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.
Anyone who says the Holy Spirit did not guide the Apostles and insure that the Scriptures are not in error is calling Jesus Christ a liar.Anyone who calls Jesus Christ a liar is denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God from God, incapable of telling a lie. Obviously, when someone insists that a particular thing that Christ promised is a lie, they are calling Christ a liar whether they realize that or not.
When someone goes even further and blatantly calls Christ Himself a liar by denying that He is present in the bread and wine when we remember Him, they are deliberately denying the deity of Christ by directly calling Christ a liar.
Obviously, those who claim individual personal infallible interpretation of all Scriptures are claiming to be doing mighty works in His name every time they spin themselves a new interpretation of Scripture to suit a personal predisposition. Personal predispositions like the Watchtower garbage of calling the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter pagan festivals. Equally obviously, then, such folks are exactly those who Matthew 7:21-23 is talking about no matter which individual who claims to be infallible pretends those verses do not apply because they don't want them to apply. That's typical of those who cannot surrender to Christ since they have dedicated themselves to the worship of, "The Most High and Holy Self" they see in the mirror.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain.
Titus 3:10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Titus 3:11 Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.
Those who continue to deny the deity of Christ can fool themselves however they like, but they should get used to the idea of hearing, "I never knew you" from the very Jesus Christ they deny is God.
have a nice day
I would contend that He was at least to the extent that there was to be no hierarchy (ie rulership) within the church. I find it interesting that you haven’t given any passage that outlines any hierarchy. That is of course because there is none. The church as Jesus set it up has no hierarchy or rulership other than Him. Here are some thoughts on the verses you sited.
1 Timothy 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
That was referencing strictly secular leadership.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
There is no hierarchy (ie secular type rulers) in the church. All stewardshipo positions mentioned are the “servant” type positions. All Greek words used indicate those responsible for teaching etc are those who are older (elder) more mature in the faith. Even when a difference is to be taken to “the church” it means to be taken to the “group of believers” as a whole rather than to some “ruler” or “headship” if you will.
1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
That lines up with the Christ is the head of the husband and the husband is head of the wife. There can be no assumption of leadership within the church from that.
Titus 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
2 Tim. 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
All believers are given that directive.
An outline is not needed, as the fact that there are positions of authority evidences they had authority over someone.
As referenced, "Obey [peithō=to assent, yield to, comply with, listen to...] them that have the rule over [hēgeomai=chief, governor, chief, account, leadership..] you, and submit [hupeikō=yield] yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you. " (Hebrews 13:17, cf. 7,24)
The word for "rule over" is the same as used for "chief" in Luk 22:26: But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve."
Even if you make the words for "obey," "submit" and "rule" to signify something less less authoritarian then they convey, here you still have two classes of souls, one of which is enjoined to yield to another, even though such submission is conditional upon submission to God and Scripture
"Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. " (Hebrews 13:7)
Here again one class is leading, and another following leader who sacrificial served Christ (likely martyrs).
"Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you. " (Hebrews 13:24)
All stewardship positions mentioned are the “servant” type positions.
Certainly it does, and Jesus was the greatest, but you are disallowing being a servant from being a leader and having (conditional) authority over something and someone. You are defining hierarchy to mean more than it basically does, that of organization of people in which their are different positions. You cannot disallow leadership, which certainly was in the N.T. church.
The apostles certainly had spiritual and positional authority under God in the church, and thus they disciplined souls and threatened to use their spiritual rod of correction on false leadership and those disobedient to Scripture.(1Cor. 4:18-21; 2cor. 13:2-4
And being a pastor has less authority than the above, and true authority does not rest on formal decent but conformity to Scripture and its requirements for such, yet they were pastors overseeing a flock, serving God and others by pastoring. (1Pt. 5:2)
"And God hath set some in the church, first [prōton=first; beginning] apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers.." (1 Corinthians 12:28)
That lines up with the Christ is the head of the husband and the husband is head of the wife. There can be no assumption of leadership within the church from that.
No presumption, but having bishops [episkopos=superintendent; overseer] certainly assumes there is a class of souls to oversee. The point is that if they are leaders then their is leadership and thus there are followers.
And pastoring the home is an example of pastoring a church. "..if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:5) There is a balance here, and i hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
Yes there was in reference to the secular world we live in but not in the “church”.
>>and thus they disciplined souls and threatened to use their spiritual rod of correction on false leadership and those disobedient to Scripture. (1Cor. 4:18-21)<<
You certainly read that differently than I do. Look at what Paul says.
1 Corinthians 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. 18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. 19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. 20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. 21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?
The entire passage starting in the previous chapter is a dispute about who is supposed to be a leader or who has power and authority. He begins in Chapter 3 mentioning the contention that some say they believe one man is the leader and others say another man is leader. Then in Chapter 4 he begins with this.
1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
He calls them “stewards”, someone who is responsible for maintaining the purity of “the mysteries of God”. He’s not claiming authority over people but simply the responsibility of maintaining the purity of the Gospel. He then continues to show that they are not to think in terms of “authority” over people.
6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
There was obviously a problem already with people trying to establish a hierarchy of “authority” over people. Paul was saying that’s not the way it’s supposed to be. He then tells who actually has the power.
20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
The “authority” and “power” is not in the man or leader but in God. The “leadership” is only a “steward” of that “purity of the word” handed down from God. I believe the statement that you contend shows Paul believes gives them “authority” or “leadership” is actually a statement questioning whether the Corinthians actually want a hierarchy which is not authorized and contrary to what the church is to be or if they should come in “the spirit of love, and in the spirit of meekness” as Christ told them when He said “but with you it is not so” and told them that the greatest will be the least.
I believe that in Chapters 3 and 4 Paul is showing that the attitude that there are somehow “leaders” who have “authority” or “positions of power” is wrong. History has shown that the concept of “leadership” is not part of the church. The statement “power corrupts” has been proven over and over and Christ meant for that “power” to be His alone and any attempt of men to grasp any of that “power” is contrary to what He taught.
The responsibility to faithfully maintain and spread the pure message is in the “elected” elders who become stewards of the “message” if you will but not stewards of men.
The reproof was by one in authority, and its nature was not against leaders having such, which other quoted texts support, Scripturally exercised as the apostles exampled as sacrificial servants, but against thinking of men beyond what is written, leading to sectarianism, primarily cleaving to a leader or church at the expense of Christ according to what is written, which is the issue that should now be focused on here.
So, do you believe the Bible gives the Pope legitimacy or, instead, that the Pope gives the Bible it’s legitimacy?
I want you to know that I saved your comments about the Worship of Mary to my favorites. I have never read a better dispute of it in my life. So clear and your use of scripture to support your stand is amazing. I am constantly debating with catholics and I found this to be so useful. I read your bio and you are a very smart lady.
Mary
Did you realize that there is a huge picture of Mary in the front floor of the Vatican when you enter that is with her heart on her chest visible and it is pierced and shedding blood. That is plain and simple as to what the agenda is for the RCC to lift her up to the level of Jesus. They can not deny they are trying to do it with that one picture in the Vatican floor
Catholics also say they don’t bow down to statues too but they just rename it and say they are bowing down to God. The scriptures say to not bow down to any graven image and it does not especially say it is okay if you say it is God instead. So, you saying you don’t worship Mary is just a play on words. You pray to her. The same thing as worship. It is also heresy to pray to her
>> “Did you realize that there is a huge picture of Mary in the front floor of the Vatican...” <<
.
Do you not realize that I have too much love and respect for Yehova to ever enter his enemy’s palace?
I never said I pray to Mary, I respect the FACT that GOD himself used her to bring forth our Lord Jesus Christ.
Respect is not the same as reverence, I respect alot of people, but I don't “pray” to 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.