/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Here's a litmus test: is the group more fanatical about Mary than John the Baptist?

If "yes", it's too far

<"Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matt. 11:11 NAS)

>>729540

Can't start the thread without proper protcorn.

>>729541

They're historically both the most honored saints in the church. Also at the right/left of Jesus in Orthodox iconography/altar setups.

But unlike Catholics, they don't have the doctrine of "original sin" in the same sense. This is where Marian stances are vastly difference. Catholic Original Sin compelled a theology that wiped her clean of it… and thus making her more "perfect" than necessary. This in turn creates more extreme levels of devotion than you see in the East.

>>729536

the moment you try to offer sacrifices.

worship is sacrifice, and sacrifice only occurs at the mass, where the sacrifice of christ is re-presented to god.

>>729541

>Here's a litmus test: is the group more fanatical about Mary than John the Baptist?

>

>If "yes", it's too far

>

><"Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. (Matt. 11:11 NAS)

I should also add that Mary may have very well been the model of the "least in the kingdom", by being the humble mother blessed with the utmost grace, who endured what she did, was there every step of the way, prayed with the church at Pentecost, became a surrogate mother to John (and symbolically all disciples) but yet.. never taking leadership positions. She served, just as Jesus said the least in the kingdom would do.

Jesus gave his verdict on John after his death. So he had a full accounting at that point. But I don't have any doubt in my mind that he was also proud of his mother at the end of her life too.

>>729548

yes good example, someone who says that would fail the test

>>729549

>yes good example, someone who says that would fail the test

In any case, they both inspire me. If there was any worth in following saints' examples (and not just the Lord's), these two would be the top, I think. The ancient church viewed John as a human shedding earthly life and living like an angel (hence old icons even have him with angel's wings), but Mary is sort of a different route, of someone not as ascetic as John, but equally demanding. We'd never go wrong either way.

But like the other poster said, the idea of sacrifice/worship is forbidden and too far.

De Maria NUMQUAM satis!

>>729541

According to your logic either Jesus was not born of a woman and is a spoopy spirit, or John the Baptist is higher than Christ.

Most likely you have misinterpreted it

>>729536

Hyperdulia becomes latria when someone assigns the divine essence to Mary. Otherwise it is impossible to take hyperdulia too far because she has more grace than all the angels and saints combined.

>B-but baptists worship the KJV!

>>729547

Doesn't this mean that you never worship God except at mass? Where do you get this definition of worship from? By your standard this scene in revelations isn't worship because nothing is being sacrificed.

<And I heard every creature in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be praise and honor and glory and power forever and ever!” 14And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Revelations 5:13-14

>>729548

>I should also add that Mary may have very well been the model of the "least in the kingdom"

Don't you guys believe that she was queen of heaven? Mother of God? Theotokos? Doesn't really sound like the least in the kingdom of heaven. In fact in Deuteronomy 21:18 it states:

<If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother, or listen to them when disciplined

If you truly believe that Mary was queen of heaven and literal mother of the God man Jesus Christ then you are saying that Mary had authority over Christ. The implications of this are quite dire since you've created a new distribution in the God head. Now the Son is no longer subservient to the Father only but is no subservient to the Father and Mary.

What are your thoughts on this?

>>729536

When it becomes death worship.

>>729540

<Thou shalt have no other gods before me

>says the protestant whose God is words on a paper written by men

>>730789

>says the protestant whose God is words on a paper written by men

<When the sum of your knowledge of all Protestantism is determined by Anderson memes

>>730546

Not really, by first noting that Christ is the one who is speaking here, He might be talking from His eternal divine nature and looking at man and from among those who have been born of woman John the Baptist is the greatest. You could still say that perhaps this interpretation would mean that Christ's human nature was below that of John the Baptist but still Christ is the one speaking and perhaps in this context He is speaking as an outsider and saying that among all those born of women (except I who am talking) there is none greater than John the Baptist).

>>730789

I'm not sure if Steven Anderson has recanted from that statement but if he actually believed it then that would be idolatry.

>>730790

>>730790

Anderson is a literal representation of the worst in Protestantism and his ranting has more foundational meaning than you'd think.

Also I despise people who say Mary is not to be venerated as a saint. You're literally doing what the Catholics are doing by demeaning sainthood.

>>729536

>Isaiah 46:7

>They carry the idol on their shoulders, then put it on a stand, but it cannot move. They call out to the idol when they are in trouble, but it doesn't answer, and it cannot help.

That pic is definitely an example of crossing the line.

When you call Mary God, or believe that she has the traits of a God. Other than that, veneration of Mary is just hyperdulia

>>730796

>carrying something is idolatry

>>730559

This, but unironic.

>>730990

Not a Baptist but even I know Steven Anderson is alone on this one among Baptists.

>>730793

>Also I despise people who say Mary is not to be worshipped as a god.

>>729542

IKR, can you believe he quoted the Bible? Probably some non-Latin, reformation heresy amirite?

>>731011

race mix her. Saint Anderson tells us it's alright.

>>731135

Off-topic. Sage

>>730791

Ah, so you're a nestorian, combined with all other weird heresies. The extent people will go to to deny Christ just to deny our Lady…

>>731011

>not realising veneration/dulia is a form of worship

>not realising latria is the highest form of worship

Her English is better than yours ortholarp

>>731168

I mean at least you're finally being honest

>>731166

The hypostatic union is that the Son had two natures, one divine and one human. Fully each yet seperate from another so not to be mixed. And this person who had both divine and human nature entered human flesh. I believe this and never denied it.

>>731190

I'll be the first to admit that the vast majority of accusations of Nestorianism on this board at best fringe on schizophrenic paranoia, but you did say "He might be talking from His eternal divine nature". Now this suggests there is one who is divine and one who is human, and when Christ speaks it need not be both. But this does separate the natures of Christ into two different subjects, one Christ who is divine and one Christ who is human. We must remember that Christ is one subsistence, He is not a man over here and God over there but always both God and man at the same time, one person with one mind and one voice.

>>731168

I don't care what words used to mean in English, you have to be an autist to think worship and latria aren't the same thing in English as it is currently spoken

>>731195

How do you deal with Christ's statement about Him not knowing the day or hour? If He was speaking from the one subsistence then the divine nature didn't know the day or hour. This would mean that God lost one of His divine attributes. If so, could you still call Him God?

>>731189

I always have been. It annoys me when catholics say we don't pray to or worship Mary, because we do. They evidently don't understand English though and what words actually mean, just like prots don't either. Worship does not always mean latria and can mean veneration. I worship my parents, but I adore only God.

Either way if people are confused by semantics, God knows their heart even if prots are intellectually dishonest and say Catholics latreu Mary

>>731192

worship (n.)

Old English worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (West Saxon) "condition of being worthy, dignity, glory, distinction, honor, renown," from weorð "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c. 1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful "honorable" (c. 1300).

>implies he is not an ortholarp

>thinks worship is only latria

>>731198

Words were created by God not man. Words mean what God meant them to mean not what man corrupted them to be according to his will, thus the meaning of words do not change.

But if you were actually an Eastern Christian you would understand that, but you are instead an ortholarp.

Only when it's superior, absolute, supreme worship.

Nonapostolics are easy to confuse since they give latria not even to God, since Latria demands sacrfice and they have no altars upon which hostia is presented to God by priesthood of Christ.

>>731311

If because we aren't giving sacrifices to God we aren't worshiping Him in the fullest sense then in Revelations 5:13-14 God isn't being worshiped in

the fullest sense since nothing is being sacrificed.

>>731225

K, if you don't mind I'm going to start off by ignoring your apologetic and pointing out how concerning it is that you don't find the fact you're practically parroting Nestorius disturbing. I am hopeful that you still find theological orthodoxy important and will accept correction. To illustrate that you are at variance with the orthodox doctrine I quote from Cyril of Alexandria

<But the inventor of this latest impiety, even though he purports to say that Christ is one, divides the natures completely and sets each apart, saying that they did not truly come together. He employs pretexts for sins, as Scripture says, and devises some kind of conjunction referring only, as I have said, to an equality of status, as indeed will be shown from his own words. And he has the Word of God dwelling in Christ by participation as in an ordinary man, and he divides up the sayings in the Gospels assigning them sometimes exclusively to the Word alone and sometimes exclusively to the man born from a woman. But how is it not beyond dispute by anyone that the Onlybegotten, being God by nature, became man, not simply by a conjunction, as he himself says, that is conceived of as external or incidental, but by a true union that is ineffable and transcends understanding? In this way he is conceived of as one and only and every word befits him and everything will be said as from one person. For the incarnate nature of the Word is immediately conceived of as one after the union. It is not unreasonable to see something similar in our own case too. For a human being is truly one compounded of dissimilar elements, by which I mean soul and body.

So we do not believe in one divine Son and another human Son, who relate to each other, but in one theanthropic being, our God the man Jesus Christ.

Now lest you should take my dismissal of your prooftext as evidence the orthodox doctrine is an unbiblical tradition or something I'll try to explain it. First, it's important to note that the passage is not about Christ or intended to illustrate how Christ interacts with Himself or anything like that, it's about the end of days. Whatever it says about Christ is incidental, not didactic. Therefore it must not make the core of our Christology but must be interpreted through those texts, and in Philippians 2:5-8 we are told that the eternal God became a human servant (not that He became with a man). There are some orthodox interpretations of your passage, that 'know' means 'reveal', or that it means 'choose'.

>>731311

If the highest worship requires sacrifice then the highest worship is of sin, since sacrifice was made necessary by sin.

>>731459

Apologetics? How? I was just asking a question. Anyways, I'll defend myself against the accusation of Nestorianism. First of all I I don't believe that there was one divine person and a human son. Rather the one person if the Son had a full divine nature but at the incarnation adopted a fully human nature so now He was both fully man and fully God yet distinct and seperate so the two natures do not collide. I usually interpret the verse in Matthew as being Christ talking from His human side and not Divine side and that would explain why He did not know the day or hour. But then you have a verse like 1 Corinthians 2:8 which states:

<None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

This verse here seems to imply that things which occurred to Christs human side were then attributed to His divine side even if the things predicated of His divine self aren't attributes of His divinity. One example from this verse would be death another would be ignorance and lastly His immutability.

Wanted your thoughts on this specifically and perhaps it will also help us understand how God emptied Himself in Philippians 2:5-8.

And regarding Cyril, I've heard He was a monophysite.

Would like your thoughts on this.

>>731751

>Apologetics? How?

I didn't mean apologetics, which is why I used the singular, apologetic, aka defense. I know you were just asking a question, but it was defensive. I hope you don't hear me attacking you.

>First of all I I don't believe that there was one divine person and a human son

Neither did Nestorius, least not according to him. That's the thing about the use of the term person in post-Nestorian theology, saying that Nestorianism is the belief in two persons is like saying it's the belief in two Sons. While it is the logical conclusion of what Nestorius said, he'd never admit it, because he realized just how untenable it was. It is also the logical conclusion of what you've said, and that is a serious problem.

>Rather the one person if the Son had a full divine nature but at the incarnation adopted a fully human nature so now He was both fully man and fully God yet distinct and seperate so the two natures do not collide

Surface level description. What was the nature of that adoption, in what sense is He both fully man and fully God, and what is the degree of distinction between them? These questions are where the real meaning is.

>I usually interpret the verse in Matthew as being Christ talking from His human side and not Divine side

And that's the problem. If the interpretation were valid, then when He says "the Son", this does not describe God, and He does not speak of Himself, which leaves us with the dilemma that either the man and the God are two different Sons, or the God is not a Son at all. Again, if they are one and the same Son of God, then the title of Son describes both at the same time. There is no way they can be referred to as Son in isolation from the other without being a Son in isolation to the other. We cannot ascribe the properties of a subject to just one of the natures, because then He is two persons just as much as you and I are two persons who know different things and speak differently.

>This verse here seems to imply that things which occurred to Christs human side were then attributed to His divine side

A 'side' was not crucified, the God-man was crucified. When titles proper to the natures are used in conjunction like this they are not being applied to each other but to the common person. In other words, he says they crucified the Lord of Glory because the man upon the cross was the very Lord of Glory, not that it was a mere man who in some way related to an entirely different person, the Lord of Glory.

>perhaps it will also help us understand how God emptied Himself in Philippians 2:5-8

I don't see how, I would've thought we were agreed that He emptied Himself in the sense of making Himself "of no reputation" as the KJV renders it.

>And regarding Cyril, I've heard He was a monophysite.

>Would like your thoughts on this.

On what, the rumor you've heard? I think it's completely baseless and probably originates from people listening to people who read Cyril as though he were in the context of Chalcedon (to clarify, I think it's the product of people who have never read Cyril misunderstanding people who have misread him).

>>731793

>I hope you don't hear me attacking you.

Ok, that's fine.

>What's the nature of that adoption, fully man and fully God and distinction

God the Son took on a second nature of a full humanity. The Son was fully God as God the Father was fully God and fully man and you and I are fully man. The way in which He became incarnate I don't think we can fully explain but what did happen was that He now has 2 natures coexisting yet not intermingled.

>And that's the problem. If the interpretation were valid, then when He says "the Son", this does not describe God, and He does not speak of Himself, which leaves us with the dilemma that either the man and the God are two different Sons, or the God is not a Son at all.

Ok, so how do you explain Matthew? Did God let go of one of His divine attributes? If so would she still be God if you go by a scholastic definition of God and think God is divinely simple?

I have rejected the belief in divine simplicity but I'm willing to accept an answer.

>A 'side' was not crucified, the God-man was crucified.

So did God the Son lose His omniscience? Then was He still fully God? This would change the meaning of Philippians 2 since it wouldn't just mean God the Son giving up His reputation but rather one of His divine attributes as well.

>>731011

>some neet who writes greentext stories criticises a polygot uni student

Ortholarps are the utter worst

>>731808

>Ok, so how do you explain Matthew?

I already did

<There are some orthodox interpretations of your passage, that 'know' means 'reveal', or that it means 'choose'.

>Did God let go of one of His divine attributes?

Nope.

>So did God the Son lose His omniscience?

Nope.

>>732018

What's the basis for that interpretation? And how about God's other divine attributes, namely His immutability, immortality and omnipotence? Christ was not any of these.

>>732018

Also, reading it as no one has revealed or no one has chosen to know the hour is quite a funny translation. Again, what is the basis for this interpretation?

>>732185

Mass is defined by the consecration of bread and wine to the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, as an ever-perfect and ever-present sacrifice to God, the Father, through the Holy Spirit.

Not to Mary, nor any other Saints. Though we may offer Mass in Her honor, or the honor of other saints, or of the recently departed, the Mass is still through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who is God.

>>732185

>Religion over 1000 years old has no language inconsistencies

Uhh

Bumping to remind you these jokers exist: http://ourladyisgod.com/

>>732185

Honestly this makes the most sense here.

>>734207

Will Gnosticism ever die? Gnosticism seems to exist only because people can't accept justice and think God is a meany

>>734215

Because protestants larp as orthodox yet do not understand Eastern Christianity at all and just see it as another protestant denomination except with beards n shieet

>>734215

>atheist/protestant sees le cool orthodox memes

>heh tough luck papists I'm orthodox now

>nearest divine liturgy is in another country once a month

>does not/cannot attend and be catechumen/chrismated

>projects protestant faith from upbringing into his new found "orthodoxy"

>finally attends a divine liturgy after being called out online as an ortholarp

>has no idea what is going on

>good coffee hour can finally join my comrades in defeating the papists

>hello fellow orthodox

>heh papists worship Mary who was only a woman and shouldn't be venerated

>russians/Greeks look at him confused as they don't speak English but recognise the word Mary

>they smile and chant to theotokos, chaire kecharitomene, light candles and kiss the icons of her

>heh… heh… Yeah good m-mocking of those papists, s-see you next year Vladimir

>das verdenye

>>734234

>>734215

>>731168

>>731810

Honest question for this board.

At what point is a protestant convert to Orthodoxy no longer an ortholarp? Is it a lifelong designation? Could there be a St. ___ the Ortholarp? Or can one be rid of this after chrismation and first communion? When does the /christian/ synod declare that a convert is not larping?

>>730546

John the baptist was greater than Mary

>>734432

When they stop using their conversion primarily to bash Catholics. Stop thinking of Orthodoxy as a particularly potent way of criticizing Catholicism.

>>734432

When he rejects protestantism and embraces the one true faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Weekly attendance of divine liturgy, chrismation, communion. When he has a strong devotion to theotokos and recognises the Pope as first among equals as all Eastern Christians do. When he stops saying protestant insults like papist (which is hypocritical to use once you have subjected yourself to a spiritual father, or papa. Once they consider themselves Catholic seeing as the name of the church they want to join is the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Basically when he starts practicing the faith rather than larping.

>>734446

Prove it

>Realistically, when does

(I know all these words so far. But, why do you make the point of making the distinction "realistically" here? Sorry, I digress.)

>Marian devotion

Hail Mary

Full of Grace

The Lord is with Thee

Blessed art thou among women

and blessed is the fruit of thy womb: Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners

now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

>go too far?

How far did Jesus devote himself to Mary?

>When does hyperdulia cross the line into latria territory?

>hyperdulia

wat

>latria

wat

I don't know what you're talking about because I am a dummy.

Allow me, however, to substitute these unknown words with perhaps similar words that would fit the structure of the question and maybe this will provide clarity to your dilemma.

When does hair loss cross the line into bald territory?

Say I have a full head of hair. Only a crazy man would call me bald.

Pluck out one hair. The change has very little noticeable difference. I am still not bald.

Continue to pluck hairs from my head one-by-one. After how many hairs are removed can I safely be called bald? Clearly there is a point after so many hairs are removed where a person who sees the ratio of hair to skin on my head would think of me as a bald person. But does it really matter the exact number where I cross the line from having hair to bald? And say I have exactly that much hair, if I was able to add a single hair back into my scalp, would that change my classification as a bald man back to a man with hair? What is gained by knowing the conditions of this definitive crossover?

When does hyperdulia crossover into latria territory?

>>732152

>Christ was not any of these.

Yes He was

>what is the basis for this interpretation

The countless other scriptures that plainly contradict this weird kenotic Nestorianism you're adopting

>>734528

>Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

>>734534

So by that interpretation John the Baptist is greater than Christ?

Cue the Nestorian and Docetist arguments

>>734527

>pope as the first amoung equals

I wager most cradle orthodox normies don’t even believe this or even know this is a doctrine in their faith. I could be wrong though.

My definition of someone who isn’t an ortholarper is someone who knows who they are and doesn’t have to convince anybody else of it.

Ironically, someone who goes into Orthodoxy without knowing that much about it but with a humble heart and a desire to learn would be better off than most of the LARPers here who have read every book they can get their hands on and yet never actually met a priest, and are overeager in proclaiming their supposed Orthodoxy.

>>734544

I guess by your interpretation the verse is just wrong

>>734544

I have no interpretation I humbly submit to the interpretation of the Church, which also says that the passage is inerrant. I say your interpretation is wrong because your interpretation logically results in John the Baptist being greater. Than Christ, which you haven't denied

>>734528

The quoted verse explicitly says that