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.
Why do you get these implications? Should we change the facts of the Incarnation to avoid them? Change who Jesus is? If you get that Jesus is not God because He had a mother, then just drop it.
He is God, He had a mother, her name was Mary; that's the fact of the Incarnation.
Wow, didn’t see THAT one coming...Let me put on my thinking cap to see what’s next..pot calling kettle black..seriously, get some more “put down” responses. It’s like you seem to be the Henney Youngman of posting. “Take my tripe, please...”
It's in the Catechism of the Catholic church itself.
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
Tell me, anyone on the other side, what does this mean?
"That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, How God ANNOINTED JESUS OF NAZARETH WITH THE HOLY GHOST and WITH POWER: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was WITH HIM." Acts 10:37,38.
It never means what it says. It always means what the RCC says it means.
Honestly, that is so old.
Is the Catholic church that literately challenged that it can't write something that means what they want it to mean?
the mask is slipping again.
ok, here we go , one more time.
you are supposed to be an ex-catholic, keep the story somewhat plausible by at least TRYING to come close to what the Catholic Faith teaches. i am trying to prop you up, but you keep embarassing yourself with posts that a first grader knows aren’t true.
my search continues..........
Here are a couple interesting things to ponder:
The original sin was passed down through Adam or to say the man's contribution to the fertilization. If the Holy Spirit used Mary's egg and provided a perfectly holy “sperm” male half of the genetic package, Jesus would not have been subject to the original sin. He also would have maintained his lineage back to David and Judah because of Mary's genetics.
I personally believe God was foiling Satan's plan to destroy the Messiah in this way, by bypassing the curse that Satan inflicted on the first couple Adam & Eve.
The alternative is that the Holy Spirit provided the perfect and Holy entire genetic package sans Mary's egg, which of course He is capable of doing. This would negate the lineage that is so stressed throughout the Old Testament.
Either way, Mary's necessity of being being Deity is removed from the equation, and makes the most sense based on the text. She may have contributed the egg, which would make her the mother of Jesus, but not need the perfection that calling her God's mother necessitates.
Should I get out the popecorn?
Where is worship mentioned in that verse?
Where did I mention worship?
By trhe evidence in this thread, Catholics believe that Mary became sinless, and became a god.
Where is the “untruth?”
Matthew 9:9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collectors booth. Follow me, he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
Mark 3:17-19 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means sons of thunder), Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Luke 6:14-16 14 Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
If one has the honesty to read it.
Care to be the first non-Catholic on this thread, or does it just feel better to believe Catholics teach polytheism?
name one post that states Mary became a god.
by their fruits you will know them folks, and by the evidence in this thread, many hate the Church more than they love the truth.
cue the crickets for anyone that believes Mary became a god.
Another cool aspect that you probably know already is that Joseph adopted Jesus, and allowed for some critical lineages that were in Old Testament prophesy to be fulfilled.
Satan didn’t stand a chance, praise God!
The catholic heresy is not “The Church.”
The Church is all the believers, whever they may be. The catholic mess was born 300+ years after Christ ascended.
If you haven't heard it before, you might also be interested in The Easter Homily of St John Chrysostom
Near the end, starting with "Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free." is where I'm thinking of in regards to your post. Not the same but another view and aspect.
Wow, it’s amazing what you’ll believe without checking sources.
Josephus did NOT mention Semiaramis at all, nor any wife for Nimrod.
FURTHER, the word King James translates as “Queen” in “Queen of Heaven” is better translated “worship” : Meleketh. The word otherwise translated as “Queen” is “Malkah.” Although they have similar roots, from “Melekh,” meaning “king,” one connotes a female relative of a king, whereas the other connotes someone who sets herself as an object of worship. Having no bride, a king’s mother (the “Queen mother,” in British heraldry) would be Malkah. 1 Kings 15:13, King Asa’s mom is called “Malkah.”
Those called Malkah include Esther, Sheba, and Vashti, Asa’s Mom, Maachah, and Tahpenes, the pharoah’s wife.
Meanwhile, Meleketh only is only ever used to refer to the sky-god of Jeremiah, suggesting that James made a completely bad translation.
(Incidentally, Josephus is anti-Christian. Christians cite him merely because he provides the Jewish view of history, which confirms the bible against some Roman historians.)
Correction, I flipped those.
Josephs adoption created the Kingly lineage to David and Mary’s Priestly lineage.
I’m sorry, but where is the evidence on this thread that Catholics believe that Mary became a god?
LOL, i guess history isn’t your strong suit.
i’m still waiting for who believes Mary became a god.
does truth mean anything to you??
I will check it out. Being raised an Irish Catholic alter boy, I have no problem with the Godly teaching from my Catholic brothers.
Yes, of course. St. Paul wrote to “The First Methodist Church of 324 Appian Way, Rome.”
>> “but the Bible says it was really him” <<
Of course it was really him, in his incorruptible body.
You’ve swallowed way too many camels!
Just exactly what we’ve all come to expect from you.
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation
i guess St Ignatius writing 60 years after Jesus ascended and after being taught personally by St John didn’t get your memo about the catholic “mess” appearing 300+ years after Christ.
btw - do you agree with Joey Smith the Church went apostate in the 1st century? are you Mormon?
Both history and the Church in the New Testament seems to give some problems.
It’s hard to “see” the invisible-only church of each individual deciding his/her own scripture, interpretation, doctrine and teaching in either place. The church of the individual is barely a couple hundred years old, if that.
Actually, the term “Catholic” was used to describe the Church of the Bishops who traced their authority to the apostles, as early as the first century. The term means universal. The common understanding of this to mean, “worldwide” is incorrect. Actually, “Roman” was used to signify “throughout the Roman Empire,” which the Romans understood as “worldwide.”
“Catholic,” on the other hand, meant, “universal” in the sense of “objective.” The Gnostics believed that one could discern occultic (”hidden”) meanings of scriptures, and claimed visionary powers to know of events they did not witness. There is the mystery religion which so many Freepers love to rant about. “Catholic,” in contrast, meant that anyone could know the basic the tenets of the faith, and those tenets had the same meaning to everyone; it was a denial of “subjective reality.”
As such, by the 2nd century, the true Christians were citing their belonging to the “Catholic Church” as an appeal to the authority of the disciples and objective knowledge; the Catholic Church was the bishops’ church. In essence, the Catholics offered a choice: believe in the Gnostics, and who knows what you know what they may invent, or believe in the Catholics, and follow the bishops who openly assert their beliefs.
Again, building on my own post #678, the Catholic church was the “visible” church, as opposed to the Gnostic church, the “occultic” church.
You don’t surprise me much either, ES.
Evidence of the most basic study of the Church in Acts and afterward now that would surprise me.
Yes, thank you. Catholic means universal, also meaning the same everywhere, i.e., One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Something we notice by its lack outside the Church.
something tells me ES is a Ellen White devotee, so you can see where the distaste for the Church comes from.
I’ll add my AMEN to that prayer! :o)
Cool, BB and thanks !
Don’t tell some others here, but we got us an intercessory prayer group going.
The Chruch in Acts was the real church, 350 years before the catholic mess began.
So where is the ‘heresy’ you claim then?
“...350 years before the catholic mess began.”
When did the “mess” begin? What historical event created that “mess”?
So the fact that Christ Himself is the First Born Image through the Incarnation is to you the same as a stone carving of a man or bird which is adored and worshiped as a deity? For that is what those artists are depicting that God became flesh. If the image is meant to show the true God it is not idolatry. We can show images of Jesus because Jesus Incarnate is no false god but truly eternal God before all ages.
As to responding to your contention that Leonardo’s “Last Supper” is what lead to the horrible sin of pederasty I have never come across such blatant and outright example of logic fail in all my born days.
Actually, I do pay my Mother such respect. She is alive now, so there is no statue. But when she passes, I shall make a tombstone for my mother. And when I can (it’ll probably be in another state), I shall visit that site.
Some Christians talk to their departed loved ones. As Catholics, we’re actually warned against that, since we do not know for certainty the final state of a loved one’s souls. I imagine many take the presumption, anyway. Since I know Mary is in Heaven, I pray with her that she pray with me to Christ, our Lord. (Some may say, “pray TO her.” That’s an otherwise archaic use of the word, which simply means to request, not to worship. A lot of Catholics shy away from that usage, since it confuses Protestants, but it is in significant Catholic literature.) Since my mother might merely be in purgatory, I would pray FOR her.
But if you think Catholics love for Mary is ordinate, you haven’t seen the love the Irish, or the Italians, or the Spanish, show for their Moms.
I certainly do. My mom would kill me if I didn't.
As to responding to your contention that Leonardos Last Supper is what lead to the horrible sin of pederasty I have never come across such blatant and outright example of logic fail in all my born days.A good point.
So CynicalBear, you claim that celebrating Christmas, as all Catholics do is pagan, you appear to claim that having a Crucifix is IDOL worship (although you have carefully avoided answering directly at least FOUR times on this thread if that really is what you believe) and now you appear to claim that religious art is the proximate cause of clerical pederasty. Is that right?
Get in line. I’m still waiting to hear his judgement on whether the paintings are idols.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
How do you know what Jesus looked like in order to paint an “image” of Him? How do you know what Mary looked like in order to claim she is seen in an “apparition”? You are not showing “images of Jesus or Mary”. You have no idea what they looked like. You are creating man’s image and calling that image “Christ” or “Mary”, or whoever it is you decide to venerate. When I say “you” I am talking plural, as in “you”, the RCC.
It appears that some idols beget pederasts. Odd.
Ok, your judgement will have to do for now:
Are the paintings idols?
If you think Ellen Gould White is bad, you should realize a lot of this stuff comes from the insane rantings of a Scottish madman by the name of Hislop. He ties every quirky thing ever found in Europe to the Zoroastrians, turning the very nature of Zoroastrianism on its head so it seems more like Catholicism, and vice versa.
So, he makes the “Courtesan (prostitute) of the Gods” into a virgin, the slayer of Tammuz into his lover, etc.
The crazy thing, of course, is that Zoroastrianism, at least as it existed once transplanted into Rome and updated to counter Christianity, bears far more similarity to certain aspects of Christianity that aren’t particularly Catholic than to those which are. Many early Christians (and C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein) explain this by asserting that Christianity is the true myth, and that Zoroastrians received glimpses of the truth, which they perverted due to their own sinfulness. Now, we know that the Romans were weaving elements of Christianity into an older religion, much the way New Agers have made Druidism and other pagan religions much more acceptable to modern sensibilities.
My judgement will have to do for now? Bwhahaha!! Who do you think you are, part of the Inquisition Team? lol.