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.
The slugs who routinely begin threads to repeat their lies about the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ as well as all Christians who do not share their bizarre heresy need to have salt poured on them. And you, my friend, are the winner of the first Salter of Anti-Catholic Heretic Slugs Award. I wish I could afford to present you with a nice porcelain "idol" for your shelf, but for now this will have to do:
Now anyone who really cares can refer back to this thread and see where the usual suspects openly admit they do not believe in the diety of Jesus Christ as it is spelled out in the Bible. God bless you and keep up the good work.
I wouldnt have it in my house nor would I attend a church that had it displayed.
I wasnt asking about what I thought about the images and statues. I asked if you would destroy them just to be on the safe side. Are you saying the risk is worth keeping and saving them?
Come on this is silly. If Mary could have said no I think it's a safe bet that there were at least 100,000 other good Jewish women who were praying that they might serve God by bringing the Messiah into the world.
Why does Mary have to be given special status and powers? Isn't it enough to just recognize she was a good woman who when given a task by God did it joyfully. Mary has nothing to do with your salvation.
You can only be saved by Jesus Christ and no one stands between you and Him. Trust in Jesus don't let this out of control cult of Mary lead you to damnation.
Be truthful, I did not write about Catholic statues but of the difference between an image and an idol using art as an example of an image that is not an idol. I also was clear to explain that to adore an image of any kind as if it were really God (as in present amongst us and taking the form of the statue or the picture) would indeed by idolatry.
Please find me one Catholic or Orthodox who treats icons as if Jesus were truly in that Icon. That He was made manifest in that icon instead of it being a means to focus our attention on the Savior and to give evidence of our affection for Him.
You won’t. Anymore than you will find us believing our families are truly present in photographs of them.
****No. No permission asked. She was told what was going to happen.
Her choice was to willingly submit or not.****
Are you saying here that God would have forced Mary to bear Jesus had she not submitted?
That is not the God I know from Scriptures. Maybe you could tell me more about this god whom you just described?
I respect you for your consistency.
I would hope that if I put anything or any person before the Lord I would realize this sin and remedy it.
Man makes idols of many things.
****Was Christ not full human?****
So, Christ died for Himself?
CB, you have just totally boggled my mind. The extent with which you must contort and deny Truth is astounding.
Christ is eternal, His sacrifice is also eternal. That God would become Incarnate for the redemption of our sins was eternally known to Him. The human Jesus did not need redemption and was not corruptible.
Perhaps you wish someday to join the muslims in destroying the art of the Church. It's been going on for centuries; it's happening today.
When that evil wind blows wherever it blows, individuals comprising their own individual churches are lost in the wind. The Church will survive as she always has. Surviving against all who try to tear her down.
Compared to the gates of hell, you're efforts here are easily laughed off.
Then he was never tempted...Bible must be wrong...
Let's see, should I risk being called an idolater based on your silly opinion. Should I join with the muslim view and destroy the art of Christiandom? Should I risk the wrath of the secular world and government by displaying the art of my faith? Should I hide it and deny it and turn my back on the Martyrs of the Church?
Or should I see and share the Beauty that is from God, the Beauty and Truth of Christ's Church as expressed in art?
Ok, I've considered it properly. Can you guess my answer?
Thank you, Rashputin. I shall carry my salt proudly and always try to use it wisely.
For the record, what I wrote was my own words and understanding of that Scripture. I did not consult the CC so your charge right there is false.
Also, I did not in any way twist Scripture, I explained my understanding of the verse you posted, within the context in which is was written.
There is nothing there regarding the making of a physical image of God. Paul is speaking of men/women who knowing the truth of God, make Him out to be nothing more than those He created.
Good grief, try reading it in context and not to suit an preformed belief.
From a Protestant Bible (NIV) Matthew 16: 17-19, ‘And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I didn’t say the word ‘rock’ but you knew Peter means Rock. You must know at that moment in the fullness of time Jesus Christ changed the name of Simon to Peter (rock). In the Bible, Jesus is building a Church. I recommend you find the Church established by Jesus Christ. Until 1054 AD there was basically ONE Church until the split between East & West.
The Catholic Church is aware of all the passages in the Bible as the Bible came out of the Church. When Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven, He left behind a visible Church to carry-on his work here on Earth. Jesus Christ is the Head & the Church is his Body. (Yet, we Christians are the hands & feet of Jesus doing his work.) If the Catholic Church was just a group of people, it would NOT have lasted for the last TWO THOUSAND years. God is the ‘glue’ that holds it together as the Church truly is the Body of Christ.
Your argument is NOT with me but it’s actually with God. Bless you for reading the Bible. I encourage you to keep reading the Bible. Please try & spot your Church some place in the Bible & then trace your Church through the centuries. Jesus Christ established a Church & the Gates of Hell will not prevail over it.
I keep repeating this obvious observation about the Bible. Jesus Christ did NOT walk the Holy Lands with a sack of Bibles while handing them out saying, ‘read this & argue about it.’ + Jesus did not leave us ‘totally lost’ like a motherless child. Jesus Christ gave us ‘Holy Mother Church’ that provides love & care that only comes from a Mother’s Heart. The Bible & our knowledge about Jesus Christ has come to us through a Church. I recommend you find the Church established by Jesus Christ.
Oh I have no doubt the RCC will be here until the end.
***OT Jesus showed up as an angel and took on the appearance of different men... ****
Please, point me to that in the OT.
***This ought to be clear to anyone that Jesus does not look like he did as his appearance in the flesh...****
***Nope...Jesus was not touched before his ascension...****
The gospels say otherwise...
Luke 25:39 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.
John 20:27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
I thought catholics weren’t allowed their own personal understanding (interpretation)?
Isn’t that the accusation you throw at “protestants”?
Color me confused.
As if to say, do not think highly of Mary because she is the person who is the Mother, but think highly of her because her soul magnifies the Lord. She heard God's voice and always obeyed without question.
i’ve read that somewhere before, where could it be?
***I thought catholics werent allowed their own personal understanding (interpretation)?***
Well, then you thought wrong. Must be due to reading the misrepresentations of the faith from the anti Catholics here.
***Color me confused.***
Not hard to do at all.
Go smash that crucifix you have in your house or the statue of Mary. I dare you.
Can’t answer the question, can you?
That’s okay, dear CB, I knew you couldn’t and therefore wouldn’t.
I don’t destroy art. Sorry just won’t do it.
Satan did the tempting by offering Christ that which He already had all dominion over. The Bible does not tell us that Christ yielded to that temptation. It would be yielding that would be sin not the fact that Satan tried to get Christ to yield.
I don’t recall Christ indicating in anyway He was even considering Satan’s offer, do you?
You are confused. Where the plain meaning of Scripture is just that plain, Catholics are indeed allowed their own understanding. If the words are not plain and if there has been no official interpretation; there also Catholics are allowed their own personal understanding.
It is only when dispute has risen over Scripture and the Church has stated clearly what it means to the faithful that we submit our understanding to the teachings of the Church.
An example would be on passages that some might claim show Christ was not God. Catholics are not permitted to believe these passages mean that Christ is not God.
Being incapable of sin is not the same as being tempted.
Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, but Jesus was not tempted to sin.
temptedpast participle, past tense of tempt (Verb)
Entice or attempt to entice (someone) to do or acquire something that they find attractive but know to be wrong or not beneficial.
Have an urge or inclination to do something: “I was tempted to look at my watch”.
So, though Satan attempted to entice Jesus with promises of the things Satan would give Him, Jesus never had an inclination or an urge to sin.
So you admit on SOME scripture you are “allowed” YOPIOS”?
I already posted the verse where Jesus says, 'don't touch me...The verses you posted are clearly after Jesus ascended and then again descended...
If you are going to ignore scripture, why post any at all???
“”Firstly, Mithras worship is not a myth - the procedures, rites, and rituals are historically defined””
Your in over your head again,there is more evidence of a modern mithra imitating Christian practices during the time of Tertullian.
His writings bear this out
“The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a laver (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, MITHRA there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection , and before a sword wreathes a crown. What also must we say to (Satan’s) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ’s sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that “spiritual wickednesses,” from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does. They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry.” Tertullian Against Heresies Chapter 40
You can find all kinds of nonsense on the web about the Mitras but most of it is used by atheists.
I can guarantee you that most if will shake your faith than a knowledgeable Catholic on this subject because we have battled the heresy long ago,just like you see with Terullian’s writings
There’s also the question whether Satan knew that Jesus was the Son of God when he tempted Him in the desert.
An excerpt from the book, “The Sign of the Cross”, by Bert Ghezzi:
“Christ’s victory on the cross came as a complete surprise to the devil. He had expected that he would win by taking the life of God’s Son. Satan did have a claim against human beings. He knew that because of our sins we had a debt to pay that would cost us our lives. But he made a huge mistake by attempting to take the life of Christ, the sinless one against whom he had no claim at all. Instead of the cross achieving the devil’s great design to destroy Jesus, the cross cost him his control over all humanity.
The Fathers of the Church taught that had Satan realized what God intended to accomplish for us in Christ, he would never have pursued the Crucifixion. For instance, read carefully this reflection by St. Leo the Great (d. 461), who was pope in the mid-fifth century:
That God might deliver humanity from the bonds of the death-bringing transgression, He concealed the power of Christ’s majesty from the fury of the devil ( see 1 Cor 2:8) and offered him instead the infirmity of our lowliness. For had this proud and cruel enemy known the plan of God’s mercy, he would have striven rather to temper with mildness the hearts of (those who crucified Christ) rather than to inflame them with evil hate, so that he might not lose the slavery of all his captives, while he pursued the liberty of the one who owed him nothing.”
You really appear to be deeply confused.
That had to be the most inane question ever posted.
So you admit on SOME scripture you are allowed YOPIOS?
Alas, again you are wrong, but that you don’t understand the Church and her relationship to Scripture, that you are wrong is not surprising.
The Church is fully aware of the multi layered nature of much of Scripture which means that one can see in the same passage different meanings and practical applications to the Christian life.
It is this deep well of Truth, and faith and doctrine within Scripture that allows for one who reads it often to read a passage one has seen many times and go, “Oh, I hadn’t seen that before.”
What the Church says is simple, the interpretation must not be contradictory to the Truth that is known, and that Catholics should read Scripture through the lens of the faith that has been handed down.
Exactly as lastchance said...Though many protestants insist on their interpretation as the only correct one, if that interpretation is against Truth, then the Catholic is obliged to reject it.
In the debate between Catholicism and Protestantism, the main verses of conflict are usually rooted in the interpretations regarding the Eucharist and the Church. As the Church has spoken on these definitively with the authority given her by Christ, a Catholic should accept the interpretation of the Church, founded by Christ and not that of those who have rejected His Church.
****The verses you posted are clearly after Jesus ascended and then again descended... ****
Jesus ascended and then descended again? When? Scripture please.
I am not ignoring Scripture, I am just questioning your understanding of it.
Why did Jesus experience suffering when he was tempted???
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
And how could Jesus 'succour' anyone had he not experienced temptation and defeated it???
And of course you have some scripture to back that up???
Inane only in that it was prompted by the inanity regarding Jesus in this thread by those who must contort and deny the natures of Jesus in order to support their anti Catholic sentiments.
Scripture has been quoted here to say that Jesus was corruptible. That would mean subject to sin. That is the true inanity.
>> “Scripture has been quoted here to say that Jesus was corruptible. That would mean subject to sin.” <<
Corruptibility in most Bible passages refers to biological rot or breakdown.
Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
BTW, I have heard that both Luther and Calvin believed in Marys perpetual virginity which would be anathema to modern day protestants.
But it appears that you did not mean it the way it reads.
BTW, Id be interested in knowing of any Protestant leader whos comfortable that dogma.
The Catholic church has its opinion on Mary....
IIRC someone posted some dictum by the Catholic church that certain doctrines about Mary are required to be believed or the person was *anathema*, IOW, they were required to be believed for salvation.
Show me where anyone asked Mary for her permission.
The angel told her what was going to happen to her.
And of course you have some scripture to back that up???
I can’t believe we are going down this road speaking of Jesus and Christianity.
Do you really not understand the purpose of the Incarnation at all?
We are separated from God because of our human nature and no sacrifice could bridge that separation until Jesus, the Perfect Sacrifice.
The closer one is to God, the more united to Him one is and the more easily one resists temptation. That is what Jesus meant when He said that if we abide in Him, He will abide in us.
Jesus is the Perfect Sacrifice because He is perfectly united to God and thus, though subjected to temptation, Jesus was incapable of anything other than perfect obedience to God and His will.
Disobedience to God and His will is SIN.
All of Scripture speaks of Jesus’ sinlessness.
2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
***And how could Jesus ‘succour’ anyone had he not experienced temptation and defeated it???***
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
He came to open for us the gates of heaven and to show us the way of redemption.
Honestly, you are saying that Jesus was tempted to sin?
Romans 6:10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
When Jesus died, HE said *It is finished*. If the sacrifice wasn't finished but was still ongoing, then He lied.
But since Jesus doesn't and can't lie, then it IS finished and not ongoing.
Isn’t that some kind of mortal or venial sin?
CB: Go smash that crucifix you have in your house or the statue of Mary. I dare you.
***Corruptibility in most Bible passages refers to biological rot or breakdown.***
And why is it that humanity was subjected to this biological rot or breakdown?
I’ll make it simple for you, it starts with a s, ends in a n and has an i in the middle.
Can you say SIN? Sure, I knew you could.
So, when one posts the passage from Paul regarding the fact that one must put on incorruptibility and that nothing corrupt can inherit heaven in regards to Jesus, then one is saying that Jesus is subject to sin. Heresy
Paul was speaking about to US, about US and about putting on the incorruptibility of Christ, who KNEW NO SIN.
Beautiful, thank you.
That puts you at odds with a lot of Catholics.
“Let it be done to me according to Thy will.”
That is a “yes” to what the angel told her.
Try to read my post and answer the question.
Would God have forced Mary to bear Jesus had she said no?
The physical sacrifice was ended, the fruits of it are eternal. It is not that the sacrifice is ongoing, but that it’s effect is eternal.
Temptation to sin is not sin. It's simply temptation. When we refuse to yield to the temptation, we have achieved victory over it and not sinned.
It is sin only when we yield and engage.
If someone doesn't believe that Jesus was tempted, then Scripture lied.
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.