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.
“I can’t seem to find any reference or instructions to pray or even talk to those who have passed from this life.”
The reference is that Jesus clearly is seen conversing with Elijah and Moses in Mark 9:4. Elijah and Moses are dead (as far as this earth)
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..." Exodus 19:4,5.
"If the image is meant to show the true God is not idolatry."
Since we have not physically seen the true God yet, then anything man makes to represent His likeness, or Mary's likeness, is idolatry. "Meant to" is not a loophole in God's Word.
Good point. Mary is venerated not worshipped. There’s a difference. BTW, I have heard that both Luther and Calvin believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity which would be anathema to modern day protestants. Certainly Luther had great reverence for Mary.
Jesus at that point was in His glorified body. He also didnt allow the apostles to speak to them did He.
Just another instance of changing glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. Not a good practice per scripture.
“Since we have not physically seen the true God yet, ...”
Yes, we have seen Him - Jesus. Once he was incarnated we are allowed to represent his likeness because he showed us how he looks. The Shroud of Turin, and the mandylion are true representatives of Christ’s face and the early orthodox icons were modeled on the shroud.
The word icon in Greek for image is the word for an image such as seen in a mirror - the image is a version of reality.
Claiming that Jesus went up to the mountain to pray and prayed to Moses and Elijah or for the purpose of praying TO them.
Satan tried a similar tactic when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness.
Hey, I didn’t translate it and capitalize the name of God.
I just posted what it says and it says what it says.
No, Mary was not sinless.
Mary was a sinner, just like you and me. She proclaimed that fact herself (or did she lie?)
Excuse me but that is EXACTLY what you siad in post 356.
In Luke Chapter 9 Verse 28 Jesus himself prays to Moses and Elijah (saints) for them to join him and they do on the mountaintop.
And you didn't say He was praying WITH them and neither does Scripture. Scripture says that He was talking to them.
Not kidding - that was the purpose of Jesus’ incarnation - to reveal God to us and to redeem us.
You do believe that Jesus is God right?
So you believe God died, eh?
On the contrary, it seems like his number two objective is to convince the world that Mary, that she being ever virgin, and believing that she is the mother of GOD, is important to salvation.
The only thing necessary to believe about Mary is that she was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth. That fulfills the prophecy and is all that's important.
These are MY ideas & should be understood as such. I do NOT have the SAME authority to speak for the Church in the same manner as a Priest. = Just as an ordinary citizen of the USA doesn't have the same authority as a President, Congressman, Judge, Ambassador & such.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church such as paragraph 105: ‘For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age...’ = The term Holy Mother Church is used by the Catholic Church as a self description. The term probably started when the Church members started writing things down.
I'm sure the Priests use the term ‘Our’ Church to emphasis that we are ALL part of the Church.
It is easy to understand why the term is used. Eve is called the mother of all Living. (Gen3:20) & The Church is called the ‘Bride of Christ’ through out Scripture. The Church enters Heaven as the Bride of Christ see Revelations.
We as Christians are made >alive in Christ (1Cor15:22) Christ said to Peter, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Matt16:18. It has been the Church as the visible body of Jesus Christ that has transmitted the Faith. Out of the Church came the Bible. The Church administers ALL the sacraments.
This is from a Protestant Bible (NIV) because I didn't want it to thought of as ‘only’ a Catholic verse. 2Peter1: 20-21, ‘First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’
We know Christ built a Church & it was built on Peter. We also know the Holy Spirit descended on the Church on Pentecost Sunday. Our Faith comes to us through the Church. Many Protestants think ‘they’ receive a message from God that is different from what is taught by the Catholic Church. Joseph Smith said he actually saw God & spoke with him face to face.
True Humility in this world must include the willingness to accept your 'place' in this world. There is only one Church & one Pope. Sometimes in my heart, I lack true-Charity & I want to say to Protestants, 'Who elected you Pope?; I don't see no Pope hat on your head.; Are you getting messages straight from God or are you making things up?; How does God speak to you?; Are you listening to voices in your head or does God actually appear?' I try not to get 'snarky' and just trust that 'Faith comes by hearing & hearing through the Word of God.' >>The Bible tells us there is only One Church. The title: Holy Mother our Church makes sense. Our Church is the mother of all the living because it's the Body of Jesus Christ. Maybe, asking a Priest would be best for an explanation of ‘Holy Mother our Church.’
No it wouldn't. Sheesh, Catholics need to get over thinking that any disagreement with someone doctrine damns them.
Mary's virginity after Jesus' birth has nothing to do with anyone's salvation.
>> What historical event created that mess? <<
No particular event, but a chain of spiritual decay over centuries through replacement of the word of God with oral traditions of deeply sinful men, that led to the total perversion of the word ‘church’ that the so-called Roman Catholic “church” represents.
Most of their daily practices are prohibited by God’s word, yet they proceed (calling men ‘Father,’ repetitive prayers to dead humans, use of prayer beads, idols hung on walls, or in prominant places in the church buildings, people kneeling before those idols to pray to them, etc.)
I see that the main personal attack to which I was responding is still there glowing red hot.
That’s what prayer constitutes - a spoken or unspoken address to a deity, saint, etc. Talking to a saint in any form is prayer.
Just as God needs nothing from us, the saints — those saved by grace in Christ Jesus, among whom the Church has always held the Virgin Mary as foremost, in that her “yes” to Christ was the means of His Incarnation without which He could not have wrought our salvation on the Cross, and thus of a universal significance that the “yes” to Christ every other saint has offered, offers today or will offer in the future does not have — the saints do not need anything from us, neither titles nor prayers.
The titles exist for us. Among the Orthodox we use lots of titles for different saints to remind us of the evidence or form of their sanctity: the Holy Great-Martyr George (a Great-Martyr is one whose martyrdom led others to accept martyrdom for Christ), the Venerable Bede (”Venerable” indicates one whose sanctity shown chiefly in asceticism), Our Father Among the Saints Raphael of Brooklyn (that title indicates one whose ministry and sanctity involved teaching sound doctrine), the Passion-Bearers Boris and Gleb (that title indicates one whose sanctity was shown in meekly accepting death in a Christ-like manner, but who was not killed for being a Christian), the Fool-for-Christ’s-Sake Xenia of St. Petersburg (one who showed sanctity by an extreme ascesis which the world would mistake for madness), the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian (the first titles two are obvious, ‘the Theologian’ is a rare title, indicating great depth of teaching of sound doctrine) and so forth. In this case, though, the title “Theotokos” is chiefly about Jesus, not about Mary, though it, as well as the Nestorian alternative, also reminds us of the evidence and form of her sanctity.
I know you didn’t and I have seen it translated both ways and with a small g as well.
If you are not familiar with the early Eastern Church fathers their language and way of expounding of Scripture will seem very foreign to you. That is why I posted the link so you could see the orthodox Christology of St. Anathasius.
Of course the whole concept of being partakers of the Divine nature and of growing in sanctified grace to become truly holy would be at odds with the teaching on imputed righeteousness and forensic justification. I don’t even know if the idea was even addressed by the Reformers.
It’s irrelevant what Jesus looked like and probably the reason we don’t have any pictures is so that nobody violates the 2nd commandment and makes images to worship.
It’s bad enough that anyone worships a small, white, round wafer because it allegedly represents Christ.
Let’s see, we’ve had Apollinarians, adoptionists, Nestorians (in droves), now we’ve got iconoclasts. I wonder: how many other classical heresies will show up before this thread dwindles into oblivion?
This is just getting ridiculous. Now just TALKING to a saint is praying for them? How ludicrous is that?
When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, He didn't add any of the nonsense the Catholic church claims is prat of prayer or IS prayer.
Luke 11 1 Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples. 2 And he said to them, When you pray, say:
Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread, 4 and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.
Luke 11:9-13 9 And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 11 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12 or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!
Jesus Himself promised that God HIMSELF would answer our prayers TO HIM.
How can praying to saints even be justified without spitting in God's face about His integrity?
The simple question is are those two paintings idols in your judgement.
The question before that was: Do you even know what an idol is?
Notice these are question only you can answer. Not a request for copy and paste, but your knowledge and judgement. The same that you use to declare others worship idols.
If you cannot be given examples and say whether they are idols or not and why, there is no reason for anyone to put any credence in your judgement of idols or idol worship.
From your dodging, it is obvious now that you don’t even know what an idol is.
Its not surprising that a catholic would not grasp this basic fact, but that is how it is.
After Jesus arose he had a bloodless, incorruptible body.
Thank you Brother. I think it speaks volumes that this clear Scriptural point is denied. We can only pray that some see the truth and will turn to Jesus rather than Mary.
Surely at least a proto-gnostic will appear. :)
Since it is the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ we are worshipping Him. When I pray before a crucifix I know that is not really an actual deity. The crucifix on its own is without power, without the ability to grant boons or dispense blessings. It is however a reminder to me of the great suffering Our Lord endured for our salvation. It is an image but an image of what an artist thought the true God Incarnate, Jesus Christ looked like.
To me this issue was settled by the Iconoclast controversy which answered the concerns with the 2nd Commandment. If one holds to that commandment without exception one would be as restrictive as Muslims are supposed to be when it comes to depictions of the natural world as well as the constructed world. But we know God can not contradict Himself and in the fashioning of the Ark of the Covenant He even commands the depiction of images. So obviouly images are permitted. God would never allow the adoring of graven images so one must conclude that not all images are graven images.
The Book of Samuel describes King David and the people of Israel dancing before the Ark,
“He and all his men went to Baalah[a] in Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name,[b] the name of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim on the ark. 3 They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart 4 with the ark of God on it,[c] and Ahio was walking in front of it. 5 David and all Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with castanets,[d] harps, lyres, timbrels, sistrums and cymbals”
Now I ask you was David celebrating before a graven image because the Ark had carvings of cherubim on it? Or was it truly a sign that God Himself was amongst them.
Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. 9 Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.”
Meaning that when King David danced before the Ark He was giving homage and adoration to the one True God?
Catholics and Orthodox take the latter view and apply it to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and keep the consecrated Eucharist in the Tabernacle.
Now if you do not believe Christ is truly present and that the host is only unleavened bread it would indeed be a grave sin to adore it and to give it a place of honor. No question about that.
But Catholics and Orthodox hold that the Lord is truly present in the Eucharist. So we adore no false god but the Alpha and Omega, Himself.
I want to thank you for your civil tone despite are very real differences. I pray that God will always bless you with a heart fully turned towards Him in all you do.
>> “...in that her ‘yes’ to Christ was the means of His Incarnation without which He could not have wrought our salvation on the Cross” <<
You are grossly mistaken.
The Bible records no ‘yes,’ just an announcement delivered by Gabriel, to the effect that she was with child, and that it was a sign of favor.
Just more convoluted Maryolatry.
>> “It is an image but an image of what an artist thought the true God Incarnate, Jesus Christ looked like.” <<
Which is exactly what is forbidden by God’s word. - Its idolatry as defined in God’s word.
Protestantism lost the worship of the early and current Church.
So to them, praying or pray to/ask is worship. In fact, with no clear worship, almost anything can be worship.
Showing respect to a religious figure is worship for example.
And many are clueless about what an idol is.
It’s a confusion of worship that is at the root of much of this silliness. Combined with ignorance on what an idol is, you get these nonsensical accusations of idol worship.
Mary isn't important to eternal salvation. It is heresy to claim there is any way to salvation other than through Jesus Christ.
BTW, thank you for showing why the cult of Mary should be condemned by all Christians.
Mary was a good jewish girl who was given a task by God and she did it.
It is eye opening isn’t it. I am not disturbed by the fact that Protestants do not hold with teachings binding on the Catholic and Orthodox faithful such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, I am disturbed at the total divorce so many hvae from the classical Christology of all orthodox Christians including the Reformers.
“Let it be according to Thy will.”
Wrong again. God Himself commanded the carving of an image when He gave Moses the design for the Ark of the Covenant.
“I wonder: how many other classical heresies will show up before this thread dwindles into oblivion?”
We seem to be running the gamut - the iconoclasts, the Nestorians, the Arians, a touch of Albigensianism, you name it. All heresies are repeats of the lies of Satan that recycle through time.
We seem to have no new agers yet i.e. neo pagans yet - is that the same as a proto-gnostic?
Hillaire Belloc knew the same heresies endlessly reappear, but he thought at least Arianism was dead, I’m not so sure - there is a lot of confusion on Christ’s nature here and other than the catholic apologists, no clue as to the concept of the hypostatic union.
St. Augustine, ora pro nobis.
St. Dominic, ora pro nobis.
St. Francis de Sales, ora pro nobis.
What does the Bible say?
He breathed His last, If you breathe your last what dos that mean happend to you?
Yep! Straight from the source.
Catholics insisting they don’t pray “TO” when the Vatican clearly says otherwise equates to their own “personal interpretation”. IMO
“to them, praying or pray to/ask is worship...”
Exactly - I tried to make this point in another post as well- Catholics worship Christ in the highest form in the mass/Orthodox in the Divine liturgy. Therefore we are free to love, pray with and to the saints, etc. because we know we are not worshipping them. Worship takes place in the mass.
As you point out that is exactly the root of this silliness!! No sense going in circles - the root of the problem must be addressed, and that is the true nature of worship.
PS - We can worship Christ outside of the mass, too of course, but the above holds true as to being free to love and have relationships with the saints.
sh01: We seem to be running the gamut - the iconoclasts, the Nestorians, the Arians, a touch of Albigensianism, you name it. All heresies are repeats of the lies of Satan that recycle through time. We seem to have no new agers yet i.e. neo pagans yet - is that the same as a proto-gnostic?
Luke 18:9-14 9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get. 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, God, be merciful to me, a sinner! 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.
2 Corinthians 10:12 Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.
Labels, labels, labels. Where would Catholic be without labels? Goodness, they wouldn't know how to categorize everyone so they could sit in judgment on them.
thanks for your reply.
>>>We seem to have no new agers yet i.e. neo pagans yet - is that the same as a proto-gnostic?
What I’m thinking of is those who claim special, secret knowledge and claim they know and you just can’t know. Proto-gnostics.
They speak for the ‘spirit’ and those who disagree are carnal. The most extreme will compare themselves to Jesus speaking parables. So it is proto-Gnostic Megalomania.
“Mary isn’t important to eternal salvation .... Mary was a good Jewish girl who was given a task by God and she did it.”
Not important?? If she had said no - hadn’t “done the task” - there would be no incarnate Jesus, therefor no salvation. Not important??
In order for anyone to give credence to your opinion of idol worship, they'd have to have some credence in your ability to determine what an idol is.
If you cannot say what is an idol or not and why, your declarations on threads of idol worship are worthless.
So, I ask you for a demonstration:
These are definitions of errors - no one is judging.
Yeah, we really should avoid that label “idol worshipers” and such.
The labels define beliefs and are named to describe the belief or, usually, after those who preached them. Here, we have new permutations and combinations, so perhaps we should say: Metmomism, CynicalBearism...
We see examples of the modern theology that each individual determines scripture, interpretation, doctrine faith, worship, practice and church. The tie that binds is opposition to the Church. The most accurate overall label would be NotCatholicism.
label = heretic = judging
God sure would have been stymied, wouldn't He?
Imagine the bind He'd have been in if Mary had said no. That would have ruined everything.
I guess God's not smart enough to have contingency plans, eh?
>> “In order for anyone to give credence to your opinion of idol worship, they’d have to have some credence in your ability to determine what an idol is.” <<
I simply went by the definition in God’s word: If it is intended to look like God, it is an idol.
Please quit D-fending Satan’s hand made church.
Luke 1:26-38 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you! 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be.
30 And the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.
34 And Mary said to the angel, How will this be, since I am a virgin?
35 And the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holythe Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said, Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word. And the angel departed from her.
No. No permission asked. She was told what was going to happen.
Her choice was to willingly submit or not.
I find it highly unlikely that any Jewish girl would have turned down the privilege of being the Messiah's mother.
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.