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.

Classical Unitarians, not the UU types, defend their rejection of the Trinity based on the Bible alone.

4. Christ is said expressly to be inferior to the Father; all his power is said to have been given him by the Father, and he could do nothing without the Father. “My Father is greater than I” (John 16:28); “Ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Cor. 3:23); “The head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3); “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself” (John 5:19); “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself, and the Father that dwelleth in me he doth the works” (John 14:10); “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18); “He received from God the Father honour and glory” (2 Pet. 1:17); “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him” (Rev. 1:1).

It is now alleged that Christ did not mean that he was inferior to the Father with respect to his divine nature, but only with respect to his human nature. But if such liberties be taken in explaining a person’s meaning, language has no use whatever. On the same principles it might be asserted that Christ never died, or that he never rose from the dead, secretly meaning his divine nature only. There is no kind of imposition but what might be authorized by such an abuse of language as this.

5. Some things were withheld from Christ by his Father. “But of that day, and that hour, knoweth no man; no not the angels that are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13:32); “To sit on my right-hand and on my left, is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father” (Matt. 20:23).

6. As all the dominion that Christ has was derived from the Father, so it was subordinate to that of the Father. “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith that all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued to him, then shall Son also himself be subject unto him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:24ff.).

7. Christ always prayed to the Father, and with as much humility and resignation as any man, or the most dependent being in the universe, could possibly do. Our Lord’s whole history is a proof of this; but especially the scene of his agony in the garden: “And he began to be sorry and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful even unto death, tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little further, and fell on his face and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matt. 26:37ff.).

8. Christ is not only styled a man even after his resurrection, but the reasoning of the apostles, in some of the passages where he is spoken of, requires that he should be considered as a man with respect to his nature, and not in name only, as their reasoning has no force but upon that supposition. “Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of by God, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you” (Acts 2:22); “Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17); “It became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10); “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection from the dead, for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21).

9. Whatever exaltation Christ now enjoys, it is the gift of his Father, and the reward of his obedience unto death. “And being in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name” (Phil. 2:8, 9); “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour” (Heb. 2:9); “Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy which was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is sitten down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2).

Let it also be considered that no use whatever is made of the doctrine of the incarnation of the maker of the world in all the New Testament. We are neither informed why so extraordinary a measure was necessary for the salvation of men, nor that it was necessary. All that can be pretended is that it is alluded to in certain expressions. But certainly it might have been expected that a measure of this magnitude should have been expressly declared, if not clearly explained, that mankind might have no doubt what great things had been done for them, and that they might respect their great deliverer, as his nature and his proper rank in the creation required.

The author of the epistle to the Hebrews evidently considered Christ as a being of a different rank from that of angels, and the reason why he says that he ought to be so is that he might have a feeling of our infirmities. But, certainly, we shall be more easily satisfied that any person really felt as a man if he was truly a man, and nothing more than a man, than if he was a superior being (and especially a being so far superior to us as the maker of the world must have been) degraded to the condition of a man, because, if he had any recollection of his former state, the idea of that must have borne him up under his difficulties and sufferings in such a manner as no mere man could have been supported; and it is supposed by the Arians that Christ had a knowledge of his prior state, for they suppose him to have referred to it in his prayer to the Father for the glory which he had with him before the world was, and yet this is hardly consistent with the account that Luke gives of his increasing in wisdom.
http://www.americanunitarian.org/priestleyunity.htm

Evangelicalism is only a hearbeat away from embracing the Unitarian mindset.

Mother of God was Istar’s title 3500 years before the catholics tried to hang that blasphemous handle on Mary.

If you'll be kind to indulge me from my recent beginnings of studying this interesting era:...

"Mother" Goddess worship began in Babylon under Nimrod,... more particular his wife 'Semiramis', who was a prostitute/brothel keeper...though they created another legend about her to cover that embarrassment.

....... Nimrod gave his wife control over the religious aspects of the peoples, as Queen, in order to maintain control over them and sustain their power.. which for that mistake would cost him his life,... for Semiramis had him brutally murdered...and would also have her son murdered to retain her power after he became King.

The religion she created had Priests and Priestesses who stood between herself and Nimrod, as rulers, and the people. And of course the 'Divine mother' Semiramis would have a 'promised' son who would be elevated over God and become a God himself. In time she proclaimed herself Deity...for only a god could produce a god...thus made herself "Queen of Heaven".

All Mythology, false religions, and False Gods came from these three people in Babylon:

Nimrod - Deity Ruler King

Semiramis - His prostitute wife, "Queen Mother"

Dammuzi - their illegitimate son Deity and future King

There were over 5,000 Goddesses from Semiramis in Babylon and established throughout the world.

There were also many "Mother Child" Cults which developed, here's just three:

Semiramis and her son..."God Incarnate"

India's Goddess....Deva and Krishna

Egyptian...Isis and Horus

*(Interesting archeology photos of these mother/son deities are quite revealing.)

Thanks for giving the opportunity to share what I've learned thus far Editor...though you might not be interested it was fun doing this.

Mary was not His mother. Mary was Jesus’ woman.

Ah, yeah, kewl Biker talk as decoder ring deciphered by the Snowflake Sect. Is Biker talk a part of Snowflake Sect doctrine these days along with tats and rock music services? You're replying to a sterling example of why we're told to not throw pearls before swine. And it sure looks like the Snowflake Sect is just chock full of American Yorkshires because the majority of them consider Scripture to be just another toy to drag around in their wallow.

So the theory from the Snowflake Sect is that Christ (who they regularly accuse of being too stupid in human form to express Himself clearly) was so bored and disinterested that He never corrected the Apostles for referring to Mary as His Mother. True, the Snowflake Sect also insist the Christian canon is wrong and instead adopt the Pharisee canon in spite of Christ and the Apostles never making a peep about what would be a major issue if "Scripture Alone" weren't hokum. So, obviously, it's important to the Snowflake Sect to argue that Christ and the Apostles were all bored and disinterested most of the time. Only a bored and disinterested crew would not take issue with these things unless they were relying on tradition as well as the written word. It's really sad, but the Snowflake Sect refuse to accept the Christian canon, have no life in them, refuse to believe in Jesus Christ and preach their own Jesus Christ 2.0 as the real Christ, and all of that flows from their self worship and the blindness self worship always causes. The more they babble the more they sound like the Watchtower crowd or the LDS tribe. All we can do is pray for them and I strongly suspect saying Hail Marys for them is the very best way to go about it. It sure is the trigger that upsets them, almost as much as Christ and Him crucified upsets them in spite of their pretending to be Christian.

Regards

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.