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.
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.
very sad.
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 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.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.
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.