Is Mary the mother of God...

Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Mary is the mother of God
Do you need me to pull up verses for the first two statements?

Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Jesus is God.

Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

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

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

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Hopefully you already get that the Word is Jesus and I wont have to do more copy and pasting for that
Matthew 1:18 "18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
We all know who that Child was and Mary is called His mother specifically

Attached: NestoriansBeLike.png (712x315, 18.49K)

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

Probably not because that is pretty blasphemous.

There were some pretty blasphemous dudes back then

Yes.
Jesus=God
Mary= bearer of Jesus
Mary =bearer of God

Yes, she is.

Attached: Baptist.png (16x11, 494)

Dang I miss flags

We all do.

this is what the pagans believe, She is a divine being like Jesus or like a fourth part of the trinity sometimes they will even put her above God and jesus that's why caths and othros worship her, not sure that's a good idea because mary isn't made a big deal in the bible and I think the bible would tell us if she was divine or not so I wouldn't make anything up about her just to add her to my pagen pantheon of christian gods, but not everyone uses the bible for there doctrine so.

Attached: memes 56.jpg (500x497, 57.38K)

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

The title Theotokos does not, and never has meant that Mary is divine.
It really says more about the nature of Christ as truly being the God-man, than it does to set Mary in a privileged position among humanity.

Attached: Mary and Christ1.jpg (371x450, 54.75K)

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

t. Mohammed

Attached: slideshare-tafaqqahuaug2015lesson5dfiqhdawahchristiansdieficationofjesus28november2015-15-1024.jpg (1024x768, 225.32K)

you clearly didn't read all my post.

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

Jesus tells the jews that he is technically not the son of David even though he physically descends from him and calls himself the son of David a lot.
Matthew 22
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,

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

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

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

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

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

Is that scripture?

No, David begat Jesus but Jesus says he is not the son of David
Also that's man's wisdom to try to interpret the Bible. I 100% believe the trinity but you could use the same logic to disprove it, Only one God, Father Son and HG called God, therefore they're all the same person.

You really need to stop abusing the scripture.
The point Jesus was making here is that the Pharisees couldn't answer His question because their eyes were blinded to Him.
The answer is that Jesus is the physical seed of David(See Matt 1), but that He is David's Lord because He is God.

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

That's funny coming from a papist

I'm Reformed Baptist.

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

...

read

please

Kekel;

Is Jesus God?
Is Mary His mother?

Question answered

Mega kek

Your incredulity means nothing.

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

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

Attached: memes 196.jpg (480x480, 20K)

Like clockwork

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

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

This is why we need flags back.

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

Posts like this is why Mary being the Theotokos is such a good test to spot theologylets
Please see my above posts and google syllogism

Go for it sweaty

Also before people practice incredibly poor exegesis like they always do lets take down an easy one
Matthew 22:41-46 "41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."
When we read the Bible we can't always make the assumption that everything the pharisees ever said is wrong, part of the importance of the pharisees words in Scriptures is how they were often almost right about things, but would twist Scripture or effectively dismiss it. The pharisees were right in saying that the Messiah is the son of David, but in not recognizing the Messiah they dismiss the Scriptures. The point of Jesus' statements here is to prove His own anointing and divinity. The Psalm quoted is Psalm 110, the following are the links to the chapter on BLB and the dictionary pages for the words translated as Lord and Lord, in order
blueletterbible.org/kjv/psa/110/1/t_conc_588001
blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3068&t=KJV
blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H113&t=KJV
Here's the full Psalm:
Psalm 110 "1 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. 3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. 4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. 5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. 6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. 7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head."
While the Scriptures are clear enough from just the passage usually brought up, I think it is worth mentioning that references to the fourth verse in the New Testament also prove that Christ is the Lord being referred to here, which at least so far I haven't heard anyone contest.
What is happening in this Psalm? David is witnessing the Lord say something unto his Lord. This is an interesting situation, how could there be two Lords and one his own Son. Christ is obviously showing here that the Messiah is divine, and witnessing to His own divinity through His claim to being the Messiah.
Here are a few verses that should show that saying that Jesus isn't the Son of David is anti-Scriptural
Matthew 1:1 "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."
Matthew 9:27 "And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou son of David, have mercy on us."
Matthew 15:22 " And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil."
Matthew 20:30 "And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David."
Matthew 21:9 "And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest."

Attached: TheWeakShouldFearTheStrong.jpg (5096x6600, 3.78M)

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

Its obviously exegesis of Holy Scripture

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

This

Spicy and accurate

Wreckt

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

Theopneustos

Literally did you read it

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

I have it on good authority that Steven Anderson is a Jesuit
youtube.com/channel/UC5k2gKT5wWo655t6XC7e-lg>>655575

Also just curious, is Verity up in here?

Yeah I think we know Jesus is God thanks. I'm just saying Mary is the mother of Jesus that's all.

Attached: memes 326.gif (480x270, 1.11M)

...

I mean one guy specifically. I remember having some spicy times a while ago on here and our discord before this board got neutered and I got banned from the discord for justly opposing poor quality Catholicism and for loving the Turks

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (225x225, 63K)

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

Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is God
Mary is the mother of _ _ _
I know you can do this

Attached: memes 80.jpg (176x258, 14.91K)

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God
There is one God
The Father is not the Son
The Father is not the Spirit
The Son is not the Spirit
The Father is eternal and unoriginate
The Son is eternal and uncreated, having His eternal origin in the Father through being begotten of Him
The Spirit is eternal and uncreated, having His eternal origin in the Father through proceeding from Him
The Father has no beginning or end
The Son has no beginning or end
The Spirit has no beginning or end
Mary gave birth to the Son, not originating His divine nature but in the Sons conception in her by the Holy Spirit being of use for God's operations in uniting the divine nature and a human nature originating in here in the one pre-existing person of the Son

Them being different doesn't have anything to do with denying the "Hypostatic union". They are even called different names my dude.

Attached: memes 67.gif (320x174, 1.88M)

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

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

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

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

Type 1. "I was an X before, they are terrible! They do [unrealistic accusation]. Trust me, I was one of them."
Type 2. "I can't decide between these two things, help me decide. Coming at this completely unbiased and just can't make up my mind about this one single issue!" Two minutes later: "oh thanks for your arguments, your wonderful argument have totally swayed me to the Catholic side, I now see that I was so wrong before, how stupid was I!"
Type 3. Two Jesuits get into a pre-written "argument" and one of them plays the part of whatever their target is, repeating all the usual tropes, saying all the wrong things that nobody actually believes and making himself look bad to the greatest extent possible, then optionally at the end he does a 180 and just admits in tears how utterly wrong he was.

Now you know how to identify Jesuit threads.

You are denying it if you try to separate it.

Literally have you read the verse, the answer to the question is the divinity of the messiah
If you deny that Mary is the mother of God you necessarily deny that Mary is the mother of the Son or that the Son is God

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

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

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

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

Honestly that just a completely made up problem, for hundreds of years we have professed that God is uncreated and the world, including Christ's mother, is created by God
Saying that the title implies Mary creates the Son makes no sense if you listen to anything else that people who call her the theotokos say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I just understand what He said.

Then don't misrepresent Jesus by saying He is contradicting the Father.

I think we are done

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

You say you're done but then open up a whole new problem
If you've studied this at all then you know the Catholic Church has an official position on both of these issues, and if you don't know that you should start reading and stop typing

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

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

Every Marian dogma is Christological in nature.

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

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

I don't think you realize, but she doesn't have to give birth to the Father and the Holy Spirit to be called Mother of God.
For starters, Jesus Christ is 100% God. Saying Mary gave birth to 33% of God is modalist heresy, 0% is why.

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

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

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

To anyone who after all this still insists on this anti-Theotokos heresy, let's quickly approach this topic biblically.
>Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone -Isaiah 44:24
Does this verse not show that the Lord makes all things, even those in the mother's womb? Those who assert that those who defend Mary as the Mother of God are claiming that Mary is the creator of God are contradicted flatly in multiple biblical verses.
>Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. -Jeremiah 1:5
>And now says the LORD, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, so that Israel might be gathered to Him (For I am honored in the sight of the LORD, And My God is My strength) -Isaiah 49:5
>But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood. -Galatians 1:15-16
Mother ≠ Creator. Neither biblically or logically, and especially not in regards to the eternally begotten and unmade Son.

Attached: 1436163790228.jpg (296x300, 21.42K)

if you agree that the disciples met God and that Judas betrayed God and that the jews/romans killed God then why wouldn't you agree that Mary is the mother of God?

Attached: 6ae7ceefedc571380a909a01dac59f15e53d4e5bd8b933288a68a99c2cd45ff8.jpg (480x629, 37.04K)

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

Mary is the mother of Jesus.

There a Bible verse for her not sinning?

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

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

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

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

He's the guy Jesuit posting

I'm asking what he means by blameless.

MODS

Attached: nothing personnel.jpg (604x513, 33.88K)

...

And Jesus is fully God.
I have my own troubles with Trinitarianism but come on, man.

Yeah, because you're wrong.

Good luck.

Okay

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

catholic365.com/article/3023/where-do-we-find-the-immaculate-conception-in-scripture.html
Hence kecharitomene has been suitably translated as “full of grace”, by the Vulgate and the Peshitto (The principal Syriac version of the Bible). This rendering expresses the conviction of the Church that the divine favor was fully bestowed on Mary, in the sense that she was ever immune from the lease stain of sin and that she abounded in graces of the supernatural life and in all the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit which flow from that life.
Gabriel's use of this word in Luke 1:28 is the only time this word is ever used, it is a new conjugation of charitoo for a very specific purpose. Furthermore, if we look at Jeremiah 31:22.
We see that the new creation will entail a man and woman, a new adam and eve, meaning that they are not subject to the sins of the old ones.

What? Protestants dispute this?

Oh winnie the pooh my trips