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.
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
HEAR! HEAR!
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.” <<
.
Fallacy!
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 holy—the 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.