- Oct 8, 2019
- 239
- 82
- 71
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
God doesn't have alternate plans. He purposes what will happen and always brings his purposes to finality in the ways he sees fit. See Isaiah chapter 55.In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of her Lord. Among Jews, there is only one Lord, the great I AM, Yahweh, the One who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, the One who created the heavens and the earth. Elizabeth, being filled with the Holy Spirit, said that Mary was carrying in her womb their Lord God.
Elisabeth did not say that Mary only bore a human who would later become God, or that she bore a human that would later become God, or that she only bore the human nature of the God. No! A mother is not a mother of a nature. A mother is a mother of a person, in this case, a divine person.
This does not mean she is is the mother of the Trinity. She is the mother of the second Person Trinity. But that does not mean that she is less of the mother of God. Jesus is not one-third God. That would make him a demigod. But the Bible say He is fully God. Colossians 2:9 says that all the fullness of Deity dwells in Jesus.
It does not mean that she existed before God. She only existed before God became man. It does not mean that she has authority over God. A mother of a president does not mean she has power over the president in running the country. Mary considered herself her Lord's maidservant. Imagine that! In Luke 1:38, she considered herself the maidservant of the Child she was bearing (the exact of opposite of the women who abort the child they are bearing).
But she is the mother of the Lord. And what son would treat his mother as if she was just a servant. I know that if my mother was still alive and I somehow came into a lot of money, I would want my mother to live in my mansion with me. And she would be in the room right next to me. And I would expect any servants we have would treat her with the same respect they do to me. If anyone would accuse me of treating my mother any less than that I would consider it as an insult to my personally.
And yet some Christians treat our Lord as having less love for His own mother than we would have to pour own! They see that our great God and Savior is so insecure that He feels threatened if we show any love or respect to His mother! My God is too great for that! To lower the status of Mary is to lower the glory of Jesus! Denial of Mary's divine motherhood often leads to the denial of the divinity of Christ.
No matter how liberal Catholic theologians may be they do not deny the divinity of Christ. How could they deny the divinity of Christ if they believe in the Mary being the mother of God. But large segment of liberal Protestantism denies the deity of Christ. Look at the Unitarians. And the founders of the Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, non-Trinitarian Adventism and Christian Science were once Protestants. See The Rise of Protestant Liberalism | Tabletalk for liberal Protestant theologians who denied the deity of Christ.
There is a Catholic saying: Know Mary, know Jesus; no Mary, no Jesus. The less we see of Mary the less we see of Jesus. If Mary is not the mother of God then she did not bear God. If she did not bear God then Jesus may have not been God after all. Maybe He just became God later, such at His baptism, or maybe He just attained some God-consciousness. Maybe He was just a god, and maybe we all will become gods.
But having a high view of Mary gives us an even higher view of God. Mary said that her soul magnifies the Lord (Luke 1:46). When I say "praise Mary!", she then says "PRAISE JESUS"! When I think of her sinlessness, I think of the awesome majesty and purity of God. God cannot stand sin at all. It is repugnant to Him. He was not going to tolerate being in the womb of a sinful woman for nine months. No way! She must be pure as He is pure. When I think of the perpetual virginity, I again think of the utter holiness of God. No sinful man could approach the habitation of God. The ark of the covenant contained the Ten Commandments. No man could open it or even touch it! It was holy. How much more could no sinful man touch the woman who bore God! Joseph feared God too much to ever try this! All this made me see God in all His holiness. And it showed me His love.
He did not just impregnate her and then after cast herself aside and just treated her like one of her servants. No. First of all, the angel did not come to announce to her that she will be pregnant with the Son of God. Gabriel come to propose. To impregnate her without her permission would be rape! Instead, she must consent. She could freely say "yes" or "no". God gave Adman and Eve a free will. They chose to say "no". Think of all of the hardships in this fallen world because of their "no" to God. But whereas Eve said "yes" to the devil Mary said "yes" to the angel. As Even contributed to our fall, Mary contributed to our redemption. In a small way, yes, compared to what Jesus did. But she contributed. If she had said "no" to the angel then maybe God had an alternate plan. Or maybe not. Maybe her disobedience would be the last straw for God, and He will let us perish in our sins. After all, He did not come to redeem the devil and his demons. He did not have to save us. Or maybe, since God is outside of time, He knew beforehand that Mary would say yes. Whatever! I imagine that all the angels were waiting to hear her answer.
He will always treat her like His beloved mother. He crowned her as the Queen of Heaven - with twelve stars as a crown on her head and clothed with the sun (Son) . See Revelation 12. What love He had for her! It gives me comfort that He treats His mother the way we would expect a good son to treat his own mother. It comforts me in knowing that I, too, will be loved - not in the same way but I will still be loved. So Mary has not detracted away my love for Christ. Instead, she has magnified it.
Some of what you say is correct. Where you got the idea Mary was a perpetual virgin I don't know. Jesus had siblings and they were born from Mary. Some of those wrote scripture.
Also Mary was a sinner like everyone else on earth except Christ. Anyone who claims to have no sin is a liar, according to scripture. So, since no human can claim that for themself, including Mary, then no human can claim that truthfully for any other human.
Jehovah's Witnesses claim John 1:1 identifies Christ as having a quality of being divine rather than a position of God over men like his father. In other words they claim he shares the same qualities God has even rulership without being the biblical God. They base that claim on there not being a direct article, the Greek word for 'the,' preceding the Greek word for God, which is theos in John 1:1 where Christ is called theos. Witnesses claim without that direct article preceding theos the word theos means a quality and not a position as the biblical God. In other words they claim Greek scriptures in the Greek language must read THE GOD, in order to speak of the true biblical God.
However the reasoning is flawed. Because neither are there direct articles preceding the Greek word for God that identify the Father at John 1:6,12,13 or 18. And yet Witnesses believe these verses speak of the true biblical God, even though a direct article in Greek is not preceding the Greek word God in those other scriptures.
Are their rulers really that ignorant? I do know for a fact they use interlinear translations. Because of that I am sure their writers and Watchtower rulers have seen this just as I have. Yet while associating with them for forty years this was never brought out to the flock. And in all the literature I read that precedes my 40 year association I never saw this brought out. All they bring up is that a direct article is not used when identifying the Word at John 1:1, therefore the Word could not be the true biblical God.
Contrary to what I believe you claimed Russell who started Watchtower had some of the same apostate views he brought into Watchtower while he participated in denominational Christianity. It was from them he learned some of his chief teachings, which were his false conclusions about Christ returning to Earth in the 19th century. When that false belief didn't materialize he moved Christ return up to 1914. When that didn't happen he claimed Christ did return in 1914 as invisible, soon to take world rulership. When that didn't happen WT taught Christ taking world rulership was imminent and would surely happen before the generation that was ten years old in 1914 all dies of. When that didn't happen WT taught this 1914 generation must be an overlapping generation with every generation that is born while the 1914 generation is still alive. Which will include the grandkids and even great grandchildren of the 1914 generation. WT presently teaches Christ will assume world rulership before these folks die of, so expect him to set up his kingdom over the earth very soon.
What caused WT to start down that slippery slope that it cannot get off of was false Bible interpretations concerning the return of Christ revealed through biblical chronology that Russell learned from denominational Christianity before he stated WT, not after he started it as I believe you claimed.
Are you sure you want to claim what is not in scripture is in scripture, because your church teaches it is, or Because some Pope or priest in the second or third century claims it to be true?
Last edited:
Upvote
0