can confer authority to someone or something else. Nobody gets it by self-declaring it.
"...stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
*Traditions* specifically passed on by Paul.
And those were? How do you know? From what source did they come and how can you be sure that they were faithfully and accurately passed on?
And where does it say in those verse that tradition is of equal authority and standing with Scripture? Or that Scripture should be interpreted in context or light of said tradition?
Oh how Catholics love to use that verse to try to say that “by word” is somehow a different teaching than “by our epistle”. If I read the Bible to someone who is illiterate they have received the epistle by word. If I tell someone verbatim what the Bible says they have heard it by word. The subtle deceit of Satan is truly heinous.
Yep.
Scripture is God breathed words from God.
As is taught through the Tradition of the Church.
Of course, anyone not accepting that will never recognize the absolute and final authority of Scripture above all else.
As is believed by those whose own personal interpretation of Scripture is the same as God's word.
And those listening to a spirit in their head as their outside authority think their own personal interpretation of Scripture is the same as God's word.
And we're right back to the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura.
I have yet to have ONE Catholic take me up on the request to show what traditions of Paul’s he was referring to when he told them to hold fast to the traditions he passed on to them, how they know what those traditions were, and how they could verify that it was passed down unchanged from Paul.
They have never provided sources for that information.
All I get is *crickets*......
As stated in Scripture. It's not an oral tradition.
Oh how non-Catholics love to use that verse to try to say that “by word” means “by our epistle”.
It was an oral Tradition until the Church wrote it down.
12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Prove it.
Don't confuse a spirit with the Spirit.
Anything not found written in scripture must be attributed to hearsay or myth. Placing one’s eternal future on either is deadly.
I’m not.
I can tell the difference.
Relying on the RCC for the truth of scripture is like relying on progressives for the truth of history.
It's documented in the early Church councils. These are the earliest occurrences where all the books of the New Testament are declared as Scripture, i.e. God's word. Do you have documentation to the contrary? It's certainly not within Scripture itself.
Royal Crown Cola isn't something I bother with.
So, the spirit that tells you what you want to believe is the right one?
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.