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.
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)
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”?
That’s huge!
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
From Tertullian...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm
“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.” <<
.
Nonsense!
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:
Here.
BTW, I have heard that both Luther and Calvin believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity which would be anathema to modern day protestants.
But it appears that you did not mean it the way it reads.
BTW, I’d be interested in knowing of any Protestant leader who’s 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.
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.