73b9b0 No.714096
When Baptists reject Mary as Mother of God, they deny Chalcedon. And here's why, this is what the core authority of Chalcedon says about Nestorius in "Against Nestorius",
This is what he(Nestorius) said then, when he pronounced the term ‘Theotokos’ unsound as applied to the holy Virgin:
1 ==I(Nestorius) often asked them (that is, those who contradict him), ‘Do you say that the Godhead has been born of the holy Virgin?’== At once they pounce on the phrase, ‘And who,’ they say, ‘is so sick with such a blasphemy as to say that in her who gave birth to the temple, in her was God conceived by the Spirit?’ ==Then when I reply to this, ‘What is wrong, then, about our advising the avoidance of this expression and the acceptance of the common meaning of the two natures?==’ then it seems to them that what we have said is blasphemy. ==Either admit clearly that the Godhead has been born from the blessed Mary==, or if you avoid this expression as blasphemous, why do you say the same things as I do, yet pretend that you are not saying them?18
From:Against Nestorius, quoted from Norman Russell's "Cyril of Alexandria"(pg.132)
07424c No.714110
>>714099
Thus you are worse than a Nestorian
771195 No.714111
>>714099
>Nestorianism
>tfw you happily become a heretic so you can stick it to the Catholics
771195 No.714112
>>714097
You know the books in your Bible were based on one of those "pagan" councils right?
5ccc2f No.714116
>>714096
Mary was 100% human; important to God's plan, but not somehow on-par with God by any stretch. Praying to her or otherwise treating her like God is blasphemy.
She was not involved in the inception of God - the spirit of the Lord was always there. Jesus's status as human was why she was involved.
f17d1e No.714117
>>714110
>worse than
>all because I refuse to relegate a mere mortal woman to godhood
None of us reject her as the Mother of Christ, only your mommy goddess heresy.
>>714111
>Protestantism is now longer considered heretical by papists
WEW
>>714112
No council took place in 1825.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) 5ccc2f No.714118
>>714117
This. She's a human so treating her like God is wrong. Easy.
771195 No.714119
>>714117
>only your mommy goddess heresy.
Catholics don't believe Mary is a goddess. She's merely the highest ranked of all saints
771195 No.714121
>>714117
>No council took place in 1825.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome
>A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.
a4185e No.714123
>>714116
>Mary was 100% human; important to God's plan, but not somehow on-par with God by any stretch.
True, but 100% human conceived without Sin, and not stained at all with Sin throughout Her Life and Assumption; full of the Grace of God, then, now, and forever.
>Praying to her or otherwise treating her like God is blasphemy.
We pray to Her as we are called and encouraged to pray to any other Saint in Heaven. We have specific prayers that always invoke Her proper relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, never confusing Her with Him.
>She was not involved in the inception of God - the spirit of the Lord was always there.
She was always involved in the inception of Christ, for Christ is the first-born of all creatures, before all creatures. This being the case, then His Holy Mother has a very special place in all of Creation - that being usurping Satan himself as God's greatest creation.
cbb13b No.714124
>>714117
Wait I don’t understand the significance of 1825, please don’t (1) and done, what happened in 1825? What are you referencing?
f17d1e No.714126
>>714121
That's not when the canon was established formally dude.
>>714119
>catholics don't believe Mary is a goddess.
<some contend she was immaculately conceived
<some contend she's necessary for you're salvation
<she magically ascended into heaven, allegedly
<by virtue of serving God she was cleansed of the stain of first sin and was debatably "immortal"
<codominatrix or whatever you guys call it
<temple after temple to "ghosts" of this woman
<the list forever goes on…
Could have fooled me.
>>714123
<ShEs nOt MomMy gODdesS yOu hEReTiC
>>714124
1825 is when the canon was formalized. You don't know this?
Prior to 1825 Protestant bibles still carried the Apocryphal texts.
a4185e No.714129
771195 No.714130
>>714126
>That's not when the canon was established formally dude.
Yeah it was, sorry. I know it destroys your position entirely to know that it was a Pope in the 4th Century who formalized the biblical canon but you just gotta deal with it.
>Could have fooled me.
Mary was immaculately conceived and assumed into Heaven to receive her glorified body. None of this makes her a goddess.
>1825 is when the canon was formalized.
Hahaha. Oh the lengths you Protties will go to with your historical revisionism to justify your completely fabricated doctrines. This one is pretty funny, it's Pastor Jim preserving the KJV for future generations before Constantine gets him level delusion.
f17d1e No.714131
>>714129
>True, but 100% human conceived without Sin,
<ergo, via immaculately, ergo Jesus is not of the appropriate blood lineage.
Why are denying the divinity of God?
>and not stained at all with Sin throughout Her Life and Assumption;
<imma need citation for both of these impossible things
771195 No.714132
>>714131
>imma need citation for both of these impossible things
For men it is impossible but for God all things are possible. If God wants to grant someone the grace to resist sin for their entire life he can, and that's the kind of grace he granted Mary. There is a reason the angel Gabriel greeted Mary by saying
>Hail, full of grace!
Hail is a greeting you use for your superior, the angel was acknowledging Mary as being above himself. Secondly "full of grace" is a title he gives to Mary for the immense grace God bestowed on her as the mother of the incarnate son.
f17d1e No.714135
>>714132
Neither of those are evidence of what was asserted.
a4185e No.714138
>>714131
Don't act the buffoon in regards to Sacred things, you only emulate Satan.
>The immaculate conception of Mary invalidates the lineage of David in Christ.
How? I never asserted this, you must prove I said this, and that any Catholic believes this.
>citation
Tradition, which is literal citation from the Apostolic Succession and Deposit of Faith,
Why does Mary's immaculate conception bother you so much? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit picked out Mary like a lottery? Or that Mary had other children? If so, whom? Where are the blood brothers of God?
b9b869 No.714158
>>714117
And thus you reject Chalcedon and follow the logic of Nestorius. Silly Baptist
b9b869 No.714206
Funnily all the statements made by Baptists ITT thus far matches that of Nestorius!
As he says(from Russell,pg.136)
Look what follows, heretic. I do not begrudge you the expression ‘Virgin Christotokos’.21 I know that she who received God is venerable, she through whom the Lord of all things passed, through whom the sun of righteousness shone forth. Again I am suspicious of your applause.22 How do you understand ‘passed through’? I did not use ‘passed through’ as a synonym for ‘was born’. I have not forgotten my own words as quickly as that. That God passed through from the Virgin as Christotokos I have been taught by the divine Scriptures, but that God was born from her I have not been taught anywhere.
Nowhere do the divine Scriptures say that God was born from the Mother of Christ, but Jesus Christ, Son and Lord.
86ddb1 No.714267
See this for the sauce proving Baptists are Nestorians
ee4938 No.714281
>>714123
>True, but 100% human conceived without Sin
Citation from the Bible needed
>We pray to Her as we are called and encouraged to pray to any other Saint in Heaven
Citation from the Bible needed
>His Holy Mother has a very special place in all of Creation
Why is 'Creation' capitalized? She played no part in Creation. Everything that was made, was made by Christ (this including Mary).
>that being usurping Satan himself as God's greatest creation
>Satan -> God's greatest creation
wew
ee4938 No.714292
>>714099
this
(USER WAS BANNED FOR RULE 4) 86ddb1 No.714297
>>714158
>>714292
t.Crypto Nestorians
a01393 No.714304
Funny how no baptist that I've ever met in real life thinks like OP. And the rest of you are just eating it up.
86ddb1 No.714307
>>714304
Maybe ask why the Baptists here are thinking like Nestorius
a01393 No.714309
>>714307
Prove to me that they're real baptists.
86ddb1 No.714312
>>714309
They are the only ones here that go Nestorian. Never go Nestorian
Do you accept Mary as Mother of God?
a01393 No.714313
>>714312
Since Jesus is fully God, yes.
The "baptists" on this board are quite different from real-life baptists that I know. Either they've based all their beliefs on those of the living meme Anderson, or they're false-flaggers who think anderson is what baptists are actually like.
86ddb1 No.714314
>>714313
Then good for you on that front.
4fa759 No.714323
Reminder herasies lead to each other:
>Nestorian
>Jesus just shared his body with God the Son
>Adoptionism
>Jesus was a man who had Godlyness confered onto him
>New Age Shit
>We can all become Gods
>literally Satan’s ploy against Eve
Yeah it’s a stretch but still, know that all false doctrine leads to hell.
77418d No.714324
So…. god is not a respecter of persons…. except for Mary?
4fa759 No.714325
>>714324
So God is not a respecter of persons… except for whoever God choses to go to heaven because the original Baptists were Calvinists?
b5fce8 No.714326
>>714325
>So God is not a respecter of persons… except for whoever God choses to go to heaven because the original Baptists were Calvinists?
<For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
God isn't a respecter of persons because Scripture does sa that, and He does choose who is saved.
<And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
<For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
>because the original Baptists were Calvinists?
None of that enters the picture though. Faith is a gift, you can't demand a gift.
d0becb No.714329
>>714326
Why do you reject Mary as Mother of God?
4fa759 No.714330
>>714326
>Faith is a gift
Calvinist God: “What’s that Joe? You didn’t have faith in my Son Jesus when you got shot in Iraq? Don’t worry, I didn’t want you to go to Heaven anyways.”
“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). Faith is a constant struggle, something that must be kindled in the fire. Jesus dying on the Cross WAS a free gift, but we must live our lives in a way pleasing to God so that we may grow closer to him.
But to the Thread topic though, God does in fact choose special people to carry out his will. Was God a respecter of persons when he chose Noah to build the Ark, or Abraham to be the ancestor of Christ?
b5fce8 No.714336
>>714329
I never said anything about rejecting Mary as the mother of God? I confirm it, she bore God in flesh.
>>714330
>“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). Faith is a constant struggle, something that must be kindled in the fire. Jesus dying on the Cross WAS a free gift, but we must live our lives in a way pleasing to God so that we may grow closer to him.
I get that, but sanctification does not equal justification. I hope you don't take me for an antinomian, I don't like that stuff either. That said, I also recognize that the work of the cross was finished once for all and can only be accounted to us by God aside from our wills which are perpetually dead in sin outside His grace, and works of faith are merely confirmation of existing faith that do not increase the measure of grace already given in salvation, nor keep it from decreasing.
>Calvinist God: “What’s that Joe? You didn’t have faith in my Son Jesus when you got shot in Iraq? Don’t worry, I didn’t want you to go to Heaven anyways.”
<As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
<14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
< For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
<19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
You can't demand salvation from God. Grace depends on the one who is giving it. If all prisoners on deathrow are given grace on demand, grace is no longer grace. It is merited in that case, since the one deciding it is the prisoner.
>Was God a respecter of persons when he chose Noah to build the Ark, or Abraham to be the ancestor of Christ?
In the context of Abraham or Noah having been somehow better morally, more spiritually sensitive, or intelligent in terms of recognizing the creation needs a Creator, I would not say so. He foreknew them, He called them, He predestined them, and He also glorified them. They too were dead in their sins, like a desert of dry bones, until He regenerated them. Dry bones and dead men do not do anything, nor do they wish to do anything. After they began to believe through the power of God, they of course pleased God.
However, if nothing in sinners can please God, then it follows that belief that pleases God can not be attained by sinners, but God must give it to them.
< For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Likewise the preceeding passages establish the sanctification of the believer who sets their mind on the things of God.
< For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Set free from the slavery of sin so that we can be free to do good, by the power of God. Amen.
b378e4 No.714337
What so hard about just being a good effing person?
d0becb No.714338
>>714336
Is devotion and veneration of Mary vital to the Christological controversy?
ae9d86 No.714344
Church of the East Christian here
It's tiring to see Nestorius constantly attacked on this board. I want to clarify some things. Nestorius accepted the creed of Chalcedon and the Leo's Tome as orthodox, he was not the heretic you want him to be. He said "In the case of the term Theotokos, I am not opposed to those who want to say it, unless it should advance to the confusion of natures in the manner of the madness of Apollinaris or Arius." His dispute with Cyril was dyophysitism (as was eventually accepted by the church) vs miaphysitism (which was held by the Cyrillians and is still held in Egypt to this day). Your issue is with the Baptists who hate Mary, not with Nestorius who defended Christ's two natures.
Mods please don't delete
b5fce8 No.714346
>>714338
The thing baptists constantly make noise about on this board? I would say so, yes. The saints of God are saints by the power of God, not by their own. I will glorify God in their salvation, but I would not ascribe honor to any saint outside of what God has given them. The good works we walk in are prepared beforehand by God. I think the meme andersonites try to push an issue of the ontology of Jesus Christ where there isn't one according to roman catholics, and the response from rcs is the nestorian heresy.
4fa759 No.714347
>>714344
Perhaps this is true, but his own insistence on using Christotokos and his lack of criticism towards those who misinterpreted his doctrine, however well his own intents were, were factors in his anathema.
ae9d86 No.714348
>>714347
Both the terms "mother of God" and "mother of man" were anathematized in the east because they only mention one nature, we use "mother of Christ" because Christ is both God and man. That is why Nestorius insisted on using the term, and because the term is used in scripture while Theotokos is not, but he was not opposed to using Theotokos in an orthodox way.
>his lack of criticism towards those who misinterpreted his doctrine
What are you talking about? He spoke harshly against those who divide Christ into two persons (the Paulinians) and he explained why he did not believe what he was anathematized for.
4fa759 No.714349
>>714336
Read what you are saying though. If God truly will not accept anything from us, our sins never forgiven, then why even follow him? If all god will see us as is sinners, then what good is Worship? I can see OSAS is required in Calvinism, because if we can do nothing for God, then God has to drag us to heaven. We might as well “sin boldly” as Luther said, for really there is no difference in believers and nonbelievers except God’s petty favoritism in Calvinism.
b5fce8 No.714354
>>714349
>If God truly will not accept anything from us, our sins never forgiven, then why even follow him? I can see OSAS is required in Calvinism, because if we can do nothing for God, then God has to drag us to heaven. We might as well “sin boldly” as Luther said, for really there is no difference in believers and nonbelievers except God’s petty favoritism in Calvinism.
I really don't see it the same way. The scriptures don't give an explanation for the seeming contradiction to our eyes, but they indict mankind for sin all the same while still affirming predestination and the power of God over both disaster and blessing.
>I can see OSAS is required in Calvinism
I would call it the perseverance of the saints, since OSAS carries that connotation of "wink towards God and that's it, you're saved". The scriptures do say that it is he who keeps the commandments that loves God, not the antinomian who goes right back to his sin.
>because if we can do nothing for God, then God has to drag us to heaven.
It is what the scriptures say it is, as far as i am concerned. We start off as people who hate God and love sin, and God shows his mercy after which by His power we start to love him and hate sin.
>We might as well “sin boldly” as Luther said, for really there is no difference in believers and nonbelievers except God’s petty favoritism in Calvinism.
There really isn't a difference as far as choosing capability goes, otherwise Ephesians 2 flies out the window and we do have something to boast in of ourselves, our sensitivity, intelligence, morality, whatever it may be. So it has to be grace, yeah? That's what the scriptures say, but what comes to sinning Paul also says
<What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
It may all seem hopeless in terms of our capabilites, but I believe the scriptures, i agree with Paul, i think it's all for the glory of God. It breaks the heart and makes humble when you can trust that it's all of God and none of myself.
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/predestination-how-does-it-reveal-glory-god/
ee4938 No.714359
>>714297
>actually implying that Mary is part of the Godhead
f02689 No.714360
>>714099
>that pic
>>714110 >>714111
weak
d0becb No.714361
>>714360
Why so mad,heretic. You deny both Ephesus and Chalcedon.
f02689 No.714364
>>714361
How many times did I post in this thread.
Count them.
And in how many of them did I say anything about Mary?
Check and Mate.
d0becb No.714365
>>714359
That is precisely the same thing Nestorius did. At least he is more accepting of it than you, making you more heretical than him
d0becb No.714367
>>714364
>supports the Baptists who use the Nestorian objection
f02689 No.714370
It's funny how butthurt Mary-"venerators" in this thread immediately cling to the idea that Nestorius was condemned for using the Christotokos label for Mary, when, in fact, that was only a consequence of his true heresy which was putting a wall between the human Christ and the divine Christ, when even we protestants agree that they are indivisible.
>>714365
>That is precisely the same thing Nestorius did
What? He implied that Mary was part of the Godhead?
Not my reading of the condemnations of his teachings.
ed53fe No.714372
>>714370
Nice to see you ignored the explicit quotes from Cyril himself, the core authority of Chalcedon and Ephesus. What does he say about Nestorius? He says he denies the title of Theotokos because it leads to the misunderstanding that Mary is an originator of the Godhead. In OP, Cyril literally quotes Nestorius rhetorically charging those who support the title Theotokos as this.
It's funny how ignore the very mouth of Cyril himself, which shows how Baptists who deny Theotokos, the same people you support, literally spout the reasonings that Chalcedon and Ephesus had to counter. All this shows is Baptists just don't care about what the Fathers and Councils have to say
8498a2 No.714375
>>714370
>>714360
>>714096
>Nestorianism is now the catholic catchall for anything they don't like
>make sure you take note, no using Gnostic for now
ed53fe No.714378
>>714370
The proof is by your rejection of Cyril, the very authority behind Ephesus and Chalcedon. All Baptists needed to do was say they accept the title but not the veneration. Even more funny, even in the quotes from Cyril in OP, nothing of Mary's veneration is implied, only the typical Baptist line when faced with being so butthurt of that title.
But even worse for Baptists, Against Nestorius literally uses Marian veneration as a cause to argue against Nestorius!
So Baptists only show themselves to be the heretics the early Church had to contend with
ed53fe No.714390
>>714370
Tell me, therefore, (((why do you begrudge such a title to the holy Virgin, and moreover deprive her of the dignity of divine birth and say that she is not Theotokos?))) When you condemn the term as unsound and declare that it is full of blasphemy, how is it that you allow those who wish to do so to attribute it to the holy Virgin? Furthermore, I hear you calling her venerable. (((How then do you consider this term which is so blasphemous (as it seems to you alone) fit to adorn the most venerable one and you pretend to crown her, presenting this calumny against the Word of God as if dedicating some choice gift to her?))) For if it is utterly detestable to the Word that has come from God to undergo physical birth, and yet you allow her who did not give birth to God to be called Theotokos, is it not true to say that you have manifestly despised the Lord’s will? Will you not be caught insulting the venerable one rather than, as you yourself think and say, choosing to honour her by assigning her a title detestible to God? (pg.137)
ed53fe No.714394
>>714390
For ((do you not say that Elizabeth or any other of the holy women is worthy of all reverence? Does it not follow that you would not object if anyone were to choose to call these too Theotokoi?))) But I think you would totally disagree with this and say, ‘That is not so. For they gave birth to sanctified human beings and nobody among them was God by nature.’ Therefore (((take away this term from every woman, or if you allow of all of them only the holy Virgin to have this))), what words will you use in your defence? For if the saying is true with regard to her and she really did give birth to God, confess with us that the Word who is from God has become flesh and you will deliver yourself from the charge of impiety. But if she did not give birth to God, to allow anyone to call her Theotokos is to participate in their impiety. But she is Theotokos, because the Only-begotten became a man like us, having been united with flesh and undergone physical birth and not having despised the laws of our own nature, as I have already said.(pg.138)
715dd2 No.714396
>>714099
Nice Hotwheels meme, friend.
75fac0 No.714398
>>714099
>And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him,
>so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength) -Isaiah 49:5
>But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me,
>that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood. -Galatians 1:15-16
As you can clearly see, you rebuttal means nothing, as by your own logic, the person you have called your mother is not actually your mother.
77ed71 No.714408
>>714398
Seems like your point is missing stuff, as it doesn't make sense. Not sure what you're going for dude
>>714396
For some, it's they're religion
>>714370
Amen.
How long do you wager it'll take for them to revert back to "everything I don't like I'd Gnosticism!"? I'd wager a six-ish weeks,
ed53fe No.714412
>>714408
The fact that no Baptist bothers to engage with what Cyril have to say and outright oppose him shows their denial of his Christology, as his veneration of Mary is tied to it. So much so the first decree of Ephesus starts off with demanding Mary as Mother of God
77418d No.714416
>>714412
hmmm Ephesus, wonder if that has anything to do with Diana…
Dog returns to its vomit.
ed53fe No.714417
>>714416
Worse than a Nestorius
77418d No.714418
>>714417
Why?
Here is a question, was the emperor Theodosius correct in making paganism illegal and Christianity the only legal religion of the Roman Empire?
ed53fe No.714419
>>714418
Rather than ask about Theodisius, ask, why did all the early Christians worship saints early on?
e500d9 No.714420
>>714418
Making Salvation legally required is never a bad thing. LARPagans can cry all they want about it, but I would much rather worship Jesus Christ as God then some stupid little man like the Caesar cult in Rome or Esoteric Hitlerists.
ed53fe No.714421
>>714418
But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive463 nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, (((and to become possessors464(literally "have fellowship with)of his holy flesh))). For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him 43that was crucified, they begin to worship this one.” This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, (((that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners465), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary466 affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions467 and fellow-disciples!)))
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvii.html
77418d No.714422
>>714419
What year are you referring to in which they started? What? 33 AD?
>>714420
So what you're saying is, is that a human being, by legal action, can force people to be saved, and it's not God that saves people on a personal level?
77418d No.714423
>>714421
Right, nothing like modern Catholics. These Christians didn't worship saints, unlike:
>>714419
>why did early christians worship saints?
ed53fe No.714424
>>714422
Let's see, do you honour the Apostles by baptizing converts on account of them?
77418d No.714425
>>714424
Why did the Ethiopian eunuch have to believe first to then be baptized?
You can't magically perform a ritual that saves someone.
John 3:8
>The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
ed53fe No.714426
>>714423
Nope. Try again. No Baptist are so desparate as to "possess" or want to have fellowship with remains of their martyrs or saints. No Baptist or even Protestant consider the flesh of a martyr to be holy.
And none of them contest amongst each other to be the first to touch the skin of a martyr.
Like it or not. Those are idolatrous by your standards. Be consistent
e500d9 No.714428
>>714422
No wha I’m saying is it makes it a whole lot easier for people to decide to trust in God if everyone else around them is doing the same.
>>714348
I will not deny that Nestorius is hard to decypher (he says one thing in his writings and yet denies it when he is being accused), but I don’t think of him as a sinful person, just someone trying to understand what the church admits cannot be understood. I have no doubt that he is in Heaven and that were it not for him, Christianity in the Far East (such as India and even China) would not have been nearly as strong.
77418d No.714429
>>714426
I don't know, if a loved one was murdered and their body defiled wouldn't you want to take it back from the defiler? I feel as though this is what was happening, at least extremely early on.
ed53fe No.714430
>>714425
Meanwhile, all of NT Scholarship disagrees with you
ed53fe No.714432
>>714429
Except that is not what the context says. Why would the author call the dead flesh of a martyr holy and use a Greek word that when literally translated means "have fellowship with"?
Stop making excuses and address these plain obvious points
ed53fe No.714434
>>714429
And even worse, look at the context. The reason why the authorities dont want to allow Christians to have the martyr's body was so that the Christians wont 'worship' Polycarp. It literally have nothing to deal with what you say
77418d No.714436
>>714430
>scholarship
Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites
What you're saying is that whenever the Bible says faith is what is needed for salvation, you read it as faith + baptism?
John 3:36
>He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Do you think that should be:
>He that believeth on the Son (and also was immersed with water) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
What sayest thou, scribe?
>>714432
Maybe the author was a fallible man living in an emotionally traumatic time. I have to go by biblical standards. "God is not a respecter of persons"
ed53fe No.714438
>>714436
Yup because a Baptist who cant even read the basic english of Martyrdom of Polycarp sure as hell know the Koine Greek better than those who actually study it.
God is not a respector of persons. And he isnt a respector of the arrogant either. Woe to you 'scribe' and 'hypocrite'!
ed53fe No.714441
>>714436
>faith and Baptism are at odds
Try again when even Calvinist Douglas Moo doesnt pull off this nonsense
77418d No.714451
>>714438
Well in the martyrdom of Polycarp it is states these Christians did not worship saints, yet we see Catholics in this thread saying they did.
ed53fe No.714453
>>714451
Nope. As I had pointed out, the martyrdom of polycarp is idolatry by your standards. You cant even address context or even the basic Greek translation of the text.
ed53fe No.714455
>>714451
And here's the thing. Calling Mary Theotokos isnt worshipping her. Venerating saints isnt worship as Martyrdom of Polycarp shows
Sorry if facts dont care about your Baptist feefees and fantasy
76a58f No.714485
>>714126
>she magically ascended into heaven, allegedly
Do you think Elijah is a god then?
a4185e No.714486
>>714281
>citation from the Bible needed
I need a citation from the Bible accepting sola scriptura.
As for Jesus Himself, He gave the Church of St. Peter (His Church) the authority to bind and loosen the Law.
>Why is 'Creation' capitalized? She played no part in Creation.
I capitalized Creation because I feel we are talking about sacred subjects, do not project your non-arguments onto me.
>wew
Satan was the highest and most beautiful Angel of God before the Fall, with the Assumption of Mary, we proclaim that Mary was destined to always usurp Satan as God's greatest creation.
What problem do you have with this, Satan?
77418d No.714496
>>714486
No… no he never gave Peter the authority to bind and loose the LAW OF GOD. Binding and loosing on heaven and on Earth is referring to saving people's souls. Saving them here on Earth is saving them in Heaven.
Please, I beg you, read the Bible with no preconceived notions. I care for your soul, and I hope you see that it alone is the word of our God.
cf4da2 No.714522
Related question. Don't the rules of this board say that nestorians aren't allowed here? The same way non trinitarian fags got kicked out these heretics should as well. Every other regular prot believes in the Theotokos so why don't baptist believe it? Are they Muslims inside the closet?
cf4da2 No.714525
>Peter the authority to bind and loose the LAW OF GOD.
What law did we change? Its not my fault that your founder wasn't born earlier to instruct us on the true path. Jesus must have made a mistake and never cared to correct it.
The apostles themselves are heretics since St. John died in communion with the pope and the church of Rome, the apostolic fathers were heretics as well, the Bible Canon was defined by heretics, christendom was spread throughout the world by heretics until John Smyth, the smartest man alive schismed from a church that schismed from that first heretical church and founded the true Church as divided as their number of members.
cf4da2 No.714526
77418d No.714563
>>714525
Why do you think there must be a visible church of God?
Do you really think any so-called "church" today is truly the church of God?
No, the invisible Church of God is not built with hands.
All who believe on Christ Jesus, that he died once and for all to wash away all their sins, they are the invisible church of the invisible God.
John 3:8
>The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
a9af3a No.714620
Legitimate question about the Mary thing, where do you find evidence that Mary never sinned? I don't really see this addressed by those who hold her in higher esteem. No disrespect intended.
8498a2 No.714628
>>714620
Because it's a necessary part of catholic doctrine that she effectively is equal to or is God, hence the sinlessness.
>no explanation given to as why she wasn't crucified though
>only a heretic would ask that
12464a No.714631
>>714620
Kecharitomene in the Angelic Salutation in Luke which means perfectly and entirely filled with God's grace. If she was perfectly filled with God's grace then there is no room for sin. Also she was the Mother of God and bore him in the most intimate union, if she had been stained with sin then God would also be stained with sin which is a logical contradiction. Sacred tradition also holds that St Joseph and st John the Baptist were quickened in the womb (baptised) and given the grace to never sin.
90303a No.714632
>>714628
Catholics don't believe Mary is equal to or is God.
>>714620
Tradition. Mary wasn't chosen randomly. She was created by God for the express purpose of giving birth to the incarnation. Mary was chosen to be the ark of the new covenant, as such she was given grace by God beyond that which any other creature receives. She was selected to be the new Eve, who rather than taking life by eating the forbidden fruit, gives it back by birthing the savior of the world, the blessed fruit of her womb.
73b657 No.714640
>>714620
>>714620
>>714620
More legitimate is why Baptists deny Mary as Mother of God and resort to Nestorian reasonings to defend their decision. As many ITT does
774961 No.714781
>>714632
You guys say this a lot about a lot of things you do and actively believe.
90303a No.714787
>>714781
Yeah we do. It's because Protestants have nfi what Catholics actually believe so we need to constantly explain the very basics of the Christian faith to them over and over. Maybe if you guys stopped the complete lies about us worshipping Mary/Saints/Idols then we wouldn't need to act like your sunday school teacher in every single thread.
cd5e29 No.714788
>>714563
Because Jesus did found one church back then and it had its Bishops and priests as we can see from Paul.
No, the invisible Church of God is not built with hands.
>All who believe on Christ Jesus, that he died once and for all to wash away all their sins, they are the invisible church of the invisible God.
How can we be part of the same "church" if we have completely opposite views on salvation and even about the nature of Christ. Also the invisible God made Himself visible in Jesus Christ.
And I don't know where you trying to get with that quotation from John since that part is about the baptism not the church, but wtv.
f8a9c4 No.714790
>>714522
>insulting and hating his mother
>hey, maybe you should listen to God and not bow down to statues or pray to people other than Him
<omg why do you hate mary!!111!!!
>>714787
>Maybe if you guys stopped the complete lies about us worshipping Mary/Saints/Idols
What are these people doing in pic related?
5a7a8e No.714792
>>714790
Be consistent with yourself
90303a No.714793
>>714790
>What are these people doing in pic related?
Praying to God in front of a statue.
774961 No.714794
>>714792
>pictures of people in mourning processing respect to people they actually personally knew
>military/police courtesy ritual
<literal idolatry to mommy goddess
Yup, those are the same
>>714787
>point out historical and continued weird or unacceptable behaviors
<This isn't a teaching or belief of the catholic church!
The only thing any of you have successfully taught anyone is that you guys are completely inconsistent and have no principles at all. You can only repeat what you were told to repeat.
90303a No.714796
>>714794
>point out historical and continued weird or unacceptable behaviors
The problem for you is those "unacceptable behaviors" were practiced by ALL Christians for over 1000 years, and affirmed by the Church fathers. That's the entire reason why Protestants ignore the church fathers and cling to their flawed interpretation of scripture. The fact that Christians from the first and second century were entirely Catholic in their theology and routinely condemned Protestant type doctrines as heresy is an unfortunate fact that many protestants conveniently ignore because it hurts their ridiculous "Pastor Jim" type conspiracy theories
Those weird behaviors are Christianity in it's purest form, the form handed down to us from the earliest christians in an unbroken chain of succession. Protestant doctrine was a fabrication of the 16th century and appeals to people who have no understanding of history, no understanding of the church, no understanding of faith and thus fall for the most ludicrously shallow arguments based on cherry picking bible verses in a game of "choose your bible adventure!" prots have been playing for the past 400 years and continue to splinter over it
85a3fd No.714801
Is Jesus fully divine? Yes.
Is Jesus fully human? Yes.
Is Jesus God the Son? Yes.
Did Jesus enter Sheol? Yes.
Is God the Son the Father or the Holy Spirit? No
Did God the Son exist prior to Mary? Yes.
Thus Theotokos is a contradictory title because only divine Person of the Trinity entered into flesh and the Triune God is eternal. So Huiostoutheodesarxtokos (God the Son in the flesh barer) is the best description for Mary.
0459cc No.714804
>>714794
>saluting gravestones to honor dead soldiers
>idolatry when done to Christian saints who served God
Baptist Nestorian logic
Be consistent
0459cc No.714805
>>714794
>saluting gravestones to honor dead soldiers
>idolatry when done to Christian saints who served God
Baptist Nestorian logic
Be consistent
But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive463 nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors464 of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him 43that was crucified, they begin to worship this one.” This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners465), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary466 affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions467 and fellow-disciples!https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvii.html
This kills the Baptist
f8a9c4 No.714833
>>714793
>Praying to God in front of a statue.
Why are they praying to God in front of a statue? Let alone a statue of someone other than God?
>>714804
>idolatry when done to Christian saints who served God
Gee, maybe it's because Catholics literally pray to those statues and to the people they're of? I would say the same thing if some idiot was praying to the Vietnam memorial and holding religious value to it. Not to mention, I've never seen someone act like those graves are anything but graves, unlike Catholics that think random worked chunks of stone can cry blood and move.
774961 No.714834
>>714796
>cash for heaven is a proper Christian belief
W E W
>burning men alive for daring to translate the bible is a proper Christian belief
Huh….
>murdering Christian brothers because they won't join in on the king bishop larp
>etc. Etc. Etc.
>>714804
Clearly being moved to emotion because your buddy who was torn in half by ied, who saved your life, and falling to your knees in front of his grave marker is the same as worship and therefore idolatry. You've convinced me.
<Mary was a mere mortal woman
<she was blessed but it was no different than Abraham's
<she was conceived in the normal means
<Mary sinned
<Mary died and was buried
Choke on it.
cd555a No.714838
>>714833
This fails to address my point. Had they wanted to simply grieve or just make one memorial, they would had simply done so without all the gestures of honour done to those memorials. In fact Pastor Dave of Crossroads Baptist church dont hold any memorials or salute potraits and graves of dead pastors. Why? It's idolatry to them if they do it!
Even worse, the gestures of honour done to memorials are clearly done to the person honoured. Not the gravestone or memorial itself. This only shows your inconsistency and hypocrisy
cd555a No.714839
>>714834
This essentially fails to address my point. Appealing to emotional memories to make that different from Catholic veneration of saints presupposes that Catholics who contemplate the life of the saint cannot be moved by him and thus express this emotional state by giving honour.
In fact kissing gravestones and saluting memorials are clearly done as acts to honour the person, which is why Baptists dont do any of these level of ceremonials to their own pastors
90303a No.714843
>>714833
>Why are they praying to God in front of a statue? Let alone a statue of someone other than God?
Because it helps focus your prayer towards God. Shows veneration and respect to Mary who is symbolized by the statue. Basically the same reason people go to church to pray instead of just doing it wherever, it's good practice to get your mind in the right frame of reference by controlling your surroundings.
f8a9c4 No.714848
>>714838
>Had they wanted to simply grieve or just make one memorial, they would had simply done so without all the gestures of honour done to those memorials.
Mourning someone who was just buried is a lot different than literally praying to a statue. What part of this aren't you understanding?
>Even worse, the gestures of honour done to memorials are clearly done to the person honoured. Not the gravestone or memorial itself.
Yeah, because it's the person's grave marker, not some random rock that they're praying and attributing supernatural qualities to.
>This only shows your inconsistency and hypocrisy.
Except it doesn't, at all.
cd555a No.714850
>>714848
Except, none of those pictures show people mourning for a recent dead. So this excuse falls flat!
And no, using the excuse of "grave marker" makes no sense when the same thing are done to memorials which dont function as that. Even worse, the analogy still stands, no one is honouring the grave marker but the person.
And foolishly you contradict yourself, as grave markers can be made of rock! O how inconsistent the Baptist Nestorian is
7791b3 No.714852
>>714486
>What problem do you have with this, Satan?
>Not considering Satan to be God's greatest creation is something Satan would do?
Jesus Christ was God's creation as well, how come He is not the greatest creation?
90303a No.714853
>>714852
>Jesus Christ was God's creation as well
He was begotten, not made. Do you not know your creeds my protestant friend?
b460e4 No.714854
>>714853
He is a Braptist. What are creeds to him but trash!
b460e4 No.714857
>>714855
Here the Baptist shows his idiocy again. It doesnt matter where the gravemarkers are or what they are made of. The point is, those objects are the focus when acts of homage and honour are given! No one says they honour the gravemarkers or memorials when a salute is done facing them or if one wants to kiss them as one of the pictures show. The act is directed to the person, not the object. And this is the same when statues and images are venerated. But the Baptist, unable to use reason go on a red herring tangent of empty excuses!
Second, if there is nothing wrong with honouring the dead with saluting their memorials and graves, then there is also by extension nothing wrong with honouring saints by honouring their memorials which takes the form of their images!
This means the Baptist is being inconsistent, as Catholics who venerate statues, dont think the saint is in it or even attached to it. The image is a reminder and memorial of the saint's deeds. When a candle is burned a memorial and honour is given to the saint as salutes are given to dead soldiers to honour them! That is why they are done, to honour.
Claiming no one prays to dead soldiers is a literal non argument, as the act of praying to a saint is not predicated on having to venerate his image! It can be done without it and done without bowing to the image of a saint. And why bowing? To honour and respect the saint for what he did as dead soldiers are honoured!
And they say actions speak louder than words. So the fact that zero Baptist honour their dead reknowned in that manner or any saint or even God for that matter shows it is not necessary for them, because obviously it is idolatry if done. Thus making the Baptist inconsistent!
0962b7 No.714861
>>714834
>>cash for heaven is a proper Christian belief
You don't pay for indulgences retarded. Not the church's fault that people scammed people with fake indulgences. In fact those people were condmend but it's bad to read what really happened wlotherwise your number of arguments against us would be 0.
Stop bearing false testimony. It's a sin.
>>burning men alive for daring to translate the bible is a proper Christian belief
Source? And those Middle age translations were flawed as winnie the pooh and I wouldn't be surprised if the secular state punished those heretics.
I don't pretend protestants didn't burn people they thought they were witches with no proof.
>>murdering Christian brothers because they won't join in on the king bishop larp
What since when war between countries is all religion?
The United States also forces everyone in the world to love them and I don't see you criticising them.
And btw no one killed anyone if you didn't kiss the Bishop ring. Next time bring proof Satan. You're deviating people from the Church.
b460e4 No.714866
>>714865
Yes because apparently no one honours a saint when he is venerated. Gold star for logic there Baptist Nestorian. No one is saying they are equivalent, only they have significant overlaps in areas.
And miracles happening to an image is literally a red herring here. The issue is on their veneration where honour is shown to the saint. As my explanation shows, it does not matter if prayer to the saints are done, because gestures of bowing to the image or kissing it are simply akin to how dead vets are honoured. So this destroys your point.
And as I also said, the fact you dont honour your dead in the manner the state honours their dead vets is proof that should the act be done, it is simply idolatry plain and simple. Otherwise, do it and prove me wrong.
0962b7 No.714874
>>714865
>You pray to those "images", you retard, that's the difference. You think there's some magical hocus pocus to some fresco made centuries after a catholic "saint" died.
Wow the Church believes in this? I haven't I read this before in the catechism, encyclopedia, in the papal documents, in holy tradition etc? Are you sure you're right? If pastor Anderson said so then I believe in the Holy baptist non apostolic Church.
0962b7 No.714875
Now seriously if you really belive in what you say you couldn't be wronger about the Catholic Church. Even a 10 yo Catholic normie kid knows more about it than you.
All you're saying is stupid misconceptions invented by uncultured Americans.
Why don't you try to Google stuff about catholics before saying lies next time?
Maybe next time you wouldn't look like a retard.
90303a No.714876
>>714865
>you kike-ishly weasel
>You pray to those "images", you retard
>What are you even talking about now, retard?
Honestly this is a big tell that you're LARPing. Very unchristian behavior to be slinging slurs like this around so freely. You can discuss differences in theology without resorting to this vulgarity. Where's your humility and charity?
f8a9c4 No.714877
>>714866
>Yes because apparently no one honours a saint when he is venerated.
That wasn't even my point, but you're actually right. A lot of the people in the images that you pray to hate that you're committing idolatry in their name, at least the early ones.
>>714866
>And miracles happening to an image is literally a red herring here. The issue is on their veneration where honour is shown to the saint. As my explanation shows, it does not matter if prayer to the saints are done, because gestures of bowing to the image or kissing it are simply akin to how dead vets are honoured. So this destroys your point.
No, it really isn't. Feeling mournful and crying isn't the same as adoring a painting or statue and doing some vain, repetitious, and paganistic prayer to them.
also
<red herring
Did reddit learn a new word?
>And as I also said, the fact you dont honour your dead in the manner the state honours their dead vets is proof that should the act be done
I do, though. We just have different definitions of honor.
>>714874
>muh weeping statues
>>714876
Conveniently ignoring he was the first to throw around insults.
2826fa No.714882
>>714877
Nope. The early Christians accepted venerating saints. The difference being one venerate the relics, the other images. So this is outright false and a proof by assertion.
Second, none of the pictures to counter your idiocy shows anyone mourning. They are simply honouring the dead soldiers who served. And Catholics do the same just with saints in this respect. So your point fails yet again
And no, you dont. Proven by how you dont honour Polycarp, Ignatius, Paul, Peter…etc. Or even better no Baptists go to cemetaries and salute their dead pastors or have memorials to them which they salute to. Claiming different definitions of honour is pointless, when a salute is a universal act of honour which is clearly directed to the dead person
2826fa No.714883
>>714877
But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive463 nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors464 of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, “lest,” said he, “forsaking Him 43that was crucified, they begin to worship this one.” This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners465), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary466 affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions467 and fellow-disciples!https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvii.html
This kills the Baptist
02d772 No.714928
>>714096
baptists dont reject Mary as being the mother of Christ, but she is a mere mortal like any other. She was not raised up into heaven, she died on earth, and it doesnt matter whether she remained a virgin or not. And yes, she was a sinner like any other human, only Christ himself was sinless
b8d062 No.714932
>>714928
Exactly what nestorians think.
But Mary is the Mother of Christ and since Jesus is God and was born of Mary she is also the Mother of God and thus the most perfect human being ever to exist since she's the new Eve and Christ is the new Adam.
3b7e1b No.714935
>>714932
What do you mean “thus” the most perfect human being? Can you logically justify what you’re saying without contradicting the Bible? Also, God is not a respecter of persons.
e3162b No.714945
>>714935
In the new creation there needs to be a new Eve and a new Adam and both must have no sin. And for the mother of His Son God had to choose someone who had no attachment to sin, otherwise how could she smash the serpents head?
As the mother of our Lord she has the greatest dignity and sanctity of every human being and even of the angels making her the most perfect of God's creation.
>God is not a respected of persons
What does that mean? That God isn't proud of someone's sainthood or something?
If that's what you mean how could it be? Would Jesus break his own commandment and not honor his own mother?
>without contradicting the bible
Nothing of this contradicts the Bible and btw the Bible was written before Mary died, except the revelation and the gospel of John, and the former pays a beautiful homage to the Virgin.
And besides St. John was living with Mary and when she died and they opened her grave again she wasn't there anymore. And so they said the was taken by His Son to heaven, since she had no sin and therefore she wasn't under the punishment of death. And why is that idea so alien to you? God took Enoc and Elias and wouldn't Jesus take his own mother too?
“You will not suffer your faithful one to undergo corruption.” Ps. 16:10
“The Queen takes her place at Your right hand.” Ps. 45: 10
Revelation of John 12:1-2
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered.
a4185e No.714946
>>714935
>What do you mean “thus” the most perfect human being?
He's jumping ahead, but the blood of David and the blood of Mary was chosen to serve for the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Mary is the "Woman" from Revelations 12, and God, the Father proclaimed that Her Heel would crush Satan way back in Genesis.
>Can you logically justify what you’re saying without contradicting the Bible?
There is no contradicting of anything in the Bible, and it is in fulfillment of many prophecies in the Bible, -you- need to prove there is contradiction.
>Also, God is not a respecter of persons.
Where does it say this in the Bible? It does say God loves all persons though.
77418d No.714964
>>714946
>Where does it say that in the Bible?
Acts 10:34
>Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Romans 2:11
>For there is no respect of persons with God.
>Mary was the most perfect person
Luke 18:19
>And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
a4185e No.714969
>>714964
your proof-texting does you no good
>Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him.
22728a No.714971
>Be Baptist
>Accept Mother of God
>Accept that God suffered and died
>Thinks the child in Mary is Jesus the Logos who took on a complete human nature
Why are you lumping me in with the New IFB.
77418d No.714976
>>714969
Okay,
>There are none righteous, no, not one
a4185e No.714980
>>714976
Mary is full of Grace, which does not come from Herself, but from God.
To the previous Act proof-text you posted, there is also a reason that Mary refers to Herself as a "handmaid" of the Lord, She is still a servant, and is full of justice and grace and is most acceptable to the Lord.
77418d No.714981
>>714980
Okay, right, but how is she the most perfect person?
How can there be such a thing as a most perfect person?
You realize that if it was God's righteousness, then it was never hers, right?
a4185e No.714984
>>714981
>Okay, right, but how is she the most perfect person?
She is full of grace and without sin. God chose to create Her this way.
>How can there be such a thing as a most perfect person?
A "perfect" person in a Christian sense, is the one unstained with sin. Mary, being the New Eve, is the only perfect person since the original Adam and Eve. Christ of course, is perfect, but He is not just True Man, but also True God.
>You realize that if it was God's righteousness, then it was never hers, right?
And where did we say the grace of God was ever Hers? Mary did not make Mary, God created Mary, and She was filled with His Grace.
77418d No.714993
>>714984
Why must there be a "New Eve"?
The new Adam gives us a new SPIRITUAL birth, and therefore we do not need a new mother.
The first Adam and Eve were our fleshly parents requiring two.
Not only that, but Eve was Adam's wife.
cf4da2 No.714995
>>714993
>Not only that, but Eve was Adam's wife.
Eve came from one of Adam's ribs.
Christ came from Mary's womb.
If mankind is about to enter in a new earth and heavens everything must go back to the way God wanted it. With the new Creation we have what was supposed to have happened when God made mankind. No sin so we could live forever. And Mary sets that example showing us that her with no sin was taken to heaven by God. And whomever believes in her soon shall have the same reward after the resurrection of the bodies.
>we do not need a new mother
Says who?
Have you ever met someone who had no mother?
cf4da2 No.714996
>>714995
>believes in her Son
Fixed
77418d No.714998
>>714995
We do not need a new mother because a spiritual begetting does not require us to enter again into a womb and be born again.
Spirit is not like flesh. You can’t say the spirit must be so because the flesh is so.
Jesus isn’t even our father, yet he is the new Adam. See how this may be more metaphorical than you may have thought?
a4185e No.714999
>>714993
>Why must there be a "New Eve"?
see >>714995
>The new Adam gives us a new SPIRITUAL birth, and therefore we do not need a new mother.
"When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son"
>Not only that, but Eve was Adam's wife.
this is why the New supercedes the Old, the Old is the basis, the New is how humanity is saved, by the generation of Christ and generation of the saints
cf4da2 No.715000
>Eve came from one of Adam's ribs.
Christ came from Mary's womb.
Forgot to elaborate on this.
Since the woman came from a man, now the new Man came from a women. And genesis tells us it's a woman descendent of Eve who's gonna crush the snake and revelation tells us it's through her Son.
As St. Paul says:
1 Corinthians 11:11-12
But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.
>>714998
a4185e No.715001
>>714998
>We do not need a new mother
"When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son"
a4185e No.715002
>>714998
>Jesus isn’t even our father, yet he is the new Adam
that's heretical, patrick. Jesus is God.
4d48db No.715056
>Do you believe [insert someone that is not God] is God?
<No.
>Yeah you do
77418d No.715099
27c95d No.716098
>>714096
When capitalists reject Marx's theory of class struggle, they are racists, and here's why…
>Several posts later, multiple people who disagreed are banned for being racist
Seems legit.
a11770 No.716678
>>714323
>It's a stretch
not at all. All heresies breed more heresies. Lie, even a subtle one, is still a lie and comes from Satan himself because it is opposed to the Truth.
b4a2dc No.716712
>Mothers come before their sons
>Jesus's earthly body was born by Mary
>Therefore Mary is older than Christ, who was eluded to in Genesis
a4185e No.716733
>>716712
nobody said Mary is older than Christ, but given that Christ is first-born of all creatures, before all creatures, this makes Mary quite possibly the second/first creature…almost as if She's a New Eve…makes you think…
e500d9 No.716747
>>714971
Great start. Now admit her god is the god of the living and she can intercede for you.
77418d No.716889
>>716733
Christ is a creature?
Oooh, heretick!
a4185e No.717090
>>716889
no, but Mary is. the greatest of all creatures, in fact.
699349 No.717127
>>716712
Jesus is the Eternal Word, the Eternal Logos, who is eternally begotten of the Father and equal to the Father. When he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit in the womb of his blessed Mother, he took on a human nature and entered time. His human nature had a beginning. God created Mary with a perfect human nature, and that perfect human nature was imparted to the Son and united with His perfect divine nature.
The fact that Jesus took on a human nature in no way diminishes the Holy Trinity or Jesus' eternal existence. One of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, since the Incarnation, simply has a human nature as well as a divine one. If we said that his human nature supplanted his divine nature, we would have a problem. But such is not the case and could never be.
"But wait," you object, "Isn't God the Trinity immutable, eternal, and unchanging due to His innate perfection?" Why, yes, and I reconcile it in this way. God exists outside of time, so when Jesus Ascended to the right hand of the Father, He was leaving time into non-time, or "the Eternal Now." In the Eternal Now, God always existed with His perfect human nature and perfect divine nature in hypostasis, but His human nature was a result of creation by God inside of time, imparted by Mary, and then removed from time, while His divine nature was eternally begotten of the Father. God never changed because from the moment of creation (of time), His human nature was a part of Himself – merely an eternally created part of Himself, not a ontological part of Himself.
46faec No.718492
>this thread
Wow, Baptists really are Nestorians
8c65c9 No.718497
>>714096
Oh look, another shitskin whose society is deeply corrupt, dysfunctional, and utter shit and who runs to the nearest Protestant nation to live in and shit up.
8c65c9 No.718498
>>714123
>True, but 100% human conceived without Sin, and not stained at all with Sin throughout Her Life and Assumption; full of the Grace of God, then, now, and forever
You seem to be confusing Mary with Jesus. Dumb shitskin.
e3d967 No.718499
>>718497
>butthurt Nestorian
a4185e No.718505
>>718498
Anon, it will not go well for you. Don't insult your Judge's Mother.
77418d No.718856
>>718505
I don't think you quite understand, Jesus Christ is the beginning and the end. He created Mary. In fact, he created absolutely everything. All Mary did was nurse the infant INCARNATION for a little bit.
>Blessed are the paps which thou hast sucked
>But Jesus said, yea rather, blessed are they which hear the word of God, and keep it
And Mary is "blessed," absolutely, but not the only person ever to be blessed.
Please think about the implications of this.
892a19 No.718857
>>714126
I mean, I dont support the autistic innovations Catholics invented about Mary
but you just sound as awful as any kind of edgy fedora. Not to mention being an actual heretic
a4185e No.718908
>>718856
>He created Mary.
yes, see >>716733
>All Mary did was nurse the infant INCARNATION for a little bit.
and then Mary flew back to her own world, the end (or something like that)
>And Mary is "blessed," absolutely, but not the only person ever to be blessed.
quit putting arguments in my mouth, where did I ever say She was the only one blessed? however, She is the Queen of the Blessed.
802440 No.719193
>>718908
Why are you capitalizing her pronouns? Do you not see how shit like this REALLY makes us prots think you worship her?
a79a8e No.719218
>>718856
>All Mary did was nurse the infant INCARNATION for a little bit.
Yes? That's what makes you a mother. No mother creates her own son. Verses for thought:
>Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. -Jeremiah 1:5
>And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him,
>so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength) -Isaiah 49:5
a4185e No.719220
>>719193
It's called respect.
802440 No.719374
>>719220
I really respect the Founding Fathers, myself. Maybe I could tell you about the Blessed President George Washington, may all the peace and blessings of Creation be upon Him for He is the Joy and the Glory of our people and holy nation, and He is the only one able to deliver the Lord's salvation through His Divine Bosom, amen. I just really respect Him, guys.
Practice matters more than written dogma. Catholics constantly say that they do not worship Mary, and that's true, according to the written dogma. However, when you've got Catholics using divine pronouns for Mary, calling Mary "the glory and the joy", and even hispanic Catholics literally sacrificing goats to Mary, it's really not hard at all to see how prots see it as idolatry. This stuff isn't part of the dogma, so the Church could easily put an end to all of it at any second. It wouldn't require any doctrinal changes and it would put protesants at ease, and probably more sympathetic towards Catholicism. But totally TRAD dudes seem to think that any attempt at ecumenism, even if it requires no doctrinal changes or significant changes to tradition, that's "the church bending to the world". Sorry, but the church is already bending to the world. Maybe she should bend to people who actually believe in Jesus instead of gay atheists and pagans.
6c8c92 No.719381
>>719374
You don't respect the true founding fathers of Nicaea or Ephesus. So, you are no better than a heretic
a4185e No.719414
>>719374
>I really respect the Founding Fathers, myself. Maybe I could tell you about the Blessed President George Washington, may all the peace and blessings of Creation be upon Him for He is the Joy and the Glory of our people and holy nation, and He is the only one able to deliver the Lord's salvation through His Divine Bosom, amen. I just really respect Him, guys.
What's your point? George Washington did not give birth to God.
> However, when you've got Catholics using divine pronouns for Mary, calling Mary "the glory and the joy", and even hispanic Catholics literally sacrificing goats to Mary, it's really not hard at all to see how prots see it as idolatry.
Because those who sacrifice goats to Mary are heretics and country bumpkins, moreover, we proclaim the Holy Mother is the New Ark of the Covenant.
16 And when the ark of the Lord was come into the city of David, Michol the daughter of Saul, looking out through a window, saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord: and she despised him in her heart.
17 And they brought the ark of the Lord, and set it in its place in the midst of the tabernacle, which David had pitched for it: and David offered holocausts, and peace offerings before the Lord…
20 And David returned to bless his own house: and Michol the daughter of Saul coming out to meet David, said: How glorious was the king of Israel to day, uncovering himself before the handmaids of his servants, and was naked, as if one of the buffoons should be naked.
21 And David said to Michol: Before the Lord, who chose me rather than thy father, and than all his house, and commanded me to be ruler over the people of the Lord in Israel,
22 I will both play and make myself meaner than I have done: and I will be little in my own eyes: and with the handmaid of whom thou speakest, I shall appear more glorious.
later on, in the NT
38And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord
853d9c No.719415
>>719374
>and even hispanic Catholics literally sacrificing goats to Mary,
Have you tried not bringing non-Catholics into the argument?