If Mary is not the Mother of God, then Jesus Christ her Son is not God.

[zone]

"Nowhere will you find that Jesus was Mary's biological child in scripture. However we do know Jesus was the 2nd Adam and High Priest after the order of Melchezidec, neither of which had earthly parents."

~


2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

THE GNOSTIC HERESY:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

For many deceivers are entered into the world,.... By whom are meant false teachers, who are described by their quality, "deceivers", deceitful workers, pretending to be ministers of Christ, to have a: value for truth, a love for souls, and a view to the glory of God, but lie in wait to deceive, and handle the word of God deceitfully; and by their quantity or number, "many", and so likely to do much mischief; and by the place where they were, they were "entered into the world"; or "gone out into the world", as the Alexandrian copy and some others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read; See Gill on 1 John 4:1; and by their tenet,

who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh; these were not the Jews who denied that Jesus was the Christ, though they would not allow that Christ was come in the flesh; but these were some who bore the Christian name, and professed to believe in Jesus Christ, but would not own that he was really incarnate, or assumed a true human nature, only in appearance; and denied that he took true and real flesh of the virgin, but only seemed to do so; and these are confuted by the apostle, 1 John 1:1; and upon everyone of these he justly fixes the following character.

This is a deceiver and an antichrist; one of the deceivers that were come into the world, and one of the antichrists that were already in it; and who were the forerunners of the man of sin, and in whom the mystery of iniquity already began to work; for antichrist does not design anyone particular individual person, but a set of men, that are contrary to Christ, and opposers of him.

~
GENEALOGY OF JESUS THROUGH MARY: LUKE 3

 

[4runner]

"Nowhere will you find that Jesus was Mary's biological child in scripture. However we do know Jesus was the 2nd Adam and High Priest after the order of Melchezidec, neither of which had earthly parents."

~


2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

THE GNOSTIC HERESY:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

For many deceivers are entered into the world,.... By whom are meant false teachers, who are described by their quality, "deceivers", deceitful workers, pretending to be ministers of Christ, to have a: value for truth, a love for souls, and a view to the glory of God, but lie in wait to deceive, and handle the word of God deceitfully; and by their quantity or number, "many", and so likely to do much mischief; and by the place where they were, they were "entered into the world"; or "gone out into the world", as the Alexandrian copy and some others, and the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions read; See Gill on 1 John 4:1; and by their tenet,

who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh; these were not the Jews who denied that Jesus was the Christ, though they would not allow that Christ was come in the flesh; but these were some who bore the Christian name, and professed to believe in Jesus Christ, but would not own that he was really incarnate, or assumed a true human nature, only in appearance; and denied that he took true and real flesh of the virgin, but only seemed to do so; and these are confuted by the apostle, 1 John 1:1; and upon everyone of these he justly fixes the following character.

This is a deceiver and an antichrist; one of the deceivers that were come into the world, and one of the antichrists that were already in it; and who were the forerunners of the man of sin, and in whom the mystery of iniquity already began to work; for antichrist does not design anyone particular individual person, but a set of men, that are contrary to Christ, and opposers of him.

~
GENEALOGY OF JESUS THROUGH MARY: LUKE 3

I am not sure what this post has to do with mine. no one is denying the humanity of Christ.

Just another strawman huh?

 

[zone]

I am not sure what this post has to do with mine. no one is denying the humanity of Christ.

Nowhere will you find that Jesus was Mary's biological child in scripture. However we do know Jesus was the 2nd Adam and High Priest after the order of Melchezidec, neither of which had earthly parents .

2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

GNOSTIC HERESY:

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
For many deceivers, etc. - Of these he had spoken before, see 1 John 4:1, etc. And these appear to have been Gnostics, for they denied that Jesus was come in the flesh. And this doctrine, so essential to salvation, none could deny but a deceiver and an antichrist. Instead of εισηλθον are entered in, many excellent MSS. and versions have εξηλθον, are gone out. The sense is nearly the same.

Luke 3
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
23Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,e the son of Neri, 28the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[zone]

I am not sure what this post has to do with mine. no one is denying the humanity of Christ.

Just another strawman huh?

sooner or later the false teachers are exposed.
(they're not quite perfect)

 

[4runner]

[/color]

2 John 1:7
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

GNOSTIC HERESY:

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
For many deceivers, etc. - Of these he had spoken before, see 1 John 4:1, etc. And these appear to have been Gnostics, for they denied that Jesus was come in the flesh. And this doctrine, so essential to salvation, none could deny but a deceiver and an antichrist. Instead of εισηλθον are entered in, many excellent MSS. and versions have εξηλθον, are gone out. The sense is nearly the same.

Luke 3
The Genealogy of Jesus Christ
23Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,e the son of Neri, 28the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Joseph wasnt His biological father. I am not sure what you point is? You are supposed to be trying to prove me wrong, not proving me right??????????

 

[4runner]

sooner or later the false teachers are exposed.
(they're not quite perfect)

Yep, and I spotted you out from the very first post I saw of yours.

 

[zone]

Joseph wasnt His biological father. I am not sure what you point is? You are supposed to be trying to prove me wrong, not proving me right??????????

too late..........

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So you are saying God did not become a man in Jesus Christ? You are denying the Incarnation of God the Son. If God the Son is incarnate, God the Son can have a Mother, and Mary can be the Mother of God, because God has a human nature that can have a Mother. So your denial of the term Mother of God is a denial of Christ's Incarnation. You are misinterpreting the term Mother of God to mean "the Mother of Christ's divinity" instead of "Mother of Christ's humanity". Why can't you understand what the words "Mother of God" mean as the holy council of Ephesus of 431 AD intended them. God is born in Christ.

So here we go. Scott flip flopping again. Which is it scott? Is mary the mother of Christ's divinity as you said before? and I quote:

The divinity of Christ is incarnate. If His divinity is incarnate, in its human incarnation, His divinity has a human mother

if divinity has a mother. than divinity was created inside the mother. I am not making this up scott. I am stating a fact! Why can't you understand what the word "mother" means?

But you would probably deny God could be born.

Yeah I would. God can't be born. God is before time, and will be after time. so he can't be created or born. This does not mean god can't enter human flesh. but for him to do so. A mother is needed to create the human flesh for God to enter. this is where mary comes in. But this does not make mary the mother of God. because God has no mother.

Your view seems to me to be neo-Nestorian.

This is your problem. You base everything on what people in the past say. it is like you are unable to think for yourself. and this is sad!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The term Mother of God does not mean Mary is the Mother of Christ's Divinity. It means that God is born in Mary's womb. For God to be born, He must be human. God became human in Christ. His Divinity is incarnate in a man. Thus, as a man, Mary can be mother of God the man Jesus Christ.

1. so you admit. Mary is not the mother of the divinity of Christ (God) thanks. thats what I have been saying all along!

2. Then you go off again. God was not born (created) in Mary's womb. GOD CANT BE BORN, HE ALWAYS WAS.

3. Jesus left his divinity aside. A devine being can't sin. Jesus was able to sin. Devine God can't feel pain. Jesus felt pain. Divine God knows all things and sees all things. Jesus had to be taught. Devine God can not die. Jesus died. This is where you all get mixed up. Your creating Jesus as something he is not.

4. And again you got it right. mary is the mother of Jesus flesh. But the flesh of Jesus is not God. It died on the cross. This is the part you can not see!!

God's Divinity is incarnate. You don't deny the Incarnation, do you? Denying Mary as Mother of God means Christ's Divinity did not become Incarnate, and Christ is 2 separate persons, one human, the other Divine. It means Christ was not born of Mary, but His Divinity remained separate from His human body.

And you still get it wrong. Scripture states the son "emptied himself" or set his divinity aside. and came in the "FORM OF MAN" This form was bore by mary. And it died on the cross!!

That's what denying the term Mother of God does. It denies that God the Son has a human nature that can have a human Mother. Mother of God does not mean Mary is the Mother of God the Son's Divinity, but God the Son's incarnate humanity. Can't you understand that ?

No I can't Because to admit it is to admit that Mary is Gods creator, and God was created in her womb. Which means he is not God. Denying the term "mother of God" does not deny that Christ emptied himself. and came in the form of man. Thats what your church wants you to believe, and what you have been taught. But it is NOT TRUE.

So you are saying the Council of Ephesus in 431 was wrong?
Which said Mary is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the Mother of God (the Son)?
How can a Council of Christ's Church be wrong? It wasn't wrong in the Council of the book of Acts. It wasn't wrong in the councils of 325 AD and 381 AD. So it wasn't wrong in 431 AD either.

yeah I am. And I deny that the church who made that councel is the church of God. If they were the church of God they would follow scripture. and not add to it. twist it to form their own man made doctrines. and mix pagan beliefs with the doctrines of Christ. But you can't see that. You follow men. who tell you not to think for yourself. That is the lie of satan, Even paul did not say this.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No! I do not believe the divine nature of God was created inside Mary. I believe the Divine Nature of God the Son took on humanity and became Incarnate inside Mary's womb. Please refrain from trying to tell what I think. You obviously don't understand what I think. You don't understand that the term Mother of God does not mean Mary is the Mother of Christ's Divine nature: it means she is the Mother of the human nature of God the Son. God the Son since the moment of His Incarnation forever has a human nature.

[/b][/size]

lol Scott. You do not even know what you think. Your thinking is programed by men who tell you to listen to them and no one else.

If the term mother of God does not mean she is the mother of Christ divinity. Then the term mother of God is false. because it is Christs divinity that makes him God. whats your next flip flop gonna be?? You must be a liberal

 

[Scotth1960]

So here we go. Scott flip flopping again. Which is it scott? Is mary the mother of Christ's divinity as you said before? and I quote:

[/b]

if divinity has a mother. than divinity was created inside the mother. I am not making this up scott. I am stating a fact! Why can't you understand what the word "mother" means?



Yeah I would. God can't be born. God is before time, and will be after time. so he can't be created or born. This does not mean god can't enter human flesh. but for him to do so. A mother is needed to create the human flesh for God to enter. this is where mary comes in. But this does not make mary the mother of God. because God has no mother.



This is your problem. You base everything on what people in the past say. it is like you are unable to think for yourself. and this is sad!

His divinity does not have a mother. I mean to say His divinity has a mother in its humanity. You need to understand what I am saying in context, and not take my words out of context. Of course God has no mother. But Mary is the Mother of God, because God becomes a man in Mary, so in His humanity, God has a mother in His human nature, not in His divine nature. If God can't be born, then Christ was not God, because Christ is God incarnate, and God was manifest in the flesh. Do you deny God is born in Christ? Do you deny God's divinity is born in its human nature in Mary's womb. Christ's Divinity joined itself to a human nature through Mary, begotten of the Father before all worlds.
God the Son does have a mother. In His humanity.
You still can't convince me that your view isn't Nestorian.
You have a problem. You ignore what others in the past have said, because you want to find out things on your own initiative. From beginning to end, all our efforts are as nothing on our own. We need the traditions of the Apostles to keep us safe (2 Thess. 2:15). If we err, we err on our own. But if we succeed, it is because the Church is there to help us.
Even you get your Bible from some human source. So you are relying on someone other than yourself to get your Bible.
Christ's divinity does have a mother in its humanity. Not in the divinity nature, but in the human nature of the divinity. The divinity is Incarnate: God manifest in the flesh.
Your view would separate God the Son's divinity from His humanity, and make Christ un-incarnate. Therefore, God was not born in Christ. Christ was just a man. His divinity is separate from His humanity. 2 persons: one human, the other divine. This is the inevitable consequence of your denying that God can be born. As the LOGOS, the Son of God, Christ God can be born.

 

[Scotth1960]

1. so you admit. Mary is not the mother of the divinity of Christ (God) thanks. thats what I have been saying all along!

2. Then you go off again. God was not born (created) in Mary's womb. GOD CANT BE BORN, HE ALWAYS WAS.

3. Jesus left his divinity aside. A devine being can't sin. Jesus was able to sin. Devine God can't feel pain. Jesus felt pain. Divine God knows all things and sees all things. Jesus had to be taught. Devine God can not die. Jesus died. This is where you all get mixed up. Your creating Jesus as something he is not.

4. And again you got it right. mary is the mother of Jesus flesh. But the flesh of Jesus is not God. It died on the cross. This is the part you can not see!!



And you still get it wrong. Scripture states the son "emptied himself" or set his divinity aside. and came in the "FORM OF MAN" This form was bore by mary. And it died on the cross!!



No I can't Because to admit it is to admit that Mary is Gods creator, and God was created in her womb. Which means he is not God. Denying the term "mother of God" does not deny that Christ emptied himself. and came in the form of man. Thats what your church wants you to believe, and what you have been taught. But it is NOT TRUE.



yeah I am. And I deny that the church who made that councel is the church of God. If they were the church of God they would follow scripture. and not add to it. twist it to form their own man made doctrines. and mix pagan beliefs with the doctrines of Christ. But you can't see that. You follow men. who tell you not to think for yourself. That is the lie of satan, Even paul did not say this.

So, you follow men. You follow the men who say, "Don't listen to the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 AD". It is a tradition of men.
Whereas my view, unattested to by history, is the truth. It's a tradition of God, because I read it in the Bible last Tuesday. I can do it "my way". I don't need 2000 years of Church tradition. I am my own one-man church. I am responsible to God only for what I personally get out of the Bible. But I fail to see the fact that if I get my tradition from my personal study, then my tradition is a tradition of men, for I got my views from myself in my own personal study. There is no way to avoid it.
Personal study of the Bible must always agree with what the tradition of God says.
The tradition of God comes from the Church, because the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
The Bible does not call you or me the pillar of the truth. Our personal Bible study is subject to error unless some men guide us, men who come from God, men of the Church.
The Church is visible.
Personal Bible study makes everything private.
Revelation is not private: it must be in agreement with the public preaching of the Gospel in the Church Christ founded.
It is always a question of what is and which Church Christ founded, isn't it?

 

[Scotth1960]

So here we go. Scott flip flopping again. Which is it scott? Is mary the mother of Christ's divinity as you said before? and I quote:

[/b]

if divinity has a mother. than divinity was created inside the mother. I am not making this up scott. I am stating a fact! Why can't you understand what the word "mother" means?



Yeah I would. God can't be born.
Dear eternallygratefull, God can't be born. Says Who?
Is God the Son, Jesus Christ, God? Is Jesus Christ born?
If Christ is God, then God can be born.
Because Christ IS born.
The Quran also questions this, and doubts whether God can be born:
See the website that begins with the words
"Is Jesus god? How can god be born, eat, drink? Jesus never taught Trinity? is this the TRUTH ?!?
see Quran 4:155-159
Quran 4:171
Quran 5:72-78

Which will you believe: 2000 years of Christian Church history?

Or will you believe your neo-Nestorian view?
Will you believe the Quran?

Failure to read Church history means you can commit errors.
I failed to read Church history, and so I said, IN IGNORANCE, "who proceeds from the Father" AND THE SON, NOT KNOWING, that when I said, "AND THE SON", I was a HERETIC.
If you say God cannot be born, your view denies the Divinity and the Incarnation of Christ.
Such a view could be either Arian and/or Nestorian.
Or something akin to those heresies.
Is Christ God the Son?
Is Christ born?
If Christ is God the Son, God the Son can be born.
Do you deny this?
In Erie Scott Harrington



God is before time, and will be after time. so he can't be created or born. This does not mean god can't enter human flesh. but for him to do so. A mother is needed to create the human flesh for God to enter. this is where mary comes in. But this does not make mary the mother of God. because God has no mother.

This is your problem. You base everything on what people in the past say. it is like you are unable to think for yourself. and this is sad!

Friend,
What is sad is you fail to remember that "thinking for oneself" is selfish, private, and individualism, and Christ is against the Spirit of individualism and private interpretation of the Scriptures. Don't you remember and believe what the Bible says: that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation? What else is "thinking for yourself" but private interpretation? In Erie Scott H.

 

[Scotth1960]

He is also called the Son of David But we don't call David the father of God.

Mary does not have to be the mother of God, to be the mother of Jesus. She gave him his FLESH. His flesh DIED ON THE CROSS. it was no more. His Spirit (God) Which was before Mary, Before Abraham, Before Noah, Before Adam, Before creation, was risen with a NEW BODY, not bore by Mary. This same body we will get (if we are saved) when we are resurrected! Our old flesh Bore by our mothers) will pass away. Just like the flesh Mary Gave to Jesus did.

Dear eternallygratefull,
"Using the Bible as our standard, it is not those who refuse to call Mary Theotokos or Mother of God who are the heretics. It is those who do apply these terms to her who are the heretics."
"Are you Nestorian? By saying that Mary is not the mother of God? Are you a Nestorian? By saying that Mary is not the mother of God, are you not guilty of separating the two natures of Jesus?

This person who wrote these words accusing the Orthodox Catholic Church (431 AD, Ephesus) of heresy is thus excommunicating himself from the Church that Christ founded. Professing to base his view as the Bible as "our standard", he makes the Bible his own personal property, and not the property of the historic Orthodox Catholic Church. He thus makes himself a heretic by making himself "the pillar and ground of the truth" in his own private interpretation of Scripture, in defiance of the Scripture that warns that "no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation", and in denial that the Church alone is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Outside of the Church is false interpretation of the Scriptures.
God save us all from Nestorianism. Amen. In Erie Scott R. Harrington

 

[eternally-gratefull]

His divinity does not have a mother. I mean to say His divinity has a mother in its humanity. You need to understand what I am saying in context, and not take my words out of context. Of course God has no mother. But Mary is the Mother of God,

I need to understand what you are saying? Yet you Just contradicted yourself. How can I understand a contradiction? Either God has no mother, or God has one, which is it? It can't be both.

If God has a mother, then God was created.

if God has no mother. than Mary is not the mother of God.

simple!!

 

[Scotth1960]

I need to understand what you are saying? Yet you Just contradicted yourself. How can I understand a contradiction? Either God has no mother, or God has one, which is it? It can't be both.

If God has a mother, then God was created.

if God has no mother. than Mary is not the mother of God.

simple!!

If Mary is not the Mother of God, then Jesus Christ is not God, because Mary is the Mother of Jesus. It is Mystery that Mary is the Mother of God, because Jesus is God. Simple.

 

[jandian]

If Mary is not the Mother of God, then Jesus Christ is not God, because Mary is the Mother of Jesus. It is Mystery that Mary is the Mother of God, because Jesus is God. Simple.

Can I ask you something?

Why is is so important to you that Mary is acknowledged as the mother of God as opposed to being the mother of that flesh part of Jesus?

What is the point? She carried God in her stomach. Lets say that....Now what......

God who was externally existing always came upon a human being and she became pregnant

We appreciate her as a carrier......Do we owe her more????

Please note: This is not a fight; i really want to know what you are hoping to establish

 

[Scotth1960]

I need to understand what you are saying? Yet you Just contradicted yourself. How can I understand a contradiction? Either God has no mother, or God has one, which is it? It can't be both.

If God has a mother, then God was created.

if God has no mother. than Mary is not the mother of God.

simple!!

God the Son has a Mother in His humanity.
God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have no mother.
Can't you understand that: God became a man, and as man, God the Son can have a Mother. If Mary is not the Mother of God, then Jesus Christ is not God the Son.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

God the Son has a Mother in His humanity.
God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have no mother.
Can't you understand that: God became a man, and as man, God the Son can have a Mother. If Mary is not the Mother of God, then Jesus Christ is not God the Son.

So what your saying is that before Jesus was Born there was only Two Gods. The father and Holy Spirit. When jesus was born, the dual God became a triune God?

wow!!

 

[Scotth1960]

So what your saying is that before Jesus was Born there was only Two Gods. The father and Holy Spirit. When jesus was born, the dual God became a triune God?

wow!!

You don't care what I am saying. Your attitude is, "I know what Scott is thinking". I know he's wrong, because in order to know the truth, I have to go to the Bible alone, by myself, to get the truth. I don't care what the Church says. What the Church Fathers say. They are all heretical. I don't care what any man except myself says. I get it all from the Bible by myself, and I need no man to teach me. With that logic, there is no need for baptism or sacraments. Since I would be relying on other men, I'd have to reject them. Perhaps you aren't going that far. But you seem to be relying on your own personal opinions. You don't view anything other than your own private study as an authority. I don't understand how you figure you can figure every doctrine out for yourself. I know I am very ignorant of many things. I still don't know the Church Fathers like I should. But I wouldn't dare to call the Church Fathers heretical. Maybe you don't either. But you seem to be questioning the Council of Ephesus of 431 AD, which called Mary the Mother of God. If that council is indeed heretical, which Church council declared the term "Mother of God" heretical? If your belief really comes from God, you must be able to prove from Church history that your belief is in/from the Church that Christ founded. Which Church Fathers rejected the term "Mother of God" / "Theotokos" as heretical. If your belief is of recent origin, it is false. If you can't trace your belief to a bishop who is a successor of an Apostle of Christ, it lacks hermeneutic authority.
Take care.
PS Can you produce a list of Church members who taught in the first 500 years of Church history that the term "Mother of God" is heretical?
Can you prove they are in the Church that Christ founded?
God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington