/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15083765]

>Woman! Behold your son!
How do proteshits deny the role of Mary, mother of God, in the role of their salvation with such powerful words?

[Anonymous No.15083810]

>>15083765
>Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

[Anonymous No.15083865]

>>15083810
Yes, and?
>Behold your mother!

Every time I converse with proteshits its like talking to a toddler.

Every time I converse with the orthodox it's like conversing with the mentally retarded.

[Anonymous No.15083906]

He was speaking about John mate

[Anonymous No.15083921]

>>15083765
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 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?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

[Anonymous No.15083943]

>>15083765
>>15083765
Tbh I'm a Catholic and I've always found the Catholic exegesis of that line a bit of a stretch. Don't get me wrong, I completely accept the Marian doctrines, but to act as though that line is some indisputable proof is moronic. Her role at the Wedding at Cana, her prophesy about herself being called 'blessed', Elizabeth's prophesy about her to the same effect, Simeon's prophesy about her that 'a sword shall pierce' her also, together with her unwavering commitment to Christ throughout the Gospels, and of course Church tradition down the line until the Reformation, attest to her remarkable role in the history of salvation.

[Anonymous No.15084027]

>>15083765
>in the role of their salvation
co-redemptrix is heresy

Mary was not sinless, she needed salvation.

[Anonymous No.15084053]

>>15083765
I love and admire Mary, the mother of Jesus.

That said I pray to no one but my God.

[Anonymous No.15084074]

>>15083765
Nobody denies Mary is the mother of Jesus, retard. Nobody denies her virginal birth. What is at stake is if she's the mother of God or not. This is a highly fragile speculation by the Catholic Church, not even the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts it.

[Anonymous No.15084092]

>>15083765
Catholics disgust me; I kneel before the LORD, not some Roman in a fancy hat

[Anonymous No.15084108]

>>15084074
And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

[Anonymous No.15084115]

>>15083906
Yet, John never says John, the beloved desciple. Just beloved desciple. Will you be Jesus''s beloved desciple? Will you take her as your own mother?

[Anonymous No.15084122]

>>15084053
>That said I pray to no one but my God.
based

[Anonymous No.15084123]

>>15084027
Mary was sinless in the sense she was created sinless by God. Her salvation was immediate at the point of her creation

[Anonymous No.15084155]

>>15083921
>>15083921
>>15083921
no answer

[Anonymous No.15084158]

>>15084123
>mary didn't need the Cross or Christ
none are righteous, all have sinned, none are good, all have fallen short, none seek God, not even one...etc

Only Christ is sinless. Repent papist!

[Anonymous No.15084170]

>>15084108
And how that proves Mary is a semi-goddess herself and bore God, Yahweh, which is one with his Son, into the world?

[Anonymous No.15084182]

>>15084123
Good to know not all people need Jesus.

[Anonymous No.15084373]

>>15084182
Her salvation depended on Jesus, it only preceded it in time

[Anonymous No.15084395]

>>15083765
Mary did seem to believe in Jesus throughout His life. She was present at the cross when Jesus died (John 19:25), no doubt feeling the “sword” that Simeon had prophesied would pierce her soul. It was there at the cross that Jesus asked John to serve as Mary’s son, and John took Mary into his home (John 19:26–27). Mary was also with the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14). However, Mary is never mentioned again after Acts chapter 1.

The apostles did not give Mary a prominent role. Mary’s death is not recorded in the Bible. Nothing is said about Mary ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there. As the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration.

The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. Jesus is our only advocate and mediator in heaven (1 Timothy 2:5). If offered worship, adoration, or prayers, Mary would say the same as the angels: “Worship God!” (see Revelation 19:10; 22:9.) Mary herself sets the example for us, directing her worship, adoration, and praise to God alone: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is His name” (Luke 1:46–49).

[Anonymous No.15084423]

>>15084027
Being sinless does not imply she didn't need salvation or had no opportunity to sin. Refusing to accept the incarnation would have been inful, and she needed God just as every human does.
>>15084155
Take the message of each in context. You can't just quote a bible verse and rest on your laurels.

[Anonymous No.15084470]

>>15084074
>What is at stake is if she's the mother of God or not
well, did she give birth to the Logos or did she give birth to some human person?
>ot even the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts it
what? theotokos literally means "mother of god"... Mary is constantly called that everywhere in Orthodoxy...

[Anonymous No.15084501]

>>15083765
Yes and? Where does this indicate an extensive directive to proceed with establishing an elaborate side-devotion that appears to be more than anything, another part of the general efforts throughout the life of the Roman Empire to instill social cohesion by integrating pre-existing traditions with the most sway into a unifying custom.

I think that it is indicative, of those who would devote their time to constantly attempt to pester those who would scoff at such apparently contradictory practices, that they may likely posess a strong underlying fethisistic desire to deviously engage in a cryptic form of matriarch worship while externally claiming devotion to something else; and it could run as a phenomenon parallel to their continued and willing support of an institution with many accusations and confirmations against it of varied forms of abuse.

Also it's not that I possess some great personal contempt for devotion to feminine entities and mother goddesses in particular or other possible beliefs, but rather to duplicity and deceit while claiming to be the be-all and end-all religion.

>inb4 let's just ignore these extremely similar motifs that evoke extremely similar inferences

[Anonymous No.15084508]

>>15084501
>it's not that I possess some great personal contempt for devotion to feminine entities and mother goddesses in particular or other possible beliefs

[Anonymous No.15084513]

>>15084501
>Yes and? Where does this indicate an extensive directive to proceed with establishing an elaborate side-devotion that appears to be more than anything, another part of the general efforts throughout the life of the Roman Empire to instill social cohesion by integrating pre-existing traditions with the most sway into a unifying custom.
>I think that it is indicative, of those who would devote their time to constantly attempt to pester those who would scoff at such apparently contradictory practices, that they may likely posess a strong underlying fethisistic desire to deviously engage in a cryptic form of matriarch worship while externally claiming devotion to something else; and it could run as a phenomenon parallel to their continued and willing support of an institution with many accusations and confirmations against it of varied forms of abuse.
>Also it's not that I possess some great personal contempt for devotion to feminine entities and mother goddesses in particular or other possible beliefs, but rather to duplicity and deceit while claiming to be the be-all and end-all religion.
>>inb4 let's just ignore these extremely similar motifs that evoke extremely similar inferences

>DUUUUDE ALL RELIGIONS ARE JUST THE SAME BRO!!!

[Anonymous No.15084527]

>>15084395
The author you are quoting does not have a good understanding of saintly intercession.

[Anonymous No.15084531]

Do Catholics who engage in these debates actually thinks it’s worth arguing? Do they really think that you must go beyond a simple adoration of Mary to get into heaven? I mean, what Protestant doesn’t recognize the importance of Mary? But when did Jesus ever say anything about venerating HER to get into heaven? The Bible is clear on what it takes. All these discussions about Mary, the trinity, transubstantiation or consubstantiation, free will, sola fide...all worthless! Pointless!

All you need to do is follow the commandments.

[Anonymous No.15084534]

>>15084531
>the trinity
>worthless! Pointless!

[Anonymous No.15084537]

>>15084531
>venerating HER to get into heaven
no one ever claimed that you need to venerate mary to get into heaven

[Anonymous No.15084553]

>>15084508
>>15084513
Great argument

[Anonymous No.15084569]

>>15084537
then the discussion is pointless. Why do people conjure up these arguments that have nothing to do with salvation? What’s the point? Is meditating on God’s law not enough? We’ll understand everything clearly when we reach heaven. But for now, all we should be worrying about is doing the will of God.

[Anonymous No.15084572]

>>15084074
>What is at stake is if she's the mother of God or not.
Nestorianism is refuted cringe, get over it already.

[Anonymous No.15084590]

>>15084508
>>15084513
>>15084534
>>15084553
Every fucking thread in this shithole is the same. I'm not even reading.

[Anonymous No.15084634]

>>15084501
>Where does this indicate an extensive directive to proceed with establishing an elaborate side-devotion that appears to be more than anything, another part of the general efforts throughout the life of the Roman Empire to instill social cohesion by integrating pre-existing traditions with the most sway into a unifying custom?
Well what do you want us to do, let the communid Persians win?

[Anonymous No.15084636]

>>15084569
>all we should be worrying about is doing the will of God
it is the will of god that the church should be one (john 17), and ecumenical discussion is one of the best ways of achieving that

true, 4chan aint the best place for ecumenical discussion, but in the right place it is far from pointless

[Anonymous No.15084637]

>>15084423
>Take the message of each in context. You can't just quote a bible verse and rest on your laurels.
But that's exactly what you did in the OP.

[Anonymous No.15084646]

>>15084636
we would all easily be one if we focused on what matters...

[Anonymous No.15084649]

>>15084646
extremely cringe baptist platitude

[Anonymous No.15084736]

>>15084636
>it is the will of god that the church should be one (john 17), and ecumenical discussion is one of the best ways of achieving that
it’s apparently also one of the best ways of sowing discord

[Anonymous No.15084749]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiKGHzBtl5o
Please don't pray to WOMEN.

[Anonymous No.15084767]

>>15084749
>calvinist ligioners ministry anon

pls go

[Anonymous No.15084787]

>>15083810
That means nothing except that Christ is the Judge. Since he's literally said belief is the spirit of a thought or action.
If you've lived a good life and only heard of Christianity limitedly, and perhaps you've even saved a life, then you're going to heaven.
While you who call yourself Christian, go to church every Sunday, but have no love...

[Anonymous No.15084798]

>>15084123
>immaculate conception

[Anonymous No.15084802]

>>15084767
We believe that Christ alone is sufficient for salvation. We regard any opposition to this doctrine as pure defiance, and so we deny any notion of Mary as a participant in the mystery of salvation. Roman Catholic belief that Mary acts as a mediator between man and God is idolatry and not found in scripture, since only Christ can fulfill this role. We must ask in His name, not any other, and pray as he instructed.
It's true Calvin forbade prayers and supplications to Mary for similar reasons, because he understood scripture so clearly.

[Anonymous No.15084809]

>>15084170
semi godess? wtf are you talking?

[Anonymous No.15084819]

>>15084108
>the mother of my Lord
>the mother of my Lord

(1) "LORD" represents the Hebrew Yahweh, Septuagint Kurios, except where 'Adhonay or 'Adhon is combined with Yahweh (= "Lord God"); the American Standard Revised Version has in these examples employed the name as it is found in the Hebrew, simply transliterated.

(2) "Lord" corresponds to 'Adhonay, 'Adhon, Mare', also Greek Kurios (see (1)), and Despotes, for which the American Standard Revised Version has always "Master" in either the text or the margin.

(3) "Lord" ("lord") translates all the remaining 8 Hebrew words and the Greek words except Despotes. It is thus seen that Kurios corresponds to all three forms of writing the English term.

[Anonymous No.15084825]

>>15084170
>>15084819
meant to reply this

[Anonymous No.15084881]

>>15084749
>listen to some fat anglo bug
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.15084891]

>>15084881
>using your tongue to start fires and attack the pious
Get an argument instead!

[Anonymous No.15084901]

>>15084891
>anglo bug innovations
>pious
OH NO NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.15084928]

>>15084749
Based.

[Anonymous No.15084930]

>>15084092

Based and Lord-pilled

[Anonymous No.15084954]

>>15084749
Calvin had genuine respect for Mary and saw her as a model for faith. "To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son". The genuine respect for Mary in Calvin's writing, and his attempt to express his Marian convictions to the faithful of his day in his explanations of the epistles is not fully known or shared by Reformed Protestants after John Calvin

[Anonymous No.15084959]

>>15084954
Sure, agree, but don't pray to her and use her as another mediator or helper in salvation or to free sinners from purgatory, etc etc!

[Anonymous No.15085363]

>some kike having a hysterical fit and rightfully being put to death

This is a literature board

[Anonymous No.15085903]

>>15083765
>calls her "woman" rather than "mother"
>then says "behold YOUR mother"

Compelling...

[Anonymous No.15086478]

>>15084470
>well, did she give birth to the Logos or did she give birth to some human person?


I might be dense, but I've never heard anyone argue for that before.

[Anonymous No.15086548]

>>15084074
>not even the Eastern Orthodox Church accepts it
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, Theotokos literally means mother of God

[Anonymous No.15086577]

>>15084470
>>15086548
There's a whole debate about Mary, anon. It's way more complex than that.

>>15084373
She was already saved before Jesus came in time, otherwise she couldn't bore Jesus. If we accept Jesus saving before coming into the world then Jesus coming wasn't necessary in the first place which renders Christianity a nullity.

>>15084572
It was never refuted, it was put aside. Like every christian "heresy". It's all speculation, even the ones made by the "official" Church.

>>15084809
If she's not at least a semi-goddess or have a similar status, then how can she bear a literal God? Either this or Jesus wasn't God when he was born.

[Anonymous No.15086611]

>he doesn't pray to Mary
>He prays to saints
>He doesn't know about how Mary helps the departed
Somebody is an evangelical!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15086637]

>>15084123
If God can create people without sin just like that then what is the point of Jesus dying on the cross? LMAO

[Anonymous No.15086643]

>>15083765
We don't. We just don't treat her as a God

[Anonymous No.15086645]

>>15086577
T-H-E-O-T-O-K-O-S.
Stop blabbering your nonsense.
Even evangelicals agree to the Chalcedonian Creed which specifically refers to Holy Mary as the theotokos, "
For us and for our salvation of Mary the Virgin Theotokos"
.

Whos right, a city boy born into modern Sodom and Gomorrah or based power kings who spend their entire lives with the church.

[Anonymous No.15086652]

New to /lit/. What book?

[Anonymous No.15086681]

>>15086637
>>15084123
Further to the point, how is the whole idea of Mary's immaculate conception not self-refuting? Why does the buck stop with Mary? Why can God make it so that Mary is born sinless but can't do the same for Jesus? Shouldn't Mary's parents be born immaculate too? And so on ad infinitum.

Check 'em

[Anonymous No.15086686]

>>15086652
"""Protoevangelium""" of """James""".

[Anonymous No.15086694]

>>15083765
I know right? It's like when people want to pretend that Rey or luke was the chosen one when in reality we know only episodes 4-6 matter.

Your religion is adult play pretend.

[Anonymous No.15086707]

>>15083765
their readiness to hate the mother of Jesus Christ, and the vitriol they direct towards her should be telling

[Anonymous No.15086728]

>>15086645
If you only knew the implications of this one word and the myriad of the theological debate behind it, you wouldn't sound so smug. Ignorance is a bliss.

[Anonymous No.15086731]

>mfw Marian sectarians call themselves Christian
If Mary is a co-redemtrix then Jesus' sacrifice is for nothing.

[Anonymous No.15086734]

>ave
>eva
BASED

[Anonymous No.15086741]

What about this?

[Anonymous No.15086751]

>>15086741
Those are Gnostic scriptures, which are pretty based. But Church goers will scream heresy, and non-official doctrine, whatever.

[Anonymous No.15086783]

>>15086731
>Mary is a creature, therefore redeemed herself
>at the same time she is participant in her own redemption
Just pull yourself out of the muck of sin by your own hair Christian. The sacrifice on the cross is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15086876]

>>15084802
Marriage at Cana

[Anonymous No.15086903]

>>15086577
>If she's not at least a semi-goddess or have a similar status, then how can she bear a literal God?
Because this isn't a Marvel movie or a Greek fiction.
Mary was fully human. Jesus was both fully God and fully man.
It was by a miracle that He was born.

[Anonymous No.15086912]

>>15086707
>If you disagree with mariolatry then you hate Mary!
Ok, zoomer

[Anonymous No.15086931]

>>15086903
>Mary was fully human. Jesus was both fully God and fully man.
And I guess we can just throw out the doctrine of the Original Sin anytime we want out of the window.
>It was by a miracle that He was born.
If God is willing to break natural laws in order to bring his Son to the world, might as well make Jesus descend from heaven or something, no? There's literal no point in making a human woman pregnant if "it's all a miracle" -- which sounds even more Marvel-esque if you think about it.

[Anonymous No.15086964]

>>15086876
>Marriage at Cana
Go on, let's see your bizarre misreading.

[Anonymous No.15086977]

followers of the roman mafia must see the light and ask for forgiveness from The LORD for their idolatry

[Anonymous No.15086991]

>>15086931
Humans are born from humans, they do not fall from the sky. In order to be fully man he had to be born.

[Anonymous No.15086998]

>>15086977
>77
check'd

[Anonymous No.15087037]

The prot error comes from misinterpreting 1Tim 2-5, where it says Christ is the only mediator. It means Salvation only comes through Christ and we agree on that. Catholics don't think Mary or any Saint are our saviours. We believe what the Bible says, that everyone can intercede for each other. Christ's exclusive mediation is not non-compatible with intercession. In fact, the Bible says we are all intercessors.

Eph(6,18) "Never get tired of staying awake to pray for all God's holy people"

[Anonymous No.15087238]

>>15086991
Jesus, according to the Church, is fully human and fully God.

[Anonymous No.15087276]

>>15087037
None of that explains how intercession works at all. If it's in the other world, this world, both worlds, several dimensions, anything. The Bible isn't clear in any of this, so the Fathers created their own ideas which can right and completely wrong at the same time. Protestants did the right thing, that is, reduce the speculation to a minimum. Complain all you want, but they did the correct thing.

[Anonymous No.15087293]

>>15087238
Indeed, and to be so he had to be fully human.

[Anonymous No.15087306]

>>15087276
>Protestants basically threw out everything in Acts because they don't want to admit they've strayed from God's one true church.

Apostollic succession is clearly supported in the bible and the church fathers put a lot more thought than into it than Brother Bob's 17th St. House of God: Twice Reformed.

[Anonymous No.15087319]

>>15087276
Yeah, the Corpus Mysticum and the Communion of Saints are all supported by Scripture, there is no ambiguity.

[Anonymous No.15087340]

>>15087306
There's nothing "clear" on the Bible, my friend. If that was the case, there would be no need for doctrine. If you're Catholic, you know how enormous and complex it is. What we call Bible nowadays by itself is problematic since we know little to nothing about the real authors of said manuscripts.

>>15087319
Supported by scripture means based on an interpretation based on scripture, which by itself is not actual scripture. It's impossible to not have ambiguity.

[Anonymous No.15087451]

>>15087319
>there is no ambiguity.
like when Jesus clearly condemns priests for glorifying their clothing, sitting in special seats, and wanting to be called “Father” ?

[Anonymous No.15087538]

>>15086637
>>15086681
>>15087276
>>15084569
>>15087451
/thread

[Anonymous No.15087584]

>>15087538
>sameposter /threading all his posts

[Anonymous No.15087589]

>>15087451
There’s no ambiguity about the Communion of the Saints and the Corpus Mysticum br

[Anonymous No.15087591]

>>15087037
>it's just intercession bro
>but we call her co-redemtrix
You are deluded.

[Anonymous No.15087593]

>>15087584
ok papist

[Anonymous No.15087617]

>>15087037
>>15087306
>>15087319
None of this supports the idea that Mary is co-redemtrix with Christ. And I'm Catholic.
It's plain heresy and the Pope should declare it as such ex cathedra.

[Anonymous No.15087619]

>>15086681
>how is the whole idea of Mary's immaculate conception not self-refuting?

It fits squarely, and without any necessary for or implication of infinite regress, because Mary is the second Eve, just as Jesus is the second (or last) Adam.

Eve is the mother of "all the living," Mary is the spiritual mother of those who are redeemed ("Behold your mother").

[Anonymous No.15087632]

>>15083765
>proteshits

Anon, with all due respect, you should not initiate a discussion of sacred matters with a vulgarism. It sets the wrong tone, and opens the door for further invective, which is so very ill-suited to this particular subject.

[Anonymous No.15087633]

>>15087619
you didn’t even address the rest of the post

[Anonymous No.15087649]

>>15087619
Mary being the mother of the Church does not have anything to do with the claim that Mary was "immaculately conceived".

[Anonymous No.15087663]

>>15087617
>Implying anyone is saying co-redemptrix besides you.
Just as Eve was disobedient and played a role in our fall, Mary's subservience to the will of God brought Christ into the world and it cemented our redemption. She is an advocate for you and I, brother.

[Anonymous No.15087670]

>>15087619
Too bad Adam and Eve never existed.

[Anonymous No.15088012]

>>15087619
>without any necessary for or implication of infinite regress

How? If Mary needed to ascend to heaven sinless in order to give birth to Jesus, why doesn't that apply to her own mother and so on?

>Eve is the mother of "all the living," Mary is the spiritual mother of those who are redeemed ("Behold your mother").

Shouldn't she be the last mother of all things in this case, not a random person in the middle?

[Anonymous No.15088084]

i'm a high church anglo-catholic, so like i'm down with perpetual virginity, queen of heaven, greatest created being, lived a sinless life, etc. but if you think that verse means that Mary's intercession plays some essential role in salvation, you're just not being reasonable.

[Anonymous No.15088741]

>>15088012
>Shouldn't she be the last mother of all things in this case, not a random person in the middle?

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

[Anonymous No.15089012]

>>15088741
Nice, so the Apocalypse is going to happen in time or out of it?

[Anonymous No.15089642]

>>15083765
Catholicism is just polytheism with a coat of paint over it
May as well larp as a pagan because then you’re at least worshipping white people

[Anonymous No.15089994]

>>15087617
Catholic here. Co-redemptrix is plain heresy unless every Christian can be considered a co-redeemer in so far as they participate in the sufferings of Christ. If it is an exclusive title of Mary, it is heresy. She is the greatest, but still the same in kind as us.

[Anonymous No.15090214]

>>15086478
Eastern world had those discussions around 400's AD

[Anonymous No.15090273]

>>15084802
Do Catholics say that Mary is required for salvation or that she saves us?
Or have you crafted a strawman to justify your walls of text.

[Anonymous No.15090287]

>>15086931
>And I guess we can just throw out the doctrine of the Original Sin anytime we want out of the window.

Haven't you already?
It was proven that it's based on speculations from a single Vulgate verse which is in error.

[Anonymous No.15090354]

>>15087037

Btw I'm confirming what you're saying, Orthodox btw - just thinking while writing about this:

1 Tim 2:5-6 because they are one sentence.
For there is one God, and also one mediator of God and human beings: a human being, the Anointed One Jesus, Who gave himself as a liberation fee for all persons, the proof rendered at their own proper times:

It seems to me the verse does not talk at all about the intercession of saints or others on our behalf so that God works towards our salvation or imparts grace - no, seems to me like a logical statement that it's God who can bring you to God - mediate you, Jesus the God man stands in the middle of this mediation, he is the channel and the way, if Jesus was merely a created being and not God in the proper sense how could you say He united you with God? Same for the Spirit.

It seems very consistent with the entire NT narrative.

I think people imagine things then argue for the sake of sustaining their angry position.

[Anonymous No.15090369]

>>15090287
Catholics didn't.

[Anonymous No.15090380]

>>15087276
>If it's in the other world, this world, both worlds, several dimensions, anything.
>Protestants did the right thing, that is, reduce the speculation to a minimum.

This is a cartoon.

[Anonymous No.15090398]

>>15087340
>What we call Bible nowadays by itself is problematic since we know little to nothing about the real authors of said manuscripts.
Why do you need to know about them?
Does knowing about them help you with something, do then the words on the page reveal their secret meaning to you?
We know they were 2nd Temple - Jews some of them.
They clearly read out the literature like Jubilees and 1 Enoch which they quoted from or let it shape their writing to frame a theological statement.
But even discovering this I don't see how it does anything more than prepare you a little for the process of actual reading of the text.

[Anonymous No.15090470]

>>15084527
>saintly intercession
Invocation of departed saints is a transgression of the first commandment.

[Anonymous No.15090548]

>>15090380
>the Fathers of the Church, I believe it, that settles it
How is your attitude any better?

[Anonymous No.15090653]

>>15090398
I personally don't care. I read the Bible as a mystical literature like the good old religious texts from the Hellenistic period, which is the correct way I believe. But try explaining that to churchgoers, they go insane.

[Anonymous No.15090700]

>>15090653
Based.
That's how most people read the Bible here in Romania. Although not many read the Bible lmao.
But we were influenced a lot by the Greek culture - Byzantines, used to be a distant province.
I mean the Church fathers literally expose that way of reading in detail and call you a simpleton for thinking there were days before there was a sun and all that lmao.

Anagogical reading, allegorical method etc.

[Anonymous No.15090838]

>>15090470
How

[Anonymous No.15090841]

>>15086577
>It was never refuted, it was put aside.
Cringe. Nestorianism is self-refuting heresy. Repent.

[Anonymous No.15090862]

>>15086478
It's a trivial refutation of all of nestorianized protestantism. If she did not give birth to the person of the Logos, then the full divinity and unique personhood of Christ as the Eternal Logos is instantly denied.

[Anonymous No.15090872]

>>15090841
You may call it heresy, you may say the Church denies it, but saying it was "refuted", as in scientifically refuted, is a lie.

[Anonymous No.15090900]

>>15086577
>then how can she bear a literal God?
Jesus Christ is fully human. Why would a healthy woman not be able to bear a human child?

>>15090872
It's refuted if you accept the Holy Bible as truth and accept that you need to worship Christ and that you cannot worship created persons as if they are God.
>You may call it heresy, you may say the Church denies it
That already means it's refuted though. The Holy Spirit just lets us know this truth through the Church proclaiming it.

[Anonymous No.15090914]

@15086577
>Like every christian "heresy". It's all speculation
>The Holy Spirit just didn't know bro!!! We need to do a science test first!!! He can't determine whats heresy and whats not heresy he needs to speculate!!!

[Anonymous No.15090957]

>>15090900
Jesus was a created person though. You just said he was fully human.

[Anonymous No.15091020]

>>15090900
>Jesus Christ is fully human. Why would a healthy woman not be able to bear a human child?
Jesus is fully human and fully God.

>It's refuted if you accept the Holy Bible as truth and accept that you need to worship Christ and that you cannot worship created persons as if they are God.
There are several solutions to the whole Marian question, all of them has validity in Scriptures as long as you want to read in way or another.

>That already means it's refuted though. The Holy Spirit just lets us know this truth through the Church proclaiming it.
That's a self validating argument. Again, it works for calling heresy, but doesn't refute anything.

>>15090914
Is this the power of the new tradcath movement?

[Anonymous No.15091033]

>>15090957
Created person means He (statement of personhood) did not exist and then came into existence. This is refuted by John 1:1. Fully human means that He (the Logos) has a fully human nature, so he has all things universally shared by all humans which would make them human. He took on created human nature while being the uncreated second person of the Holy Trinity. Mary did not give him his existence which comes only from the Father, she just gave him his human body, human soul, etc, like any mother would to her child.

[Anonymous No.15091041]

>>15091020
>There are several solutions to the whole Marian question
>all of them has validity in Scriptures
>BROOO TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVE WHY CANT WE JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHATS TRUE!!!
>That's a self validating argument.
>NOOO THE HOLY SPIRIT CANNOT SHOW YOU THE TRUTH BECAUSE HE IS THE SOURCE OF ALL TRUTH WE NEED TO RUN A SCIENCE TEST BEFOREHAND TO VERY HIS CLAIMS!!!!

[Anonymous No.15091043]

>>15087649
With respect to whether Mary was immaculately conceived, this was prophesied in Genesis, where God states he will put enmity between the serpent and the woman. From the context, the serpent is clearly the devil, and the woman Mary.

If Mary were subject to original sin, the prophetic words would not have been perfectly fulfilled -- original sin is an encroachment of the devil's power, a conquering of the human person or the human soul, in a project that began with the Fall. It is a wound that Christ came to heal.

Again, Mary and Jesus are the second Eve and the second Adam. The Fall is attributable to Adam; redemption and salvation to Christ. But just as Eve was. a necessary participant in the process of the Fall, so to Mary participated in the redemption.

And, consistent with the "type" of Adam and Eve, before the Fall, Christ (Mary's "seed," per Gen 3:15) and Mary have in common a nature not subject to the dominion of sin imposed by the Fall.

With that being said, the Immaculate Conception reflects a culmination of the logic of Catholic theology. It is a doctrine that builds, or rests, on other doctrines, much in the way the doctrine of the Trinity builds on, e.g., the doctrine of the Incarnation. Although both the Immaculate Conception and the Trinity are ultimately rooted in scripture, the scriptural basis for the respective doctrines is not as clear and absolute as it is for other doctrines. It is very unlikely that a non-Catholic would accept the Immaculate Conception, any more than an atheist would be likely to accept, say, the Trinity, prior to accepting the "mere" existence of God, as such.

[Anonymous No.15091050]

>>15091041
Stop being butthurt. Go to the Church and confess.

[Anonymous No.15091066]

>>15091050
Sure, anon. Let's go together. I'll confess my mean words and you'll confess your blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.15091067]

>>15091043
>With respect to whether Mary was immaculately conceived, this was prophesied in Genesis, where God states he will put enmity between the serpent and the woman. From the context, the serpent is clearly the devil, and the woman Mary.
That's a very stretched interpretation. Makes little sense to be honest.

[Anonymous No.15091073]

>>15091066
You can go alone and leave the debate to adults.

[Anonymous No.15091097]

>>15091033
So he's not "fully" human

[Anonymous No.15091106]

>>15091043
>If Mary were subject to original sin, the prophetic words would not have been perfectly fulfilled
True, but thankfully original sin is a false teaching.
>encroachment of the devil's power
>the devil having positive power
OH NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.15091125]

>>15091097
Nature and hypostasis are distinct in Christianity. It's a revelation of Christ that human nature does not include created human hypostasis. To even say that "he is human" requires mentioning the "he", i.e. the concrete hypostasis you're talking about, which in Christ's case is that of the uncreated eternal Logos.

[Anonymous No.15091157]

>>15091125
So he's got no actual human body?

[Anonymous No.15091163]

>>15091125
What guided Jesus the human? His human soul or Jesus the god?

[Anonymous No.15091192]

>>15091157
He did not have a human body before the incarnation, that's literally what the term means.

>>15091163
>Jesus the human
"Jesus the human" is the same entity as "Jesus the Logos".
>His human soul or Jesus the god?
A soul is merely a component of your human nature, it isn't your subsistence, you aren't your soul or your body.

[Anonymous No.15091206]

>>15091192
What is my subsistence?

[Anonymous No.15091244]

>>15091192
>He did not have a human body before the incarnation, that's literally what the term means.

Before incarnation, you mean, before Mary was pregnant of him?

[Anonymous No.15091268]

>>15091206
It's ineffable, just like you can't say precisely who the Holy Spirit is except that he has some unique properties (he is spirated by the Father; you are born of your parents, made in the image of God, etc) and by what is revealed about him.

>>15091228
The crucifixion happened after the incarnation though? Why would he not feel anything when he already had a real human body?
>Before incarnation, you mean, before Mary was pregnant of him?
Yes, he did not have a human body and soul before he obtained it as all humans do, via birth. But he still existed as the Word of God and this Word is the same entity as the one who experienced death on the cross.

[Anonymous No.15091270]

>>15091125
>Being this consumed with sophistry
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....
.
.
.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.


Stop being such a dummy. John is very clear in these aspects of the eternality of Christ.

[Anonymous No.15091283]

>>15091270
how does that refute anything I said? how is basic Christology "sophistry"?

[Anonymous No.15091295]

>>15083943
Did they stop filtering 'desu'?

[Anonymous No.15091302]

>>15091268
How can you say Jesus was fully human when you don't even know what it means to be fully human?

[Anonymous No.15091325]

>>15091268
>Yes, he did not have a human body and soul before he obtained it as all humans do, via birth. But he still existed as the Word of God and this Word is the same entity as the one who experienced death on the cross.

My question is that if he had a human body in this world, which you already responded. In this case, how can Jesus be fully God and not fully human at the same time if he's got a full human body that was crucified?

[Anonymous No.15091330]

>>15091325
Just have faith bro

[Anonymous No.15091342]

>>15091302
Being human means having human nature. It is revealed that Christ has a human nature and that he is a single person, uncreated and begotten of the Father from all eternity. Also, we don't even know what it means to be God (we don't know his essence) but we don't doubt his existence because of that.

>>15091325
>how can Jesus be fully God and not fully human at the same time if he's got a full human body that was crucified?
>not fully human
The Logos is fully divine from all eternity and fully human from the moment of his miraculous conception. Clearly he could not be human when humans did not even exist yet.

[Anonymous No.15091350]

>>15088012
>why doesn't that apply to her own mother and so on?
No one "exists" until ensoulment, which happens at conception. Whatever divine action made Mary free from original sin didn't have to happen until she was conceived.

[Anonymous No.15091373]

>>15091342
>The Logos is fully divine from all eternity and fully human from the moment of his miraculous conception. Clearly he could not be human when humans did not even exist yet.
The Logos ever existing I can get this concept very well. But the miraculous conception is a problem of its own. Again, how can Mary beget a God if she's not at least half-goddess? You can call it a miracle but that's like Zeus making women pregnant, but his sons with humans were always half-gods, never fully gods.

[Anonymous No.15091379]

>>15091350
>No one "exists" until ensoulment
Have you ever experienced the before ensoulment or the ensoulment itself?

[Anonymous No.15091390]

If he's begotten of the father he is created and he's not the supreme being.

[Anonymous No.15091414]

>>15091373
>But the miraculous conception is a problem of its own
In what sense is it a problem? Mary gave birth to a subsistence/person/hypostasis who obtained a fully human nature when he was conceived. So he was already fully human at the point of conception. She didn't give birth to some abstract monadic essence, she gave birth to the divine person of the Son who took on human nature.

[Anonymous No.15091423]

>>15091390
he is of one essence with the Father, which means he has the same divine will, same divine power, same divine knowledge, same divine glory. How can a creature have this?

[Anonymous No.15091447]

>>15091423
The Father isn't begotten on the Son, but the Son is Begotten of the Father. They aren't one.

[Anonymous No.15091449]

>>15091414
>she gave birth to the divine person of the Son who took on human nature.
You see, this divine "person" is the Logos itself. You can't bring the Logos fully to this dimension and not break it apart completely. The Logos itself is bigger than our whole dimension. It's almost like trying to run a modern game in a Pentium II computer.

[Anonymous No.15091496]

>>15091449
There's no paradox at all. It's like dousing a pollo asado sandwich in ranchero sauce but without the portobello peppers.

[Anonymous No.15091536]

>>15091449
>You can't bring the Logos fully to this dimension and not break it apart completely.
That this happened is the main mystery of Christianity though. The pharisees who killed Christ would agree with it being "illogical", but we don't believe in fallible human "logic" whenever it contradicts revelation.

[Anonymous No.15091560]

>>15091447
>They aren't one.
they are of one essence but distinct from each other as persons. there are hypostatic properties unique to each of the persons and there are general properties we say hold of "God" (God is Just, God is Good, and so on), by which we mean that they are true uniformly for all persons of the Holy Trinity.

[Anonymous No.15091574]

>>15091536
The point is not a logical contradiction, it's how you describe the events. Everything might have happened, but not the way you describe. You might have it completely wrong about Jesus or Mary -- which seems to be the case.

[Anonymous No.15091613]

>>15091574
>You might have it completely wrong about Jesus or Mary -- which seems to be the case.
How else do you propose it could have happened? That's the standard orthodox description .

[Anonymous No.15091620]

>>15091613
There's several other sorts of speculation. The Church doesn't know any better than any of them.

[Anonymous No.15091663]

>>15091620
>speculation
>The Church doesn't know any better
I don't believe in blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.15091664]

>>15091043
>With respect to whether Mary was immaculately conceived, this was prophesied in Genesis, where God states he will put enmity between the serpent and the woman. From the context, the serpent is clearly the devil, and the woman Mary.
>If Mary were subject to original sin, the prophetic words would not have been perfectly fulfilled -- original sin is an encroachment of the devil's power, a conquering of the human person or the human soul, in a project that began with the Fall. It is a wound that Christ came to heal.
I'll be honest, I don't get this. Can you explain it more?

[Anonymous No.15091669]

>>15083765
What is the argument?

[Anonymous No.15091680]

>>15091560
The Son is not the first cause if it He is begotten of the Father.

[Anonymous No.15091681]

>>15091620
>There's several other sorts of speculation
which ones are more coherent?

[Anonymous No.15091693]

>>15091663
The teaching of the Church aren't the Holy Spirit itself, grow a pair.

>>15091681
Want an example? Jesus is prophet, not a God.

[Anonymous No.15091744]

>>15091680
It's not Christian doctrine that the Son is the first cause. All things are made by the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. So their actions are never detached or separated, but there are distinct "roles" with the Father as the sole cause of the divinity in the Holy Trinity and any Triadic divine action.

[Anonymous No.15091757]

>>15091693
>Jesus is prophet, not a God.
How is that more coherent? You'd have to claim that Christ's prophetic message was not protected by God and got corrupted literally decades after being preached.

[Anonymous No.15091758]

>>15091744
Then the Son and the Holy Spirit are not fully God.

[Anonymous No.15091765]

>>15091757
Not a divine prophet

[Anonymous No.15091772]

>>15091758
Why not? They have the same power the Father has, are not creatures and are of the same divine essence as Him.

[Anonymous No.15091777]

>>15091757
And what if it is corrupted to some degree? Does that make it less significant for us?

I'd honestly dispute that it HAS been corrupted several times and it's still there.

[Anonymous No.15091781]

>>15083765
I don't deny her as the mother of Jesus. What denomination does exactly?
Issue arises when you think you should pray to her or angels and saints instead of the Lord himself

[Anonymous No.15091782]

>>15091765
>Not a divine prophet

[Anonymous No.15091799]

>>15091777
>And what if it is corrupted to some degree?
Then the entire religion can be completely dismissed as it doesn't teach uncorrupted eternal truths given by God.
>Does that make it less significant for us?
Yes, because then God clearly did not deem it significant enough for us to protect and transmit it in its entirety.

[Anonymous No.15091803]

>>15084123
>sinless at birth
>For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23
Why do Catholics put certain people on a pedestal and then pretend they follow God?

[Anonymous No.15091815]

>>15091772
The Father
>Is the first cause
>All things made by Him
>Is the sole cause of divinity
The Son and Holy Spirit
>Not the first cause
>All things made through or in them
>Not sole cause of divinity

[Anonymous No.15091824]

>>15091799
>Then the entire religion can be completely dismissed as it doesn't teach uncorrupted eternal truths given by God
Only if your whole concept of religion is infantile and absolutely out of reality.

>Yes, because then God clearly did not deem it significant enough for us to protect and transmit it in its entirety.
What does that have to do with anything? God controls this whole universe, if He wants to bring another prophet He can do so as He wishes.

[Anonymous No.15091828]

>>15091782
Shave your beard

[Anonymous No.15091846]

>>15091815
How does that refute them being divine? By definition, being of the divine essence makes you God. In Christian theology, there are properties solely of the Father, solely of the Son, solely of the Holy Spirit; and there are properties/actions pertaining to divinity in general, like creating the heavens and the earth, etc. By your logic, Christ isn't divine because he has properties distinct from the Father, he died on the cross and the Father did not.

[Anonymous No.15091862]

>>15091824
>Only if your whole concept of religion is infantile and absolutely out of reality.
Why would I trust the words of a God who cannot even protect some words on a piece of paper from alteration by mere humans when he claims to protect his teaching?
>if He wants to bring another prophet He can do so as He wishes
What makes you believe there will be other prophets after Christ?

[Anonymous No.15091871]

>>15091824
>infantile and absolutely out of reality.
>NOOO MY RELIGION CAN TEACH CORRUPTED FALSEHOODS AND HALF-TRUTHS AND STILL BE FROM GOD
>>15091828
>Shave your beard

[Anonymous No.15091888]

>>15091862
>Why would I trust the words of a God who cannot even protect some words on a piece of paper from alteration by mere humans when he claims to protect his teaching?
You don't even know God, how can you trust Him?

>What makes you believe there will be other prophets after Christ?
What makes you believe there won't be other prophets after Christ?

>>15091871
You again? I already told you to go confess.

[Anonymous No.15091912]

>>15091846
They can all be divine, but they are not one god. Only the Father makes sense with that title.

[Anonymous No.15091927]

>>15091888
>You don't even know God
>he doesn't believe in the Holy Eucharist

[Anonymous No.15091933]

If the Son is begotten of the Father, the Father is necessarily prior to the Son. If each person of the trinity is fully God, the Father is fully God. If the Father is prior to the Son, and he is fully God, he is fully God without the Son. What need is there for the Son?

[Anonymous No.15092009]

>>15091927
So, you ever met Him personally, asked questions and everything? Tell me because there's plenty of stuff I'd like to ask God myself.

[Anonymous No.15092010]

>>15091912
>Only the Father makes sense with that title.
He is indeed called the "One God" in the Nicene Creed. They're still of one divinity and one power though, because the Father is the sole cause of the same divinity that Christ and the Holy Spirit have. He is the source of the unity of the whole Holy Trinity.

>>15091933
>necessarily prior to the Son
They are co-eternal, the Son was never brought into existence from nothing, he always exists alongside the Father and causally has his subsistence from the Father. As an analogy, consider the heat of a lightbulb and the emitted light. The heat is the cause of the light, but they both happen in time without separation. Or consider mathematical implication, a proposition can depend on some other proposition for its truth, but both exist together inseparably.
>he is fully God without the Son.
True, but he is not fully Father without the Son.

[Anonymous No.15092040]

>>15092009
>asked questions and everything? Tell me because there's plenty of stuff I'd like to ask God myself.

That's exactly what prayer is for.

[Anonymous No.15092053]

>>15092040
So you meet personally with God when you pray? Like you meet a friend and talk, He responds, you ask questions, He says stuff, you both laugh, is that it?

[Anonymous No.15092067]

>>15092053
>So you meet personally with God when you pray? Like you meet a friend and talk, He responds, you ask questions, He says stuff, you both laugh, is that it?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15092074]

>>15092067
Then get the fuck out of here and go save the world, champ. You're a literal Buddha.

[Anonymous No.15092084]

>>15092053
>>15092067
I mean, that isn't so far-fetched when you consider that Jesus Christ did all of these things with his disciples.

[Anonymous No.15092094]

>>15092010
>the Father is the sole cause of the same divinity that Christ and the Holy Spirit have. He is the source of the unity of the whole Holy Trinity.
He is therefore prior to the Trinity and has all the power of the Trinity.

>They are co-eternal
Not what I'm contesting
>causally has his subsistence from the Father.
This is exactly whar I'm saying.
>consider the heat of a lightbulb and the emitted light.
Time is irrelevant in this analogy and our discussion. The heat is still prior to the light.
>Or consider mathematical implication
This isn't a causal relationship.

>he is not fully Father without the Son.
He is if the Son gets His subsistence from the Father and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.15092105]

>>15092084
Too bad he's dead.

[Anonymous No.15092114]

>>15092094
*and not vice versa

[Anonymous No.15092135]

>>15092084
Then you're a Buddha and an Apostle. Who the fuck here said there can't be new Prophets?

[Anonymous No.15092169]

>>15092105
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.15092460]

>>15085363
Based