/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

Matthew 12:47-48

Why do people hate Mary so much? It's weird.

>>767101

I think they confuse veneration of the one God chose for Himself with idolatry of her.

>>767100

>cherry picking cafeteria the Bible

And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Matthew 12:48-49

>>767105

And his mother and brothers was literally anyone who did his will and even those among him he called brothers and sisters and his mother. The context refutes you, dingus.

>>767110

This post is blasphemous towards our lady. Recant heretic!

>>767112

Are you saying Mary did not do the will of God? If so, then she is our sister and mother. If not, then you're not Christian.

>>767116

How dense are you? Mary is the mother of Jesus but that verse says anyone who does the will of God is the mother and brother of Christ. And Christ even rebukes Mary in this verse. The immaculate woman that Cathodox over glorify.

>>767115

This post reads like it was written by a Protestant pretending to be one of those weirdo Catholics/Orthodox who believes Mary is coredemptrix (a heretical doctrine not held by any apostolic Church).

>>767120

>Jesus rebukes Mary

lol no. I don't know what your fanfiction Bible says, but no. Mary was Jesus's mother and rebuking her would be a violation of the 5th Commandment. Are you saying Jesus was a sinner?

>>767129

one of the biggest issues with protestant's is that they read the Bible with a completely modern sense. when Christ calls Mary "Woman", Our Lord isn't being rude or rebuking His Mother, it is a spiritual title found both in the The Protovangelium (Genesis) and Revelation (Woman in the desert, representing the Church).

it is all the more important that "Woman" is addressed in both the Beginning and End of sacred scripture

Modern evangelicals try too hard. Even Calvin and Luther adored the Virgin Mary.

Is Mary the only person aside from Jesus who has not sinned and fallen short of the glory of God in the sense that Paul speaks?

>>767101

Do you consider doctrines like Mary being the co-redeemer as sign of love?

>>767125

>This post reads like it was written by a Protestant pretending to be one of those weirdo Catholics/Orthodox who believes Mary is coredemptrix (a heretical doctrine not held by any apostolic Church).

I don't know about Catholics, but Orthodox don't teach that. She's the mother of God and the means by how came in the flesh.. but no "co-redemptrix". Maybe you should brush up.. or simply shut up, if you're not interested. Bundling the two together is silly.. They're really nothing alike on redemption related matters.

>>767185

>Is Mary the only person aside from Jesus who has not sinned and fallen short of the glory of God in the sense that Paul speaks?

He called John the greatest among men.. and the Orthodox give him angel's wings in icons to signify the heavenly lifestyle he led here on earth. That it was almost inhuman, if you will. But Jesus said even the "least in the kingdom" is greater than John. John was the end of the Prophets, but the kingdom is a new covenant.. so even us poor sinners received blessings he could only point to. And Mary would be the first to receive such blessings. She is Christ's first disciple.

>>767186

The RCC calls Mary the Co-Redemptrix, a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption.

>>767189

Fair enough. I don't necessarily think the thought behind it is off.. just the title was foreign to me. As for redemption, I say the Orthodox are different because they have a different concept of "original sin" and don't have a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. And that Mary was graced BY Jesus' birth. Not before him. The Center of Orthodoxy is the Incarnation of Christ. Not the birth of Mary (and not just the death of Christ.. as Protestant thinking would go as well).

"As ligh­t­ning illu­mi­na­tes what is hid­den, so also Christ puri­fies what is hid­den in the nature of things. He puri­fied the Vir­gin also and then was born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is mani­fest purity in all its power. He purified the Vir­gin, having pre­pa­red Her by the Holy Spi­rit… having been born, He left Her vir­gin. I do not say that Mary became immor­tal, but that being illu­mi­na­ted by grace, She was not dis­tur­bed by sin­ful desi­res" - St. Ephraim

<3 u mary

>Catholics worship Mary

>Evangelicals resist

>Catholics ree about some inane christological pseudo doctrine

Repeat ad nauseum

Protip: filter "theotokos"

>>767328

Not a Catholic, but they don't even worship Mary. Why do Evangelicals consistently create this strawman, and then "insult" it.. like that's accomplishing anything? All you're doing is insulting your own imagination of some pretend Catholics in your head. Take them at their word. Deal with the reality of Catholics and not the figment of your imagination.

If you actually looked up Catholic/Orthodox history, there was a group that worshipped Mary and it was condemned. The ONE time that a group splintered off and did this in the early church and it condemned it. It was called Collyridianism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collyridianism

>>767189

Incorrect. Mary being coredemptrix is not Catholic dogma; it is heretical.

The real reason evangelicals are so uncomfortable with it is because they destroyed all signs of sacramental worship in their church, and centered their services on "reverence" and scripture. So to them, they don't even know how to differentiate reverence from actual worship. It's one and the same to them.

>>767340

>Tell me these beliefs/practices aren't common among catholics

Catholic here. No, they are not. I have never seen nor heard any of this* in my parish nor other parishes I have visited, nor even in Catholic abbeys and monasteries.

But this misses the damn point. It does not matter what the majority of Catholics believe, for the Church is not a democracy. Catholic dogma does not propose any of these stupid notions, therefore unless you also wish to attack individual Catholics for their personal sins in conjunction with their personal theological errors, your attacks against the Roman Church are absurd.

As for the Immaculate Conception, it is a doctrine held by many since the very beginning of the faith, not some mere invention of one Roman Bishop. Romans 3 doesn't include Christ under it's "all have sinned," obviously, and nor does it include His Mother.

* There is one exception, that of Mary's queenship, which is totally Scriptural, particularly according to Revelation. 1 Kings 2:19 comes to mind also regarding respect due to the king's mother. Though this doesn't imply a hand in creation, as you seem to suggest.

>>767353

Also, the age of the doctrine doesn't make it true. Arianism is ancient and nominal evangelicals are clueless about avoiding it.

>>767340

Sacraments aren't works bub.

>>767185

>Is Mary the only person aside from Jesus who has not sinned

Technically, if you count people who died as a baby, not really. But she's the only person who has obeyed the will of God without a fail.

>>767101

Because you’re imagining things and building a straw man. Protestants do not hate Mary, they just don’t venerate saints. We’re not walking around saying “Boy doninsure hat Mary!” We just don’t use her as a go-between in prayer.

>>767360

What is a sacrament

>>767385

I'll answer my own question

 "a sign/rite which results in God's grace being conveyed to the individual." 

A Catholic might say

“There are seven sacraments. They were instituted by Christ and given to the Church to administer. They are necessary for salvation. The sacraments are the vehicles of grace which they convey.”

Anyone object to this phrasing?

>>767507

How?

>>767340

>>Mary is the mother of the Trinity

Never heard that ever… in the history of ever. She's the mother of the Son of God. Not the whole Trinity. What in the world?!

>>768443

She is the mother of Jesus. If Jesus is fully man and fully God, then she is the mother of God.

>>768446

Yes, mother of God. Not the mother of the Trinity. God is one, but three distinct persons.

>>768446

Point proven

You're making the exact trinitarian error that causes us to object to "theotokos" terminology. Jesus is one person, the Father is another, the Ghost is another, and they all form the Trinity. Mary is not mother of the ghost or the father.

This is all avoided if you just say "Mary, mother of Jesus"

Same issue with "the Lord's prayer" vs "the model prayer".

>>768451

Mary the mother of Jesus is completely suitable to us Christians.. but the whole point why we insist phrasing it the other way is people like Arians also could say she was simply "mother of Jesus". Muslims also say the very thing, and give every honorific title imaginable.. but stop short of calling Jesus God. This is why they are heretics.

Don't be afraid of calling her the Mother of God, because it was always meant to defend Jesus himself. Not Mary. That's the Protestant's problem. You're more obsessed with Mary than even the Orthodox teaching, strangely. It was also meant to point and hold up Jesus. And her greatest lesson both Catholic and Orthodox use is the wedding in Cana, when she says to the servants "Do whatever he tells you."

>>768451

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

Jesus is fully man and fully God, which means Mary is the mother of God.

>>768453

Correct

>>768452

I agree that if denying the divinity of Jesus was a more urgent problem in your surrounding culture, mother of God would be more appropriate.

I have no obsession.

I'm an evangelical. There are still some of us posting here believe it or not.

>>768456

Sorry, I tend to think evangelicals and Protestants are one and the same. I don't mean to offend by calling you a Protestant. I'm just saying this aversion to Mary is usually of that tradition.

But Orthodox are only trying to defend Jesus's divinity, as you can see. And I know we're ultimately on the same page with that. We're all Trinitarian in the end (Praise God!). I don't want to pit myself against Catholics too much either, but I would say even our reverence for the Virgin Mary always includes Jesus as well. She's never alone in icons, for example. It's always her with a grown Jesus (such as at Cana or the Crucifixion) or an infant Jesus in her arms, for example. Never alone in her own right.

>>768459

Oh no evangelicals are protestant, i was confused how you said "the Protestants problem"

In my experience Protestants don't have any aversion to Mary at all

>>768462

Well, to be fair, you can be an evangelical Catholic. It can get confusing.

>>767189

>The RCC calls Mary the Co-Redemptrix

Nope.

>>768465

Some bedtime reading for you:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/could-mary-be-getting-a-new-title-this-year-44675

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-mother-of-salvation

http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/

https://legatus.org/why-do-catholics-call-mary-co-redemptrix/

Another thing Orthodox actually side with Protestants on (funnily) is that the "Seed" promised to Eve is Jesus. I don't know why or the origins why the RCC taught that it's the Theotokos who crushes the serpent's head. I admit there is contention on the Hebrew gender of "seed"(zera) being masculine or neutral gendered, but the Septuagint is male gendered, and in the Septuagint reading church, was taught as the first message of the Gospel (it's called the Protoevangelium to be exact). But for some reason, Catholics see it as a promise of Mary. So I see why they'd say she is "co-Redemptrix" if this is how early they see mention of her specifically.

That said, at least as early as St. Irenaeus (2nd century), the Seed is Christ.

"He has, therefore, thoroughly recapitulated all things. He has engaged our enemy in battle, both dashing him to pieces – him who had led us captive in Adam in the beginning – and trampling on his head. This you have given in Genesis where God said to the serpent: 'I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall observe your head, and you shall observe his heel'. To explain, ever since that time He who was to be born of the Virgin Woman, according to the likeness of Adam, was heralded as observing the head of the serpent that, namely, is the Offspring of whom the Apostle wrote in his letter to the Galatians· 'The Law of works was enacted until the offspring should come to whom the promise was made.'

Please read "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre to learn more why Catholics believe what they believe.

The New Eve

The New Ark

The Queen Mother

The New Rachel

>>769009

What does that have to do with Romans 3?

>>769009

>Do you think God would give the honour of bearing the Son to some random?

Jesus literally chose 12 randos as followers, instead of choosing the most "special" from among the men of those times.

Throughout the Bible what we see most is God choosing random people and transforming them into His faithful voice-bearers, from shepherds of sheep to princes of Egypt.

>>769153

He certainly didn’t choose to be born into the line of David at random…

>>769127

You are clearly deaf brother;

Romans 3 is St. Paul's commentary on the fact that the whole world stands guilty of sin and that we are justified by faith. So, only faith (and works, but please let's not get into that) justifies us, that is to say, when we truly seek God, it is natural that we depart from sin. We do not of course depart entirely, because we are mere humans.

All that I have related we agree on, correct?

Now let's try to apply this to the case of Mary. Mary is Jesus' mother, Mary loved Jesus as a son and would always follow after him and seek him out (she's a Jewish mother after all, kek). Nevertheless, Jesus is the incarnation of God. Therefore Mary really did love and seek God, from the beginning, else she could not have merited becoming the Mother of God. Thus the Word which the prophets have spoken, and which Paul has repeated viz. "there is no one righteous, not one, there is none who understands, there is none who seeks God" plainly Mary does seek God, it's her own Son! The most you can say is that she was fallible to the extent of her comprehension of the divine plan, that is to say, she didn't understand fully, so she is not God, but nevertheless she is perfectly divinized.

Capiche?

>>769175

I'm not seeing any objection to the point made "Mary was a sinner" that Romans 3 demands. What is it you're intending to argue?

>Mary is divinized

Stop immediately

Once again, the point is proven that Catholics commonly slip into idolatry regarding Mary

>>769202

Mary was not a sinner. All you're telling me is that you point blank refuse to treat Mary as anything more than a mere mortal, when it is quite clear that she is not. She loves the incarnation with all her heart and strength and mind (because she's his mother). She is the first and model Christian as a result.

You're just stubborn to not understand this.

>>769205

You are correct. I refuse to accept the divinity of Mary.

>>769202

>>769206

And your stark refusal to engage in theological reasoning doesn't count in your favour. No I won't stop immediately, what inquisition are you running where you get to ignore posts when they disprove your fallacies?

>I refuse to accept that divinity of Mary

That's not what divinized means, but nice strawman. Divinization is the process whereby one becomes Godlike. Mary I am saying is perfectly Godlike, and hence is worthy of veneration.

>>769163

David's line is special, but that doesn't make Maria any more special than David. It is a line of God's faithful servants.

>>769212

You've injected yourself into an argument against Catholic doctrine regarding Mary. What are you instead?

Where were you taught divinization can mean something other than "to make divine"? That's the direct meaning of the term.

>I am arguing that Mary is first among mortals, worthy of veneration, and saintly in her earthly life.

Ok

You began this by seeming to claim that Mary never sinned by challenging Romans 3 as it applies to her.

You're a very frustrating person.

>>769214

Divinization or Theosis according to the Eastern Church is the process whereby people become Godlike by participating in either the uncreated energies of God (Eastern) or created, sanctifying grace (Western). This is basic shit, if you're trying to be a "good christian" or whatever y'all call it nowadays, this is what I'm talking about, transforming oneself into a sinless individual (something few complete here on earth, hence purgatory exists to polish off the job.)

Anyway, I was saying it is certainly unlikely that she ever did sin, given that God gave her the job, and how she carried it through (loving the Lord with all her heart, strength and mind, through the incarnation, her only begotten son, whom she had perfect love for).

Do you understand my argument now?

>t. High-Anglican

>>769215

Here's what I'm interested in:

>It's unlikely Mary did sin

The Bible says "all have sinned"

Where do you read an exception made for Mary?

>>769214

>You began this by seeming to claim that Mary never sinned by challenging Romans 3 as it applies to her.

Psalm 18:23 I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin.

Job 1:8 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you noticed my servant Job, and that there is no one on earth like him, blameless and upright, fearing God and avoiding evil?”

Job 6:10 Then I should still have consolation and could exult through unremitting pain, because I have not transgressed the commands of the Holy One.

Luke 1:

5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly

>>769217

>The Bible says "all have sinned"

not in the above

>>769218

Yes, none of these say "all have sinned", but Romans 3 does. Are you saying that these contradict it?

>>769219

if they are blameless, they are sinless, no?

was the Lord lying?

>>769217

>Where do you read an exception made for Mary?

Ummm…. Because Mary followed the great commandment to a letter for starters?

>>769219

btw, most apostolic churches can definitely explain that St. Paul is using hyperbole, generalization, and other rhetorical skills, because on top of being a great Apostle, he is one of the greatest writers and orators the world and the Church has ever known.

that you are undone by your literalist reading is of no unconcern to most of historical christendom

>>769224

>I would point out even St. John Chrysostom

He was wrong.

I would point out even St. John Chrysostom commented that St. Mary at least might've sinned and had a little vanity, in the instance when Jesus returned to Nazareth and the crowds flocked to him. And his mother sent messengers to say his family was waiting for him. St. John said this might've been a small vanity on her part, for not waiting, for drawing attention to herself.

But he's just one Church father. Take it as you will.

I've never seen the term "divination" used for theosis, but I'm not one to tear apart word usage if that is what is meant. Although I would point out that theosis is still a grace. And the only "Godlike" part is in that. It is right to capitalize it as "Godlike". Rather than lower g "godlike". It is only possible through Christ and the Resurrection. Secondly, Theosis is for Eternity. There is no final stage or "beatific vision" endgoal like in Catholicism. We will always be learning God. And the Virgin Mary is Jesus first disciple, and would be the first of us with this grace.. and should be honored. But she is not divine in her own right.

>>769220

No, he wasn't lying. All these men quoted were blameless, but not always. They all sinned at some point because the Bible tells us so.

Especially for David in psalm 18, we have numerous recorded sins.

Here's a quiz: how was Abraham counted righteous? Did he live without ever sinning?

All we like sheep have gone astray. None of these verses contradict God's declaration that everybody sins.

>>769221

I said "read" because I want you to find it in the Bible

>>769225

Bah.. I edited that.. because I messed up the last sentence.

St. John could be wrong or not. I'm just saying the early Church never taught it like modern Catholics do unanimously.

>>769224

>Divination used for theosis

Lord I hope not, grave sin

Divinization is the Latin term used for the same. CS Lewis also teaches that God is trying to turn us into a perfectly polished mirror reflecting his Grace. Based on what I take to be true of Mary, I think she was a perfect mirror to God her entire life.

>Vanity in one instance

Nah, that's just a Jewish mom, can't be helped

>>769228

>They all sinned at some point because the Bible tells us so.

David we know, but what of Zechariah and Job? God tells us they are blameless, you contradict Him, why?

>Here's a quiz: how was Abraham counted righteous?

It's actually irrelevant to me, you're the one using St. Paul's words to contradict the Tradition.

>None of these verses contradict God's declaration that everybody sins.

Of course it does, it pronounces they are blameless, and have not transgressed the commands of the Holy One.

>>769230

Meant for >>769226

>>769232

Np, sorry about the deletion/reposting.

You could be on to something about Jewish mothers. Heh

>>769231

>It's actually irrelevant to me, you're the one using St. Paul's words to contradict the Tradition.

Lol now you're getting it

>>769234

All have sinned, so did Jesus Christ sin?

>>769231

The very relevant answer to the quiz is faith

Romans 4:3 KJV — For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

>>769236

No, and the Bible makes specific exception

2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV — For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

>>769228

>I want you to find it in the Bible

Ok, but I don't need much evidence, all I need is to prove that Mary loved her son Jesus with all her heart and strength and mind, like a regular mother. Since the Trinity is in unity, merely loving the Son directly is enough to prove complete love of God, and hence sinlessness.

So do you really need me to search the Bible to find all of the clear testimony to the effect that St Mary loved Jesus?

>When he was born and she nursed Him

>When she fled into Egypt with Him

>When she searched for Him while He was conversing with the doctors of the law?

>Or when she watched Him die and buried Him

Yeah, my mistake, she clearly wasn't all that great, I should begome IFB

>>769238

>The very relevant answer to the quiz is faith

oh, so are we all sinless on account of our faith?

>No, and the Bible makes specific exception

It also made specific exception for Job and Zechariah, and to whom else would this exception extend? If you're willing to cede that St. Paul did not mean all, then you must cede that not all have sinned, and he was speaking rhetorically.

Combine this with the Church's ability to "bind and loose on Heaven and Earth", and the idea of the Immaculate Conception is palatable, no?

>>769241

>oh, so are we all sinless on account of our faith?

Yes

Even though we have sinned, we are seen righteous just like Abraham on account of our faith.

>It also made specific exception for x, y, z

No it doesn't. These statements are not contradictory.

Even if that were your argument, Mary isn't on the list.

>the idea of the Immaculate Conception is palatable, no?

No

>>769240

No, you need to find evidence in the affirmative that she never sinned, not any examples of her being a God-fearer, blessed, loving etc.

Your logic doesn't carry.

>>769241

>Immaculate Conception

This only exists because of an equally unnecessary perspective on what original sin even is.

And by making her pure before Christ, without Christ.. you're making his whole purpose meaningless. If God wanted to do that, he could have done it to everyone instantly as well. But his plan of grace and renewal was through Christ first. And her purity and graces were through Christ:

"As ligh­t­ning illu­mi­na­tes what is hid­den, so also Christ puri­fies what is hid­den in the nature of things. He puri­fied the Vir­gin also and then was born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is mani­fest purity in all its power. He puri­fied the Vir­gin, having pre­pa­red Her by the Holy Spi­rit… having been born, He left Her vir­gin. I do not say that Mary became immor­tal, but that being illu­mi­na­ted by grace, She was not dis­tur­bed by sin­ful desi­res" - St. Ephraim

>>769243

>Even though we have sinned, we are seen righteous

being righteous is one thing, being sinless is another. all have sinned, right?

>No it doesn't. These statements are not contradictory.

They are contradictory, because your proof-texting of them is incorrect. All have not sinned, according to the Bible itself. Elizabeth, Zechariah, Jesus Christ, etc, all have this privilege by your reasoning.

>Even if that were your argument, Mary isn't on the list.

She doesn't need to be. The Church has the ability to bind and loose on Heaven and Earth, and your entire reasoning for saying Mary sinned cannot even be defended by your own reasoning!

You IFB folks are intellectually disingenuous.

>>769245

>And by making her pure before Christ, without Christ.. you're making his whole purpose meaningless.

She's pure on account of being the Mother of Christ, bub. If Christ is the first-born of all creatures, where would the Mother of all first-born be?

No wonder She never makes an appearance for your church.

>>769243

>Even though we have sinned, we are seen righteous just like Abraham on account of our faith.

Even by purely/historically Protestant terms, Abraham's faith was more than just belief. Read Keirkegaard. I'm not a Protestant, but I kind of like Fear and Trembling, for the nerve-wracking, horrifying narrative of what Abraham went through for his "faith" in his attempt to sacrifice Isaac. That isn't mere belief. That's literally… everything.

>>769243

>Your logic doesn't carry.

No, I'm talking to a brick, I've laid out my theological argument in explicit detail. Please challenge it.

>But it's not in the Bible

Do you need a scriptural reference to use your head for more than a bookmark? Genuine ask

>>769248

There is nothing more historically protestant than sola fide

>>769249

You've presented some extrabiblical reasoning. As I've stated many times, I'm only interested in a biblical argument. That means hermeneutics.

If you are in contest with what the Bible says, you are wrong. 2 Tim 3:16.

>>769247

>No wonder She never makes an appearance for your church.

She doesn't need to. They have the same faith as ever. The Catholic Mary apparitions keep magically adjusting to whatever the Vatican is currently pushing. It's obviously a propaganda job. Now she's pushing ecumenism and Vatican 2 in recent apparitions. What next?

>>769252

>Extrabiblical reasoning

Why?

>>769247

I'm not IFB

You are the one calling the God a liar when he says everyone is a sinner. That's a false gospel.

>>769241

>oh, so are we all sinless on account of our faith?

that's the whole point of the gospel

>>769253

>The Catholic Mary apparitions keep magically adjusting to whatever the Vatican is currently pushing. It's obviously a propaganda job. Now she's pushing ecumenism and Vatican 2 in recent apparitions. What next?

Or, She's authentic, and the remnant of Her seed shall be saved.

One can only imagine how mythically powerful the Catholic Church has to be to churn almost 2,000 years worth of apparitions! Deny it at your own risk.

>>769256

You just admitted that St. Paul was using a generalization, you cannot step back and suddenly hound me for your own spurious reasoning.

>>769257

Liar, there is no such thing as Once Saved Always Saved, and Faith alone has never been the sole metric of salvation.

1. If Jesus Christ will turn away those cry "Lord, Lord, we have exorcised in your name!", then even those with faith in Him will be turned away for other reasons.

2. The Jews themselves attempted to exorcise in the name of Christ, and were beaten by demons. They obviously lacked faith!

Combine the two, and then BEGOME CATHOLIC.

>>769258

I never admitted Paul was generalizing because he wasn't. He was making an exhaustive statement with implied exception for Jesus, the God-man.

He uses repetition and cites Ecclesiastes to be explicit that absolutely everyone has sinned

>>769260

catholics are truly NPCs with no capacity for critical thinking

>>769263

Rage on, satan.

Explain to me how you can exorcise in Christ's name - with complete faith - and still be rejected!

>>769261

>I never admitted Paul was generalizing because he wasn't.

You must! You have to! Jesus Christ is excused, as are Zechariah and Job and Elizabeth!

>He was making an exhaustive statement with implied exception for Jesus, the God-man.

True man and True God, you mean. And no, clearly Zechariah and Elizabeth MUST be excepted, by your reasoning.

This what I mean by "being intellectually disingenuous".

>He uses repetition and cites Ecclesiastes to be explicit that absolutely everyone has sinned

which is all rhetorical!

>>769258

>Or, She's authentic, and the remnant of Her seed shall be saved.

>

>One can only imagine how mythically powerful the Catholic Church has to be to churn almost 2,000 years worth of apparitions! Deny it at your own risk.

These same apparitions contradict themselves. Catherine of Siena said she spoke to the Virgin Mary too, and she said explicitly that Mary said she was not immaculately conceived.

Fast forward hundreds of years and suddenly she greets Bernadette as the "Immaculate Conception". What changed? The Vatican, that's what.. by dogmatizing the Immaculate Conception just 4 years prior.

And then the wiggling of your bishops is more sad. When confronted with a contradiction like this they say Catherine was so influenced by her Dominican teachers, who opposed the teaching, that "even in her mystical rapture this holy woman could not sufficiently immerse herself in God to overcome the suggestion" (Archbishop of Split). So apparently even old apparitions are false by your own teachings and clouded by our upbringing!

>>769266

>Catherine of Siena said she spoke to the Virgin Mary too, and she said explicitly that Mary said she was not immaculately conceived.

HERE WE GO AGAIN.

You're that same LIAR that keeps repeating this over and over. Didn't I quote a POPE mentioning that there is no evidence that St. Catherine of Siena said this?

>There is also a revelation attributed to S. Catherine of Sienna, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, and which is mentioned by S. Antoninus. But as there is no trace of that revelation among the visions and revelations of S. Catherine, collected by the Blessed Raymund of Capua, there arises no slight suspicion, that this has been added to them, and is therefore to be accounted apocryphal, as is shown at length by Cardinal Gotti, and Martin del Rio.

Quit LYING. You disgust me, seriously.

>>769268

If she didn't say it, why have an Archbishop seriously confront it? Why even bother?

More wiggling.

You should be disgusted by the pedophiles in your church instead. I did nothing to you or yours.

>>769264

I must not, and I don't have to. The contradiction lies in your interpreting anyone said to be righteous as having never sinned. That is a mistake.

I'm not interested in debating further. I hope you believe the gospel some day soon but you seem stiff necked.

>>769269

>why have an Archbishop seriously confront it? Why even bother?

Because he didn't it was a vector of attack by people attempting to discredit the Church. The internet is amazing when it comes to defense of the historical Church, you can find the roots of rumours and lies within seconds.

>You should be disgusted by the pedophiles in your church instead. I did nothing to you or yours.

I'm disgusted by all reprobates, and reviling the Church will not be seen as being on the side of Christ, but on the side of Satan himself. You do it all at your own risk.

>>769270

OK, so you simply have nothing to say in defense of your own literalist interpretation being indefensible in the context of the rest of Scripture.

Satan is not sending his best.

>>769267

Not an American, don't care. Crazy do what crazy do. Everywhere else in the world is atheist because of your evangelicals…

>>769271

>Because he didn't know it*

>>769269

btw, I invite you to quit spreading LIES, or I will rebuke you every time, snake.

>>769269

>I can't win the argument so look at the sins unrelated people have done!

>>769273

>btw, I invite you to quit spreading LIES, or I will rebuke you every time, snake.

I'm completely sincere and concerned. "Snake" doesn't even fit. I don't even know how to be offended (or from your perspective, thwarted) by that.

I almost have to respect the Protestant more in the "mega chad" thread who simply called me a retard. I could almost see how he felt from his perspective (although he's wrong too). But "snake" doesn't make any sense, no matter how I look at it.

>>769275

>"Snake" doesn't even fit.

>You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

>>769274

It's not an argument. They're quotes.

The only argumentative part was about Original Sin.. but the anon/Catholics immediately jumped on some "We have apparitions! Nanny nanny boo boo" angle… as if that was an argument. I was here to talk theology at first. That you guys want to lean on contradictory apparitions is not my fault.

>>769270

>>769273

The protestant is immunized against all dangers, one may call him a zealot, a literalist, a dumbass, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat, but call on St. Mary and how suddenly he recoils, he shrinks back "I have been found out!"

>>769278

More and more lies, I went off on your spurious quoting of St. Catherine of Siena. You don't even apologize or acknowledge anything, you just shift around the blame, and do anything to not be responsible for your lies.

Shame on you.

>>769276

I'm sorry that you're this worked up. Want to call me a liar, go ahead. Like I said, I'm sincere. I'm already the devil in your eyes, there isn't much I can do about it. I'd let you cut my throat if you wanted. It wouldn't change anything.

>>769280

I rely on Orthodox sources. And that Archbishop's explanation. If it is false, so be it.. but it's no lie on my part. I'm quoting it out of sincerity, at least on my part.

Not everything is the epitome of evil. Stop being so dramatic.

>>769280

>>769281

Officially not my fight

Pardon >>769279 just having fun

>>769283

OMG, the end really is upon us!

>>769285

moving the goalposts pretty hard there buddy

you started out claiming that lack of apostasy was positively related with the truth of the Christian group >>769265

>>769283

All forms of high emotional churches seem to be growing.. be it Evangelical charismatic or even Catholic ones. I can almost guarantee those evangelicals that are spreading aren't the John McCarthur types.

>>769282

>I rely on Orthodox sources.

>If it is false, so be it..

That's the problem.

>Not everything is the epitome of evil. Stop being so dramatic.

>so what if I was lying or if my sources are lying

really?

>>769289

You'd be wrong. Most evangelical missions groups are non-charismatic, like the IMB whose name you see on the image. That's the IMB that's a board of the Southern Baptist convention, and whose president David Platt is a baptist calvinist just like Macarthur.

There is still a historic trend of calvinists being non-missional, related to their doctrine of the elect.

>>769292

I didn't say my sources are lying either. I'm just met with "he said, she said" now, more sources, and more confusion.

But for you to immediately hiss and act like I'm some trickster and doing it all purposely and the "devil's spawn" is weird. And btw, it was a Catholic nun who first brought me to the Gospel (I'll always have a place in my heart for them for that. Just not everything). I confess no Father except the Most High God, through Jesus Christ. But carry on. I wish saying something like that matters, but it doesn't unfortunately.

>>767146

Except that's not really true. Using the word "woman" to refer to a woman in those days was a polite way of addressing her, it's a idiomatic expression.

>>767146

Not to mention that Eve was referred to as "Woman" before the Fall. It wasn't until after they were cast out did Adam name her.

>>769300

>I didn't say my sources are lying either.

Well, you must admit they are. They are unfounded, nobody can find any legit claims of St. Catherine denying the Conception.

>I'm just met with "he said, she said" now, more sources, and more confusion.

…no? I just got you a Pope researching the claim, and finding that it is false.

>But for you to immediately hiss and act like I'm some trickster and doing it all purposely and the "devil's spawn" is weird. And btw, it was a Catholic nun who first brought me to the Gospel (I'll always have a place in my heart for them for that. Just not everything). I confess no Father except the Most High God, through Jesus Christ. But carry on. I wish saying something like that matters, but it doesn't unfortunately.

I think you're acting prideful and silly. Just admit your Orthodox source is wrong, and you in turn are wrong. Maybe it's hard, perhaps it's difficult for you to realize that if the Orthodox are wrong on this, they are wrong on other things? Don't know.

>>769921

Jesus Christ is God, so in the context of Scripture (both Genesis and Revelation), "Woman" is quite literally a loaded term, pertaining to prophecies at the very Beginning, and at the very End.

Logically, you'd have to see what the Church thought about it, and they quite clearly saw it referring to St. Mary.

>>769956

irrelevant

>>770032

>I think you're acting prideful and silly. Just admit your Orthodox source is wrong, and you in turn are wrong. Maybe it's hard, perhaps it's difficult for you to realize that if the Orthodox are wrong on this, they are wrong on other things? Don't know.

What's prideful about saying I'm confused by conflicting sources? I haven't even looked at the thread in a few days. It's a dead end. Does this look like I'm committed.. holding on to pride?

For the love of God, even when you stopped calling me a "snake", you still see something mundane like this in the worst light.

>>770049

>What's prideful about saying I'm confused by conflicting sources?

There are no "conflicting sources", you have a claim that is a lie. You cannot find any proof that St. Catherine said what your source claims. Logically, you would think "hmm, this is probably either not the case, or worse, a complete lie".

You don't, and I grow more nonplussed. Sorry, snakes don't get gifts of discernment, and if they do, it might not be from God.

And why are you still changing IDs?

>>769289

>I can almost guarantee those evangelicals that are spreading aren't the John McCarthur types.

glad you said "almost" because you cannot guarantee shi-

And, worse, you're hopelessly wrong.

MacArthur is a particularly grizzled archetype of a exegetical preacher, almost meme tier. There are few HUMANS in this world like him much less evangelical preachers. But to suggest that the spread of evangelicalism is all emotionalism and no substance would be grossly inaccurate. Evangelicalism is all about a biblical foundation of faith:

< So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Rom 10:17)

… and 90% of evangelical preachers are exactly that.

MacArthur is an outlier, sure, but not because he preaches exegetically or from the Bible.

>>770188

The reason I said it is just visuals tbh. Everywhere I see big church movements overseas (as far as I'm able), it's the emotionalism variety. Even if it's Catholic funnily. If there's a bunch of Bible believing, more lowkey congregations doing something, God bless them! It's not like I'm making judgements on that. You're the second person that got a little too defensive, right off the bat. There's no need.

The thing is, those "emotional" crowds are absolutely overwhelming. We're talking 10s of thousands at each sermon or event. Where are all of the others?

>>770082

I clean browser caches and use a VPN. I try to tell people I'm the same anon, if it's not clear. Is this some other supposed evil character trait that I possess? If anything, I'd recommend you do the same thing on imageboards.

Conflicting sources.. that's exactly what it is. Two sources that say different things, but for some reason, you want me to fellate you just for your source merely existing. As if just the force of your attitude makes it right. All I can tell you is my source could be wrong. Not that it is wrong.

And about the last olive leaf I can hand on this is that, indeed, copiers or people listening to words of mystics or whatnot could be the ones in the wrong. This is why your church hasn't been definitive on what the exact visions of "Catherine Emmerich" entailed, right? That some accuse her writer of embellishing things? I'm willing to say this could have happen in Catherine of Siena's case. The fact that a Pope (Benedict) wanted to even investigate this saying himself about the IC should tell you though that he didn't dismiss it outright as quickly as you want me to. But since he's a Pope, it's all finalized right.. and everyone, even non-Catholics must obey all of you. No thanks.

>>770316

> Two sources that say different things, but for some reason, you want me to fellate you just for your source merely existing.

Eugh. Your view of things is warped.

My source is from a Pope, a leader of the Church who has access to vast theological research sources and -not to mention- access to the Vatican's immense archives themselves. If he says they do not exist, they probably do not exist, and you cede that the claim is more than likely a false polemic.

Quit framing it as a "he-said, she-said". Your source has ZERO evidence, and ZERO authority.

>. This is why your church hasn't been definitive on what the exact visions of "Catherine Emmerich" entailed, right? That some accuse her writer of embellishing things? I'm willing to say this could have happen in Catherine of Siena's case. The fact that a Pope (Benedict) wanted to even investigate this saying himself about the IC should tell you though that he didn't dismiss it outright as quickly as you want me to. But since he's a Pope, it's all finalized right.. and everyone, even non-Catholics must obey all of you. No thanks.

What a load of worthless word-salad! Hurry up and just acknowledge you have no evidence to back your claim. The fact that you keep insisting you are right in the TOTAL ABSENCE of evidence is appalling.

Adam and Eve of the Old Testament were created sinless.

Jesus, the new Adam was conceived without sin. The new Adam (Jesus) is greater than the old.

If Mary is the new Eve, then she must be greater than Eve.

So Mary, the new Eve was conceived without sin (by the grace of God).

1) Both Adam and Eve were created sinless.

2) The New Adam and Eve were both conceived without sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 411: The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the "New Adam" who, because he "became obedient unto death, even death on a cross", makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam.*305 Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the "new Eve". Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ's victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life. 306*

305 Cf. 1 Cor 15:21-22,45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20.

306 Cf. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus: DS 2803; Council of Trent: DS 1573.

Luke 1:28 (DRA): "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

>>770656

if i remember correctly, the Angel saluting St. Mary is also indicative that he was greeting someone greater in status than he

>>770656

That's coherent but you're starting with "Mary is the new Eve" a priori, but the Bible never asserts this.

>>770659

and* the Bible never asserts this

It directly calls Jesus the last/second Adam

>>769210

>>770659

if Jesus Christ is the New Adam, then who's the New Eve?

>>770662

nobody

Jesus had no wife

>>770662

here let me answer it for you:

- Adam was not born, he was created

- Jesus Christ was not created, but He was born

- In order to propagate the human race, Eve was born from Adam's right rib

- In order that Christ may be born, Mary is created, specifically from the line of David

So, you have the first Adam propagating all of man-kind, and the new Adam, not propagating through a new Eve, but being born through her, in accordance with the Scriptures.

Also see:

* Jesus Christ is first-born of all creatures, before all creatures (meaning Mary is very special; so special, the Church proclaims Her God's greatest creation, even more powerful than Satan in his angelic prime pre-fall)

* In Genesis, God proclaims that the "woman's seed" shall crush Satan's head

* In revelation, Christ reveals that the Church shall survive as a "remnant of the woman's seed".

>>770664

Heresy. The New Eve is the Mother.

Man is first propagated through the first Man and Woman, Man is saved through the the birth of the Son from a human mother. It's a beautiful meaning, it's very sad that it escapes you.

>>770665

>The New Eve is the Mother

how do you know?

>>770666

because Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, satan

>>770667

Did Eve give birth to Adam?

>>770668

read >>770665 more closely

>>770669

A lot of reasons Mary is special, I agree. I don't see the answer to "How do you know Mary is the new Eve?"

>>770670

I just told you, because She gave birth to Jesus Christ. She is even greater than Eve, much like how Christ is much greater than Adam.

>>770671

That doesn't logically follow. You're just listing attributes of Mary then asserting that makes her the new eve, but we're still looking for any connection to that title.

>>770674

>That doesn't logically follow.

Of course it logically follows. Eve did not give birth to Jesus Christ, Mary did. The protoevangelium and Revelation both speak of the "woman" and "Her Seed".

Since we obviously agree Genesis refers to Christ, then the "woman" is Mary. Revelation also speaks of "Her Seed". Who is "Her?" Didn't Christ say that we would be as His brothers? If so, and if we are His brothers, then who is Our Mother?

"Behold! Your Mother." He said this to St. John, the beloved disciple…right?

>but we're still looking for any connection to that title.

The connection has been there for over a thousand + years, friend.

>>770676

I'm getting the feeling that you're not capable of critical thinking on this if it might contradict some teaching you've been indoctrinated with. Instead, you're being condescending when you can't seem to grasp basic argumentation.

"logically follow" means one requires the other. In a deductive argument:

>all humans are mortal

>socrates is a human

therefore

>socrates is a mortal

What I'm getting from you is

>Mary is our mother

>Mary gave birth to Christ

>Mary is God's greatest creation

therefore

>Mary is the New Eve

The premises do not require the conclusion.

>>770679

>I'm getting the feeling that you're not capable of critical thinking on this

Shucks! I think you're just being petty and uncharitable. I'll make it even more simple.

- Adam and Eve begat the human race.

- Jesus Christ is the New Adam

- Through baptism, we are re-born, and we become brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ

- Thus, we share His Mother (as He told St. John)

- Our Mother becomes the new Eve

There. Convinced yet?

>>770680

no, I'm not. Sharing her as a mother does not necessitate the title "new eve", it even contradicts it by relation to the first adam and first eve as husband and wife.

Is this title decided because you theologically concluded that there must be a new eve, since there is a new adam?

>>770682

>Sharing her as a mother does not necessitate the title "new eve",

Of course it does!

If Eve is the progenitor of man-kind (and she is), if we are re-born through baptism, then Mary becomes Our New Mother. Ergo, She is the New Eve.

So simple!

>it even contradicts it by relation to the first adam and first eve as husband and wife.

I already told you, the New Adam saves Man through His birth! Not like the Old Adam, who propagated man!

So, so, so simple.

>>770684

we're down to mere assertion so I guess we're done

>>770685

Friend, you asked for critical thinking and you got it. I hope you repent and embrace Our Mother.

I think you should read the book I mentioned earlier by Brant Pitre, I can't take steal any more of his arguments as he's gotta family to feed and that book explains and cites everything (and puts it together so well). Here's just some random comment I found on Youtube on Mary being the New Eve drawing parallels from Genesis, the Gospels of Luke and John, and Revelations.

“Cursed are you above all livestock

and all wild animals!

You will crawl on your belly

and you will eat dust

all the days of your life.

And I will put enmity

between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and hers;

he will crush your head,

and you will strike his heel.”

Genesis 1: "In the beginning…"

John 1 "In the beginning…"

Genesis: "…God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness."

John : "…The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

Genesis: The Spirit of God hovers over the waters

John: The Spirit of God hovers over the waters at the Baptism of Our Lord

Genesis: Seven days after the Spirit hovers over the waters, there is the wedding of Adam and Eve

John: Seven days after the Spirit hovers over the waters, there is the wedding at Cana

Genesis: Eve tempts Adam to his first sin

John: Mary leads Christ to His first act of Glory

Genesis: Adam addresses Eve as "Woman"

the Gospels: Christ addresses Mary as "Woman"

Genesis: Eve listens to the evil angel

Luke: Mary listens to the good angel

Genesis: Eve is cursed for disbelief

Luke: "…And blessed is she who believed …"

Genesis: Eve is bone of Adam's bone and flesh of Adam's flesh

The Gospels: Mary is bone of Christ's bone and flesh of Christ's flesh

Genesis: enmity between Eve, her offspring, and the Serpent

Revelations: The dragon makes war against the woman who has given birth to Christ, and her children.

Genesis: "…Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living"

Jesus: "Here is your Mother".

Read Genesis 3:1-6 and Luke 1:26-38 after another.

New - of the New Testament and of the New Creation

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NIV)

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:[a] The old has gone, the new is here!

>>770694

Yep. The Old Testament is chockful of not only prefigurations and types of Christ, but also of St. Mary.

>>770713

> the Viet LARPagan doesn't know how to read

I'll pray for you, sodomite

>>770761

Oh good Heavens a fully-clothed woman. It's So Scandalous. not

You fedoras are pathetic

Mods are as lazy as a coon. Do your jobs, and ban all these heretics.

>>770814

Seriously, these LARPagans come around the same time all the time and the mods do nothing.

>>770841

Tutor is a blackie

>>770033

You have to do a giant mental juggling to come to that conclusion, what the hell…

>>770887

Don't be disingenuous, read this >>770680 and try to refute it.

The final part of the argument for Mary being the "New Eve" is absolutely implicit in Scripture.

Not only did the Beloved Disciple receive Mary as his Mother, He also received the vision of Mary as the Church in the Last Days. This is very theologically relevant.

>>770680

>>771141

That's cherrypicking literally Bible verses and creating a whole doctrine on top of them without any of the apostles or Jesus even alluding to confirm that theory.

>inb4 is basic logic

Yes, human logic for God's doctrines, Jesus warned us about that.

<7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

<8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

<9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:7-9

<Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Mark 7:13

>Through baptism, we are re-born, and we become brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ

Mary would then become our sister, not our mother.

>Thus, we share His Mother (as He told St. John)

Jhon took care of Mary until she died after this, and none of the apostles said a word about Mary receiving "special" treatment or anything like that. Jesus was literally asking John to take care of his mother. The Orthodox have known about this for a long time and even have a possible location of where Mary later died.

>Our Mother becomes the new Eve

Adam's mother was literally the mud that received God's breath. Adam had no mother, only one father. Eve, on the other hand, came out of Adam's rib. If we are going to follow any human logic here Eve would be more his daughter than his mother.

>>770684

>I already told you, the New Adam saves Man through His birth

Jesus did not save us by his birth, he saved us by his death.

>inb4 Revelation

The fact that the woman is Mary doesn't make sense considering the whole text.

After giving birth, the woman's son is immediately taken to heaven, and only then does the woman flee to the desert (which is not what happened with Mary and Jesus), where she is later attacked by the Dragon using water (which later reveals itself as being the peoples of all nations). Paul compares the woman as the church, and here it is clear that this symbolism also applies, bearing in mind that almost the entire book is narrated by symbolic means.

>>771354

*That's literally cherrypicking

>>771354

good post but don't expect any satisfactory response from this guy

>>771354

>Mary

>died

wrong

>>771376

>nonbiblical fanfiction

It's scripture and tradition passed on from Early Church Fathers. Not just "my" interpretation of scripture in this day and age with whatever free time I have to study, but those closest to Jesus, his apostles, and the generations of disciples that followed.

St. John the Apostle's 2 most known disciples

1) St. Polycarp

2) St. Ignatius of Antioch

St. Irenaeus, attributed to one of the first writings on Mary. A disciple of of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle

"the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith." - St. Irenaeus 180 AD

https://shamelesspopery.com/early-church-fathers-on-mary-as-the-new-eve/

The Church interprets the woman in revelation as both/and NOT either or. It's clear that we shouldn't limit the interpretation to just the Church. Please read the link I posted and discuss some more.

Where's the Ark of the Covenant mentioned in Revelations (11:19)? And who is mentioned in the next chapter? When was Revelations written and what does it mean to a 1st century Jew to hear that the Ark of the Covenant was in Heaven? When did we add verses and chapters to the New Testament? Where was the Word made flesh?

Revelations 12:

Dragon - Satan (individual)

Child - Jesus (individual)

Women, who gives birth to the child - Mary (individual)

>>771354

>That's cherrypicking literally Bible verses

If this is mere "cherry-picking" then literally any doctrine that comes from Scripture is also "cherry-picked", and thus false.

>without any of the apostles or Jesus even alluding to confirm that theory

The argument is based on two doctrines, confirmed by Christ, the Apostles, and Scripture.

1. Adam and Eve propagate man

2. Christ is the New Adam, and man is reborn through Him through the power of baptism

3. We are now considered the brothers and sisters of Christ, we can now consider God Our Father as Christ does

All 3 are very particularly important towards understanding Mary's role in salvation, She is literally Our Mother, because She is Mother of the Messiah.

>Yes, human logic for God's doctrines, Jesus warned us about that.

Just because you dislike it, doesn't mean you can brush it off as "human logic". Make up your mind. Is it "cherry picked" or is it "logical"?

>Mary would then become our sister, not our mother.

Then Christ lied to St. John.

>and none of the apostles said a word about Mary receiving "special" treatment or anything like that.

Look up the tradition of what happened to St. Mary upon her assumption.

>The Orthodox have known about this for a long time and even have a possible location of where Mary later died.

The Orthodox affirm that Mary went to Heaven, they do not affirm Her Crowning in Heaven (which isn't part of the discussion either way). Look up the rope that Mary left to St. Thomas.

>If we are going to follow any human logic here Eve would be more his daughter than his mother.

Your logic is strange to me, Adam and Eve are the biological father and mother of the entire human race. Christ is the New Adam, and we are of His line through baptism.

Through Christ, we are together and binded even more closely than blood, for we become brothers and sisters by spirit. As He told St. John, St. Mary is given to be received as His Mother, because Mary is Christ's Mother.

You bemoan me for "logic" and your own "logic" is strange and twisted.

>Jesus did not save us by his birth, he saved us by his death.

He saves us by His Birth, Death, and Resurrection. You don't get to cherry-pick salvation.

>>771361

You won't receive a satisfactory response simply because you won't accept it. I will not be ashamed for speaking the Truth.

>>771354

>The fact that the woman is Mary doesn't make sense considering the whole text.

You call the entire book symbolic, then pass off judgement on who is or who is not. That's a bit self-refuting.

>>771413

>35 posts by this id

have you considered that Mary is mother in the sense of Matt 12 and Mark 3?

<For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Christ is contradicting himself at the crucifixion if your reading is true.

In any case, these are all symbolic terms. My wife is my sister, even though we aren't related. Jesus is the "new Adam" in typology, but he's not really named Adam. We are reborn spiritually, but we don't crawl back into our mother's womb and come out again.

Pushing the metaphor is erroneous. We shouldn't make any connections beyond the pattern in scripture, that's the first rule of typology that seminary professors will still debate about until the end.

>>771413

I see >>771361 was right.

You rely on two fragments of the Bible, you forget all the rest and you get upset if I say you're cherrypicking. If I feel like it, I can take some pieces here and there in the Bible and argue the existence of other minor gods, and some ignorant person would probably end up believing what I say if he didn't read the whole Bible to realize Im saying bullshit.

>1. Adam and Eve propagate man

>2. Christ is the New Adam, and man is reborn through Him through the power of baptism

>3. We are now considered the brothers and sisters of Christ, we can now consider God Our Father as Christ does

Yeah, that's true.

>All 3 are very particularly important towards understanding Mary's role in salvation, She is literally Our Mother

And here we go again. I will not defend here Nestorianism, which believes that Jesus was divided into God and Human. The official position of the church, which I also defend, is that although Jesus has two natures, they cannot be divided or separated. However, we know that it was the Holy Spirit who fecundated Mary, otherwise there wouldn't be like Mary having a son who could save mankind. That said, Mary's "role" in salvation was to have and educate the Son of God, not to create Him. Mary was more of a "stepmother" than a Mother.

>Look up the tradition

<For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men

>You bemoan me for "logic" and your own "logic" is strange and twisted.

I wasn't serious, I don't think Eve was Adam's daughter, but it's this kind of logic that you create to defend your ideas.

>>771414

>You call the entire book symbolic

<bearing in mind that ALMOST the entire book

> then pass off judgement on who is or who is not

So you really think a dragon tried to attack Mary and she flew off with eagle wings?

>>771420

>Pushing the metaphor is erroneous.

You're only arguing for subjectivity, the scriptures have always relied on the Apostolic tradition for the final say on what is, or what is not being taught. We have different ciphers, I will lean on that what is passed down by Christ's disciples, you will lean on…

>>771427

>So you really think a dragon tried to attack Mary and she flew off with eagle wings?

Yes. The dragon is satan, and "with eagle's wing" is an idiom used in the scriptures to describe something in haste, usually something quickened to righteousness.

>you forget all the rest and you get upset if I say you're cherrypicking.

Because you're being uncharitable, not actually demonstrating anything wrong with the logic.

>If I feel like it, I can take some pieces here and there in the Bible and argue the existence of other minor gods, and some ignorant person would probably end up believing what I say if he didn't read the whole Bible to realize Im saying bullshit.

Go ahead, you've spurned all authority; take the scriptures and teach whatever you like.

>That said, Mary's "role" in salvation was to have and educate the Son of God, not to create Him.

And where did I say that Mary created Jesus Christ? Our blood mothers do not actually create us either, as you well know.

>Mary was more of a "stepmother" than a Mother.

Heresy.

>I wasn't serious, I don't think Eve was Adam's daughter, but it's this kind of logic that you create to defend your ideas.

None of my logic results in that, you are presenting your own straw-man to berate me.

>>771620

>the scriptures have always relied on the Apostolic tradition…

<For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men

This reminds me of the Jews saying that Jersualem was never going to be destroyed because it was God's city, and well, it was destroyed.

>Yes. The dragon is satan,

Yes, symbolism. The Dragon is Satan, the stars are the Angels, the water are the peoples of the world, and the wings symbolize speed. The whole text is based on symbolism, but for some reason, to you woman means woman here.

>Because you're being uncharitable, not actually demonstrating anything wrong with the logic.

Listen, I can discuss this with you all afternoon, but I can't teach you how to read.

>And where did I say that Mary created Jesus Christ?

I expressed myself badly, but I can't find the right word to replace "create". In short, Jesus did not come into existence only after being born of Mary, Jesus already existed before (in the beginning was the Word, remember?), all he did was become flesh.

>Heresy.

Sure.

>None of my logic results in that, you are presenting your own straw-man to berate me.

That's not how the straw-man fallacy works.

>>771692

>This reminds me of the Jews saying that Jersualem was never going to be destroyed because it was God's city, and well, it was destroyed.

Proverbs 4:13

Take hold on instruction, leave it not: keep it, because it is thy life.

Titus 1:9

He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it was taught, so that by sound teaching he will be able to encourage others and refute those who contradict this message.

>The whole text is based on symbolism, but for some reason, to you woman means woman here.

"Woman", refers to Mary, whom Christ Himself referred to as "Woman". Is it a title? If not, why not simply call Her Mother?

>Listen, I can discuss this with you all afternoon, but I can't teach you how to read.

You can put on a haughty affectation to preach heresy, it will not be something I will be responsible for.

>I expressed myself badly, but I can't find the right word to replace "create". In short, Jesus did not come into existence only after being born of Mary, Jesus already existed before (in the beginning was the Word, remember?), all he did was become flesh.

Which is why I used the word "propagate". We were propagated by Adam and Eve by flesh and blood, created by God in Soul and our existence affixed in due Time.

>In short, Jesus did not come into existence only after being born of Mary

I already quoted Colossians 1:15, perhaps you are so eager to berate me you'll put words in my mouth? Or overlook points already made to made justify your unjust condescension?

>That's not how the straw-man fallacy works.

You are misrepresenting my argument by presenting another entirely new one, if it is not a straw-man fallacy, we must agree it is fallacious either way.

You're more interested in sounding right than actually being right. No worries, at the end, one of us will be told who was right.

>>771721

>Proverbs 4:13 and Titus 1:9

<8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

<9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:8-9

Find me somewhere in the Bible where Mary is called the Mother of God and not the Mother of Jesus, or that will be anathema to me until my death.

>If not, why not simply call Her Mother?

Very simple, for this very reason here.

>>771420

<31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

<33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

<34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:31-35

Note that he doesn't mention His father, that's because he called God His Father. As I said in the other post, "woman" was an educated term to refer to Mary, which today would mean "ma'am".

>You are misrepresenting my argument by presenting another entirely new one

Uh, no, what I did was make a comment on my own argument about how human logic doesn't work every time.

>I already quoted Colossians 1:15

You should have quoted me >>770665, you had a stronger argument here.

Although it is still wrong. Following your logic, Mary was born sinless to be the new Eve, this, in addition to being a heresy, since it is affirmed that Jesus was the only sinless being, contradicts the words of Mary herself.

<and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

<Luke 1:47

Now, how would Mary need a savior if she was already free of sin?

Moreover, although Jesus is compared to a new Adam, there is no mention of Mary being the new Eve among the apostles, that later argument has a very beautiful logic, but for it to work, as you showed yourself, it must rely on unbiblical heresies, like Mary being more powerful than all the angels and born without sin.

>You're more interested in sounding right than actually being right

If so, I wouldn't have said "create" in my argument.

>>771806

Galatians does not refute either, unless you mean to suggest that Apostles are censuring those who…teach the Apostolic Tradition.

>Find me somewhere in the Bible where Mary is called the Mother of God and not the Mother of Jesus, or that will be anathema to me until my death.

If you refuse to call Mary the Mother of God, you anathematize yourself, because then Christ is not God.

>As I said in the other post, "woman" was an educated term to refer to Mary, which today would mean "ma'am".

first time i've ever heard of this, sources please.

>Uh, no, what I did was make a comment on my own argument about how human logic doesn't work every time.

you made up some weirdo argument and saying I did the same thing, that's inherently fallacious dude.

>Now, how would Mary need a savior if she was already free of sin?

By virtue of being the Mother of the Savior. Again, you are being disingenuous, or did you not know that we proclaim Mary sinless on account of Christ?

> it must rely on unbiblical heresies, like Mary being more powerful than all the angels and born without sin.

Giving birth to the King of the Universe seems fairly powerful to me, no angel was ever given a physical body to bear the Son of God with, it is a most particular honor.

You're just looking for a fight. Again, I can only insist that God will prove only one of us right. Good luck.

>>771816

>Again, I can only insist that God will prove only one of us right.

Well, yes, that's true. Good luck to you too, bro.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle ."

Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical

https://catholica.com/sola-scriptura/

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2

Tell me when and how was the Bible formed? Where in the Bible is sola scriptura supported? Please see that it is possible to view things in both/and rather than either/or.

Please don't misconstrue what we mean by calling Mary the Mother of God. Even Luther acknowledged her title which was declared in the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD in response to Nestorianism. Do you really think all those Bishops, who are the apostolic successors of the Apostles, understood that title as you misconstrue it to be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism

>>771865

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

That's already addressed in both links I've provided.

https://catholica.com/sola-scriptura/

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37:the-unbiblical-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura&catid=14:articles&Itemid=2

both/and NOT either/or

Protestants, when pressed on the issue, may quote 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”. However, nowhere does that verse support the tenant of sola scriptura that says Scripture alone is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

James 3:17

"But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere."

Sorry I think James 3 is relevant to everyone on here so I'll just repost this again. (NASB)

The Tongue Is a Fire

3 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a [a]stricter judgment. 2 For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in [b]what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well. 3 Now if we put the bits into the horses’ mouths so that they will obey us, we direct their entire body as well. 4 Look at the ships also, though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, are still directed by a very small rudder wherever the inclination of the pilot desires. 5 So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things.

See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our [c]life, and is set on fire by [d]hell. 7 For every [e]species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human [f]race. 8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; 10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. 11 Does a fountain send out from the same opening both [g]fresh and bitter water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce [h]fresh.

Wisdom from Above

13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and [i]selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, [j]natural, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and [k]selfish ambition exist, [l]there is disorder and every evil thing. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [m]reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. 18 And the [n]seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace [o]by those who make peace.

>>771816

>sources please.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot about that.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/was-jesus-dissing-his-mother-when-he-called-her-woman