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.
Of course it does. As the world religions begin to move together those who are Catholics had better take heed.
In that case, all the credit actually goes to Eve...Had she not sinned, there would be no Catholic Church...You and I wouldn't exist...
Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
It is flat out ludicrous to even consider that Mary saying no would have changed the course of the kingdom that was prepared from the foundation of the world...
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Guess God would have been pretty miffed had Mary said no...What, with all the planning that he put into it...
And all that Old Testament stuff...God would have had to of tossed the OT had Mary said no...
Hey, I wonder if God might have predestinated Mary as well...Apparently not...Your religion says no...
1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Course, you guys may be right...Let's kick God off that throne and put Mary up there...The entire course of the earth and heaven rested on Mary's shoulders; whether she would say yes or no...Mary could have stopped the fulfillment of God's plan; stop him dead in his tracks...
Mary, Queen of Creation...
Ok.. Let's explore your view and see what happens.
Is anyone who looks at it guilty of idolatry? Anyone who walks past it? Only the painter who created it? Anyone who doesn't destroy it?
Just where is the idolatry here and why?
If you compare figures in Christianity with figures in myths and denounce any similarities, then do it. You can't do one and not others. Not and maintain integrity.
Your method and approach are a mainstay of atheism. You're just trying to apply it where you want to and not apply where you don't. It bites you in the rear whether you like it or not.
Of course, I will differ from you, lastchance, though hopefully amicably.
I did a study of Marian visions and messages. Granted, it has been a few years ago, and I am rusty on the subject, but I found way too much "consecrate to ME", and "MY immaculate heart" going on in it all... ME, ME, ME, MY, MY, MY... I know that is a generality, but it is the impression I was left with. I realize there is a message, as you define above, but it is secondary to the subject at hand, which is the apparition herself.
I find that to be disconcerting. YHWH's messengers (angels do this work generally) do not focus anything on themselves. the focus is always toward YHWH, to include the prophets and Christ Himself.
Oh good grief. You didn’t notice that all of that is after God “gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts”? Verse 30 on is as a result of the images they made and then God “gave them up”. The CC twists scripture to try to excuse the images and idols they love.
Was Christ “fully man” or only partially man?
That passage as well as the 2nd Commandment refers to idolatry. The worshipping of graven images. It is indeed a reference to the religious practices of the Gentiles which included such foul practices as temple prostitution and gay sex.
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Despite having the Truth of God revealed to them, they turned away from God and made graven images which they said were truly God or gods take your pick and worshipped those images. Paul, in case you have forgotten was outlining how man had fallen away from God and proclaiming that Christ died for us.
There is nothing in that chapter of Romans to suggest that the making of an image (as in art) in and of itself is forbidden.
Or prepare them for the coming anti Christ who will convince them that he is the Christ.
Anyone who believes it depicts God and gives it credence.
Now tell me. Would you destroy those and all statues just to be on the safe side or are they too valuable to you?
Here they celebrated Holy Eucharist as taught by Christ in the Last Supper. All liturgies since are modeled on the liturgy here. There are frescos illustrating the life of Christ as well as OT figures.
The question is the same: Were they practicing idolatry?
***1 Corinthians15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.***
Paul here is reinforcing the Truth that the flesh and blood of man cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, that animal sacrifice cannot open the gates of heaven for us.
But, and this is MOST important, Jesus was not mere man, though fully human. Jesus was also fully divine, God. It is precisely because Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man that no other flesh and blood could do what His did, i.e.be offered as True and Complete Sacrifice for our redemption.
Jesus’ body was not subject to sin and was therefore, incorruptible, unlike us who are mere human and had need of Jesus as Savior to inherit.
Corruption does not inherit incorruption meaning quite simply, again, that no other human could have been offered as sacrifice for sin. Jesus was the only human not corrupt.
***If you claim it was the same body after resurrection as it was before you must deny that Jesus was truly human.***
Not at all. The body which rose, was the body which was born, lived, died and was buried and was then raised up.
Jesus says this Himself.
Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Jesus was the first fruit, the One in whom the promises of God are delivered unto us.
The conclusion that what I have written in any way denies that Jesus was truly human is another error. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The case you make is much like that of those who denied Jesus had a truly human body both BEFORE and AFTER His death.
So are the statues of Buda idols? What about the images in Egypt?
Except that the method is applied in directly the opposite fashion. I have proven to my satisfaction that the Bible is TRUE. And in proving that, the Bible can be applied as a sure standard... a measuring rod as it were. Things that don't measure up can be discarded...
Atheists do not have such a standard to measure by, and therein lies their fault. Furthermore, many of the points they settle upon go away if one looks to Yeshua rather than the Greek/Roman Christ. It is a subtle difference, but a more Hebrew mindset opens one's eyes.
For instance, YHWH's insistence that He be worshiped in a particular fashion... *not* to introduce heathen customs as forms of worship to Him. Did YHWH change His mind? Heaven forbid! But here we are today with a worship system that in no way resembles what HE defined. It is an astonishment to understand that every pagan holy day is revered in Christianity, but not ONE of YHWH's Holy Days is observed... Not a single one. Doesn't that bother you?
Jesus looks like anything he wants to look like at any given time...He appears as a lamb, a lion, a frightening figure to the Apostle John, and in the OT Jesus showed up as an angel and took on the appearance of different men...
Mar 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
This ought to be clear to anyone that Jesus does not look like he did as his appearance in the flesh...
When we read before and after this passage, we understand that Jesus is speaking of His Ascension, not His resurrection. We know this because after His resurrection, He was seen and heard and touched.
Nope...Jesus was not touched before his ascension...
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Where in my post did I imply that Mary’s perpetual virginity had anything to do with salvation? You read way too much into my post.
BTW, I’d be interested in knowing of any Protestant leader who’s comfortable that dogma.
The intense and vitriolic defense of Catholic statues and images is telling.
So all the visitors in the picture who know what the painting depicts are idolaters. Ok. I think we see where your view leads.
Look at this picture:
Think this is a depiction of Jesus at the last supper?
Answer yes and you're an idolater.
Would you destroy those and all statues just to be on the safe side or are they too valuable to you?
Based on your views of idolatry? No, I don't think your opinion on idolatry is worth anything as you've demonstrated here.
Your method of scriptural interpretation fails and along with it your personal interpretation. Resulting in absurdity, incapable of surviving the slightest examination.
So, no, personally, I wouldn't change the channel based on your opinion.
Your method is applied in exactly the same fashion as atheist. You just want to pick and choose where to apply it.
So, are you saying that the human Jesus needed a Savior?
Think about this... because Jesus says that He lays down His life and He will take it back up again. No one could take it from Him.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
***They cannot withstand the presence of God, just as Christ’s could not, until it was changed.***
Where does Scripture say this about Christ?
Think about the Transfiguration. Jesus is seen by the three Apostles in His glory. His physical body, not a spirit but the body which was born and died. And this before His death and resurrection.
Tell me then, since you seem to be saying that the human body of Jesus needed a Savior, when do you believe He was redeemed?
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.