/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>655480

Any scriptural arguments? I want to be convinced of a position based on that alone.

Yes, this was affirmed at the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils.

If you don't believe that Mary is the Theotokos, then you are not a Protestant, but a Nestorian, which is a heresy.

She gave birth to God.

No Protestant I know if would deny that Mary is the Mother of God. To do so would be to deny Christ's divinity, so Arianism and maybe Nestorianism.

I mean… Then again I've seen Andersonites call The Blessed Virgin "just some woman" so who knows.

Can i please have arguments from the Bible on this?

>>655482

[T]he holy virgin gave birth in the flesh to God united with the flesh according to hypostasis, for that reason we call her Theotokos… If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is, in truth, God, and therefore that the holy virgin is Theotokos (for she bore in a fleshly manner the Word from God become flesh), let him be anathema. (Cyril's third letter to Nestorius)

>>655485

Andersonism is a separate religion, almost akin to how different the LDS is from traditional Christianity. Andersonism is also very similar to Scientology.

>>655487

Then read the ecumenical councils.

>>655482

Jesus is God

Mary is the mother of Jesus

Mary is the mother of God

Do you need me to pull up verses for the first two statements?

>>655487

Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Jesus is God.

Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

I just want to say that picture is Mary's head and veil photoshopped onto a Sacred Heart of Jesus painting. Blue robes on top of red robes is Jesus, Red robes on top of blue robes is Mary.

And the Heart is the Sacred Heart, not the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

I bet Joseph got called a cuck a lot back then.

>>655505

Probably not because that is pretty blasphemous.

>>655506

There were some pretty blasphemous dudes back then

>>655478

Yes.

Jesus=God

Mary= bearer of Jesus

Mary =bearer of God

>>655535

Dang I miss flags

>>655539

You do realise neither of the Churches you mentioned believes that, right?

>>655540

Do I have quote the people in this thread for you?

>>655543

you clearly didn't read all my post.

No, but if this is your biggest question on what church tou go to that is foolish

Jesus tells the jews that he is technically not the son of David even though he physically descends from him and calls himself the son of David a lot.

Matthew 22

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

>>655488

>Cyril's third letter to Nestorius)

Is that scripture?

>>655494

No, David begat Jesus but Jesus says he is not the son of David >>655547

Also that's man's wisdom to try to interpret the Bible. I 100% believe the trinity but you could use the same logic to disprove it, Only one God, Father Son and HG called God, therefore they're all the same person.

>>655547

You really need to stop abusing the scripture.

The point Jesus was making here is that the Pharisees couldn't answer His question because their eyes were blinded to Him.

The answer is that Jesus is the physical seed of David(See Matt 1), but that He is David's Lord because He is God.

>>655549

Stop copying Steven Anderson's traditions, and just study the Bible on its own terms.

>>655553

That's funny coming from a papist

>>655559

I'm Reformed Baptist.

>>655553

Or I follow it because it's what the Bible says

>>655553

>Can't defeat the argument

>uuhhh sanderson or something

>>655563

read >>655550

>>655561

>Reformed

please

>>655564

>It was for the pharisees only!

Kekel;

Is Jesus God?

Is Mary His mother?

Question answered

>>655561

>Reformed Baptist

Mega kek

>>655565

>>655568

Your incredulity means nothing.

>>655566

He did it so we could learn from the foolishness of unbelief.

>>655542

Sure you can, I haven't seen anyone say anything like what you posted in this thread.

>Jesuit thread

Like clockwork

>>655573

How is Jesus lying by asking a question which the Pharisees can't answer? It seems it would be just as bad to say that the Father was lying in 2nd Samuel 7:12.

>>655576

I'm saying you are saying Jesus lied because you deny what he said.

>>655561

>>655559

This is why we need flags back.

>>655576

Don't purposely misunderstand me to make it sound like i'm spreading Hersey

>>655547

As I expected, wish I could have typed things up and scanned my old artwork faster. I am curious, did you miss type and you don't think Christ called himself the son of David or do you think Christ was a liar?

>>655548

Its obviously exegesis of Holy Scripture

>>655549

If this is as deep as you understand Christology and Trinitarian doctrines I really hope you study them much more

>>655550

This

>>655553

Spicy and accurate

>>655559

>>655561

Wreckt

>>655563

The argument is straightforwardly terrible and people point out its Anderson's because no one seemingly has been able to come up with that argument on their own, because its obviously not the point of the text

>>655565

Theopneustos

>>655566

Literally did you read it

Do you guys really think that when Jesus asked them If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? the answer he wanted was well the Messiah isn't actual the son of David, we just kinda call him that sometimes and he doesn't stop us and its true in some cases but not others

>>655575

I have it on good authority that Steven Anderson is a Jesuit

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5k2gKT5wWo655t6XC7e-lg>>655575

Also just curious, is Verity up in here?

>>655582

>Those fundamental baptists lol!

>>655585

Mary is the mother of Jesus=God. Denying that Mary is mother of God implies either that Mary isn't the mother of Jesus, or that Jesus isn't God.

>>655585

Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God

Mary is the mother of _ _ _

I know you can do this

>>655592

The Father is God

The Son is God

The Holy Spirit is God

There is one God

The Father is not the Son

The Father is not the Spirit

The Son is not the Spirit

The Father is eternal and unoriginate

The Son is eternal and uncreated, having His eternal origin in the Father through being begotten of Him

The Spirit is eternal and uncreated, having His eternal origin in the Father through proceeding from Him

The Father has no beginning or end

The Son has no beginning or end

The Spirit has no beginning or end

Mary gave birth to the Son, not originating His divine nature but in the Sons conception in her by the Holy Spirit being of use for God's operations in uniting the divine nature and a human nature originating in here in the one pre-existing person of the Son

>Denying the hypostatic union

>>655592

Jesus and Father are different, but that doesn't stop Jesus from being God.

>>655596

Jesus is God

An action being associated with only one of the divine persons does not negate it being an action of God

>>655580

>part of the importance of the pharisees words in Scriptures is how they were often almost right about things, but would twist Scripture or effectively dismiss it.

Kind of like how from this passage it is clear why nobody should call David "the Father of God," and that if there was a cult that started doing it, they would be setting the stage for some outright blatant heresy. Such as we see today with Mary worship.

>I have it on good authority that Steven Anderson is a Jesuit

There are three types of prevalent Jesuit arguments. The signature is always the fact they promote RCC doctrine and use their terminology despite pretending not to be Roman Catholics. But the three types you always see them use are:

Type 1. "I was an X before, they are terrible! They do [unrealistic accusation]. Trust me, I was one of them."

Type 2. "I can't decide between these two things, help me decide. Coming at this completely unbiased and just can't make up my mind about this one single issue!" Two minutes later: "oh thanks for your arguments, your wonderful argument have totally swayed me to the Catholic side, I now see that I was so wrong before, how stupid was I!"

Type 3. Two Jesuits get into a pre-written "argument" and one of them plays the part of whatever their target is, repeating all the usual tropes, saying all the wrong things that nobody actually believes and making himself look bad to the greatest extent possible, then optionally at the end he does a 180 and just admits in tears how utterly wrong he was.

Now you know how to identify Jesuit threads.

>>655594

>Denying the hypostatic union

You are denying it if you try to separate it.

>>655599

Literally have you read the verse, the answer to the question is the divinity of the messiah

If you deny that Mary is the mother of God you necessarily deny that Mary is the mother of the Son or that the Son is God

>>655598

>>655597

Yes Jesus is God but Mary did not Give birth to the Father, I think you guys with agree with me there.

>>655603

Mary giving birth to the Father is not necessary for her to acquire the title of theotokos, giving birth to the Son is sufficient due to His fullness of deity, as God is not made up of persons in some sort of mathematical fractional sense

>>655604

Yes but you make it sound like she created God by saying that and that's why people don't like it.

>>655603

Nobody is arguing that she gave birth to Father. Only that she gave birth to Jesus, who is God. That she gave birth to someone who is God.

>>655606

Honestly that just a completely made up problem, for hundreds of years we have professed that God is uncreated and the world, including Christ's mother, is created by God

Saying that the title implies Mary creates the Son makes no sense if you listen to anything else that people who call her the theotokos say

>>655606

Fortunately noone teaches that she created God, only that she was created by God and then gave birth to Him in Bethlehem.

>>655606

But in the beginning the Logos was with God and the Logos was God (John 1:1). If that's the case, Mary didn't "create" the Logos, either, Jesus was already in existence. But yet the scriptures still refer to Mary as Jesus's mother, so there's literally no issue in calling her the Theotokos.

>>655608

>>655607

The only reason I was arguing is because I've seen cathos make Mary divine and say she give birth to God entirely, but you guys seem to think differently so okay, I still think its dumb to call Mary "Theotokos" because kinda implies she gave birth to God as a whole or the father but yall can call her that if you want.

>>655612

Any Catholic following Catholic doctrine does not mean that t.Ortho

>>655613

I don't think you know Catholics very well then, Its kinda a meme that people call them selves Catholic yet don't follow or know nothing about catholic doctrine.

>>655617

The magesterium defines what a Catholic is, not some rando who got splashed and then never got fed or confirmed

>>655612

>because I've seen cathos make Mary divine

That would be a very grave heresy, going against everything the Catholic Church teaches about both Mary and God. It's not a common one though, I haven't seen any Catholic claim this.

>and say she give birth to God entirely

Depends what you mean by "entirely". If you mean that she gave birth to Father and Holy Spirit, the same reply as above applies. Heresy, but an extremely rare one if it exists.

But it's true that Jesus isn't 1/3 of God. Jesus is God. And the same applies to the other two persons - Holy Spirit or Father both aren't 1/3 of God, just incomplete parts or elements of God. Each person of the Trinity is fully God. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

>>655626

I think we are done

>>655625

"Very rare" yeah and a lot of Catholics believe Mary never sinned to but i'm sure that's very rare too.

>>655629

You say you're done but then open up a whole new problem

If you've studied this at all then you know the Catholic Church has an official position on both of these issues, and if you don't know that you should start reading and stop typing

>>655606

It's a problem entirely of modern Protestant making. The reformers believed that Mary was the Mother of God along with being perpetually virgin. It wasn't controversial. Or that difficult to understand. It's only become that way later.

And we are seeing the fruits of it. People like Sproul say that God didn't die on the cross. And that's a result of not properly understanding Christ's nature, which can be traced back to a lack of understanding about Mary's role.

Every Marian dogma is Christological in nature.

>>655629

>"Very rare"

Indeed, I would say extremely rare. How much contact with Catholics you have? Especially the ones that actually care about their faith and try to follow its teachings.

>and a lot of Catholics believe Mary never sinned to but i'm sure that's very rare too.

Which wouldn't make her Divine. Were Adam and Eve Divine before the first sin?

>>655606

I don't think you realize, but she doesn't have to give birth to the Father and the Holy Spirit to be called Mother of God.

For starters, Jesus Christ is 100% God. Saying Mary gave birth to 33% of God is modalist heresy, 0% is why.

>You make it sound like

It could be a problem but really, do you have a better way of saying it?

>>655629

All Catholics should believe that, because it is true. Never sinning and being divine are two different things. The bible makes it very clear that Mary was preserved from sin by grace and it is fitting that she be considering the bible makes it clear that she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant.

>>655632

I would say there were a rare few among the early reformers who questioned these things, but they had a tendency of dieing out only for people decades later to act like they had anything to do with them. The problem with Prots on this board, though they will usually deny being Prots, is that they aren't very involved with the actual reformation, they are part of a reformation on top of that

>>655631

I know and Have read Catholic Doctrine as I said in the post

>Its kinda a meme that people call them selves Catholic yet don't follow or know nothing about catholic doctrine.

>>655634

>It could be a problem but really, do you have a better way of saying it?

Mary is the mother of Jesus.

>>655635

>All Catholics should believe that, because it is true. Never sinning and being divine are two different things. The bible makes it very clear that Mary was preserved from sin by grace and it is fitting that she be considering the bible makes it clear that she is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant.

There a Bible verse for her not sinning?

>>655642

>There a Bible verse for her not sinning?

No, there isn't any. Also that doctrine contradicts Romans 3:23 and even more pointedly Romans 4:14 and Galatians 3:22.

Being blameless isn't the same as being sinless as our Savior is.

>>655643

So what you guys are saying is that she is saved?

>>655643

Are you going to do anything else in this thread than swoop in for the easy posts?

>>655644

He's the guy Jesuit posting

>>655646

I'm asking what he means by blameless.

>>655643

>The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

>This is what Catholics actually believe

>>655642

And Jesus is fully God.

I have my own troubles with Trinitarianism but come on, man.

>>655629

>I think we are done

Yeah, because you're wrong.

>they keep insulting their judges mother

Good luck.

>>655652

Okay

>>655651

It seems you don't understand the trinity cause i'm not that confused about it.

>>655650

http://www.catholic365.com/article/3023/where-do-we-find-the-immaculate-conception-in-scripture.html

>“Full of Grace” translates kecharitomene the perfect passive participle of charitoo. It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.[1] Verbs ending in oo, such as haimatoo (turn into blood), thaumatoo (fill with wonder), spodoomai (burn to ashes) frequently express the full intensity of the action. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.[2]

Hence kecharitomene has been suitably translated as “full of grace”, by the Vulgate and the Peshitto (The principal Syriac version of the Bible). This rendering expresses the conviction of the Church that the divine favor was fully bestowed on Mary, in the sense that she was ever immune from the lease stain of sin and that she abounded in graces of the supernatural life and in all the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit which flow from that life.

Gabriel's use of this word in Luke 1:28 is the only time this word is ever used, it is a new conjugation of charitoo for a very specific purpose. Furthermore, if we look at Jeremiah 31:22.

>How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

We see that the new creation will entail a man and woman, a new adam and eve, meaning that they are not subject to the sins of the old ones.

What? Protestants dispute this?

>>655666

Oh winnie the pooh my trips

>>655666

Only a fringe minority do, and they have to either completely miss the biblical and logical definition of what motherhood is, i.e. a vessel for creation, not a creator, or worse go quasi-nestorian and claim that 'Mary is the mother of Jesus the man" (actual anderson quote) in order to do so.

>>655478

>The Word of God

>is God

>becomes human

>born of the Virgin Mary

>Christ is 100% God and 100% man, 2 natures in perfect hypostasis

>iS mARy rEaLLy tHe mOtHEr oF God ????

Saying otherwise is heresy, not only in the Catholic and orthodox realm, but in any branch that can be considered valid through baptism.

>>655478

Technically yes, but it can give a wrong impression. Therefore Mother of Jesus is preferable. Theotokos is also better than Mother of God if you happen to like foreign languages. Speaking as a Lutheran.

>>655664

She was blessed with a child. This was a very large blessing because the child was Jesus. None of the other women in the Bible who had been blessed with a child had been blessed that much.

There is no need to reach for extreme interpretations that turn Mary into something she is not just to explain that one word. I have noticed that the Catholic arguments about Mary tend to be very full of reaching.

>>655478

bible doesnt say 'mother of god' like it doesnt say trinity

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1 (KJV)

Word is God

>And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. - John 1:14-15 (KJV)

Word is made flesh

>The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. - John 1:29:30 (KJV)

The Word is Jesus

>Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. - Matt 1:18 (KJV)

Mary the Mother of Jesus (the Word who is God)

>>655715

>There is no need to reach for extreme interpretations that turn Mary into something she is not just to explain that one word. I have noticed that the Catholic arguments about Mary tend to be very full of reaching.

I just find it odd that they care so much about titles for Mary and not so much about our Lord or what he said in his Word. In fact you have to trample on the word of God just to get to where they're going, it's like they're preaching another Jesus. Affront to the word of God though? They're not too bothered. Look at how they treat Genesis 1. If anything that right there should be banworthy. Then people might show some respect.

>>655715

>>655728

The Holy Mother is the pinnacle of Creation. You must be blind to see if you deny this and the incredible honor that goes with it and that we owe to her for that.

>>655715

>Technically yes, but it can give a wrong impression. Therefore Mother of Jesus is preferable. Theotokos is also better than Mother of God if you happen to like foreign languages.

<Being this out of touch that calling Mary Mother of God in another language is preferable than calling her Mother of God in your own language

>>655639

Thanks for this post by the way, I was looking for some proofs about the soul being created by God.

This is proof of it, right?

>>655811

>I was looking for some proofs about the soul being created by God

Who else would be creating the soul?

>>655815

The mother or father, since I had no proof of God creating it (biblically speaking).

>>655810

>Mother of God in another language

Theotokos means God-bearer, not Mother of God, unless I'm very much mistaken. Now that I think of it, using foreign compound noun terms for important things might not be the best idea when people don't know the original language.

I watched part of a televised vernacular Orthodox mass, and they called Mary the (translated) birther of God, a formulation that sounds if anything even more unusual than it would in English, merely about the physical act of giving birth.

>>655738

At least you're still considering her part of the creation, so there's that.

>>655490

How is it at all similar to scientology

>>655478

It always amazes me that people think they have to choose a denominations…

A denomination is not what brings you salvation, grace through faith in Jesus is.

Go to Jesus, seek His will for your life.

If He wants you to join a denomination, then so be it, but seek Him first. (Matthew 6:33)

Regarding your question..

Mary was truly blessed by the fact that she was chosen to give birth to Jesus. So in the Earthly sense, yes, she is the mother of Jesus. But saying that she is the mother of God sounds strange to me, because it seems to imply that she must be divine too.

Of course Jesus is God, so there's that, but He was also fully man while he walked the Earth. Before Jesus was born a man, He always existed as the Word of God. It seems strange to me that a human (who as a believer is the child of God) would be considered the mother of God. And don't forget what Jesus said about Christ being the son of David (Matthew 22:42-46).

So I see it like this: Mary was the mother of Jesus while He was fully man, that's it.

>>656643

Mary is the mother of Jesus

Jesus is God

Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God

Mary is the mother of God

Please go back to your trinitarian heresy thread

>>656648

> Everyone I disagree with is a trinitarian

This is my stance on it

>>656642

>>656650

Being a trinitarian is good

Being a heretic is bad

Maybe if IFBs pick that up they'll work things out

Mary giving birth to Jesus, who is God, does not necessitate her being divine, and both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church deny her being divine. Matthew 22 doesn't say Jesus isn't the son of David, it confirms it and calls the pharisees out for denying His messiahship and divinity. Jesus has always been fully God, he remained fully God when He became fully man in the virgin's womb, and has remained fully God and man ever since as He always will. There is no way to deny that Mary is the Theotokos without denying in some way that Christ is God and it's things like this that lead to bizarre IFB heresies

>>656671

Are you trying to say that Christ's humanity pre-existed creation, cause that's like a heresy and stuff

>>656675

Well then the 1st epistle of John 1:1-2 and Colossians 1:15-17 is a "heresy" then, as is gospel of John chapter 1 and probably a lot more. If you're so bold as to deny the nature of Christ, you are likely also the kind to ban and delete my posts if possible like you did once before. But that's ok, do it then.

>>656686

John 1 does no such thing

Colossians 1 does no such thing

1 John 1 does no such thing

Prior to creation deity is all that could be said to exist in some way

>>656689

Colossians 1:12-17

Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

1 John 1:1-2

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

>>656693

I've got 1 John 1 memorized beyond that point and I reread Colossians 1 before posting

This is a particularly weird heresy. Do you not believe Adam was the first man?

>>656696

Just read the scripture I already posted, and stop trying to change the nature of Christ. Then I won't have to keep responding.

>>656698

Did human nature not come into being through God's creation of it on the sixth day?

>>656671

This kind of selective fussing over theological views is what makes me doubt such controversies as anything but opportunistic political intrigues and scandals. At the start of Matthew it literally says "His mother María having been betrothed to Ioséph". So any other view would have to be inferred from a type of extraneous or secondary analysis of scripture, so you would think one could accept her being referred to as the mother of Jesus instead of God the Father which is reportedly also the actual Orthodox view, but no, competitive and manipulative opportunists just have to make people say things that they don't want to, leading us to the situation seen throughout history up till today.

Also says son of man, son of God, may call Jesus God but never is Mary said to be the mother of God. If Christians haven't made amends for controversies relating to such views it's likely because of the inherent slowness and reluctance in governments and bureaucracies, including theocratic ones, to do so more than anything.

>>656701

No one is saying she is the mother of God the Father

Mary is the Mother of Jesus, who is God

>>656702

That's also what I've heard but I'm saying that people and churches shouldn't have been compelled to state their views on such ambiguous topics in a matter that they didn't want feel comfortable with doing, which is I see such controversies as probably more mundane than spiritual.

>>656706

If they don't feel comfortable saying that Mary is the Mother of God I don't feel comfortable with their Christology

>>656708

Well I doubt the refusal to concur on a relatively minute and ambiguous matter really amounts to much of a difference in overall doctrine and on the contrary has been exhibited to be in agreement with the rest of the popular beliefs in Christendom more than not.

There are probably even more egregious differences between denominations than this.

>>656704

>it's like inverted Arianism.

That's an interesting statement you just made, it's more like some people around here are a "partial" Arian though. It's actually the other way around, someone made a thread asking about Nestorianism and I explained this very thing very well. I would ask for straight answers for once, instead of various irrelevant accusations (can't get two witnesses to agree) dodging the issue when called out, or attempts to shift the subject away from something that can't be answered. In this case to 1 Corinthians 15. When you could just read the scriptural statements on those questions for yourself.

>>656725

>for God was not begotten from Mary.

The person of Jesus Christ, the Lord God himself was conceived and born from Mary, that is how he was manifested. It's just a mistake to think that this is the same as the fact that the Son (same person) is eternally begotten of the Father. You have to be very explicit when dealing with this so that you won't cause others to stumble into damnable heresy, and something that we all detest.

>>656660

> Being a trinitarian is good

No, the official Trinitarian doctrine is not good.

> Mary giving birth to Jesus, who is God, does not necessitate her being divine

No, because she gave birth to Jesus when He was fully man.

> and has remained fully God and man ever since as He always will

Mind pointing me to scripture that confirms this?

> and it's things like this that lead to bizarre IFB heresies

No, it's things like calling Mary the mother of God (without further context) that lead to heresy such as idolatry.

>>656753

He was fully divine as an infant.

>>656755

When did I say He wasn't ?

>>655493

Just curious, are you a modalist?

The main problem with this is that English doesn't have an equivalent word for the Greek used at the councils, Θεοτόκος.

The τόκος part of the word can be roughly translated to "bearer", making Mary the "God-bearer," which I imagine some people in this thread would agree to call her.

Often times I prefer to use God-bearer in lieu of Mother of God, but both are ultimately acceptable provided the latter is clarified.

Or you could be totally hip and cool and just say Θεοτόκος

Trinitarianism is intellectually unsatisfying in some ways but modalism makes the least sense of all of the alternatives. Doubling down on the I'm-my-own-father-and-I-pray-to-myself issues.

>>656761

There is no clarification needed with the title Mother of God, since Mary was literally that.

>>656774

>Trinitarianism is intellectually unsatisfying

wrong, the trinity is one of the most theologically deep sacred mysteries out there

>>655478

is mary the mother of Jesus incarnate

was Jesus incarnate God

if you answered yes to the first two, mary is the theotokos

>>656756

>>656756

>>656756

So she gave birth to a being who is fully God. So she is the mother of God.

Remember mothers are not "creators". They give birth and raise their offspring.

>>656827

>>656829

Anti-Trinitarian, Anti-Theotokos…the absolute state of protestants.

>>656807

Trinity isnt even that deep. From a purely logical point of view it makes sense, it is just beyond regular human perception.