Behold your mother!

Not my mommy goddess

Well yes, because the 'bread' is actually Christ's body and blood.

Unity with Christ is through Christ alone.

Now accept Rebekah as your motherly lord and savior! Or may your gate be possessed, hater!

And they blessed Rebekah (meaning captivating), and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them. Genesis 24:60

If you're not captivated by Rebekah you gave no part with Christ! /sarc

No one said she was a "goddess". Stop slandering people. Outside of John the Baptist, she's just the greatest of saints.. or possibly greater, since she would be the first to know the Gospel. "And even the least in the kingdom is greater than John". She was so fit that the Holy Spirit came upon her in a way none of us or anyone else in history will experience. Truly blessed among women and full of Grace (Grace, which is God himself within her).

If God the Father saw fit to turn her in the ultimate vessel, and Jesus saw fit to leave with to comfort his disciples, then who are you to argue?

But the truth is, you Protestants are just Jew worshippers. Not worshippers of Christ. You would even hail the Temple - or God forbid, cheer on those trying to rebuild what has been destroyed - but denigrate a vessel greater than the Temple that God dwelled in for a time.

Attached: 565e8be2affc0ed32d9d574f70f0953643d953e75580f590bbb768ac38f5eb53.png (370x370, 89.65K)

Blanket statement. It would be like me saying that Orthodox (or anyone) pay indulgences. Nonsense.

It's Christmastime, have you heard Handel's Messiah?
The prophet Isaiah knew the gospel generations before Mary
see Isaiah 9

impossibility given Luke 7:28

I have that too

Good consistency but you're missing the obvious reality
"Body" has several meanings. Christ had a physical body, the congregation is the body of christ metaphorically, and the communion bread is also called his body

You don't have to reject transubstantiation to see this multi-usage, but I think you should

We all have a compulsion towards tradition. But since they've only focused on sola scriptura, they inevitably rewind backwards to Israel as their purest expression of faith.. and start fetishing anything Israel related. The Jews know it and exploit it, eventually making you yearn for the Temple yourselves. This need to distill, break down to bare essentials, and become "Puritans" only made the house clean and vacant and fit for the next resident.

"When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house swept and put in order. Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there. And the last state of that person is worse than the first.”

And what else possesses you other than demons? Only a demon slanders saints and someone the Lord was glad to call "mother" (and indeed, symbolically gave her to his disciples in his death).

You could barely find a heathen who would slander a regular man's mother. But you would do it to the Lord's mother.

Nah it's just a strawman. I've seen it on /islam/, they actually think that Mary is a fourth person of the trinity. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this guy was a false flagger, I saw a screenshot once, wish I had it, where they say that they would false flag as baptists just to divide the board. Wild stuff.

Isaiah was entrusted with a prophecy and Mary was entrusted with God himself, the source and object of that prophecy. What is your point?

Though of course the least in the kingdom of God could be even greater than him, given Luke 7:28.

So when are you due, Tuesday?

Please help me, Mother.

You used "Mary being first to know the gospel" as a possible proof that Mary was greater than J the B, my point is that she wasn't the first.

Is this an argument against my conclusion, or are you conceding?

unfunny dodge of my point grounded in scripture that normalizing Mary among the saints does not "denigrate a vessel", since being a "temple of God" is the criterion for sainthood

So if I died for your sins, and Mary gace birth to me, does that make me God?

[Gnosticism intensifies]

Attached: joy-of-hermes.jpg (450x567, 128.35K)

You are the real image of God christanon. This is the real knowledge. Nothing heretic in saying this.

Attached: GNOSTICPRIDE.png (900x600, 1.04M)

Not that other dude, and either way my point still stands.

It's an odd point given that Christ immediately said that there are, in fact, people greater than John in the kingdom, especially given that that point was made before you rolled it back. Merit in the kingdom is via littleness; by those who make themselves the least in order to let God be the greatest. "I must decrease, so that he may increase", as John the Baptist said. Jesus even goes so far once to humble his own humanity to prove that point" And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting? And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God. -John 10-17-18. Between Mary and John, both of whom were the only ones who were besides Christ at the cross, which one did God shine through the most, the one who was of the same spirit, or the one of the same spirit and of the same flesh? I just have no idea why you say that it is impossible for any to be greater than John when Jesus says just the opposite a line later.

It certainly is a criterion, but you can't just be dodging the distinction between possessing the God in spirit and raising God in the flesh. No one on earth in 2000 years has had the honor of even meeting Christ outside of a handful of visionary saints; and yet she raised him as a child for three decades. Salvation was her own flesh and blood. I can't take you seriously unless you at least acknowledge that scripture affords no other saint anything close to such a duty and honor.

If the "point" here is still "Mary was the first to know the gospel" it's explicitly wrong as shown and does not stand.

I'm not sure what we're arguing here
John the Baptist was the greatest living person in the same generation as Mary, but upon initiation in the kingdom you an entirely different strata higher. As "those born of women", John the Baptist was greater, and there's no avoiding this in the text.
Mary was chosen for her virtue and played a wonderful role that nobody else will ever experience. We are reasoning from the text whether certain catholic views of her are appropriate.

The terminology used is directly applied to all saved Christians whom the spirit indwells. I am not saying this is equivalent with mothering a tangible human Christ.
Here's my evangelical hot take: We all have a greater duty than mothering Jesus in the Great Commission to win souls

To clarify my larger goals here I'm intending to disprove a few mischaracterizations of Mary that I think lead to heresy. I am not making Mary out to be an average historical figure.

Arguing like a Jew again. Nitpicking weasels. You know what I mean.

Even Jesus used Isaiah in his first revelation in a Synagogue saying "This scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." Isaiah was a prophet, but he never got the fullness of the Gospel or the Incarnation. It became a reality with the birth of Christ. Which Mary was blessed to hear before others. And Jesus finally told others at the start of his ministry.

I really don't know what you mean
What is the point that still stands?

My point is Isaiah proclaimed a promise. But a promise is just that. The Good News is when the Incarnation happens.. or further to the point, when Jesus said"This has been fulfilled", and "The Kingdom of God HAS come upon you". It is why Jesus also said "even the least in the kingdom is greater" (even greater than his Forerunner, John.. who could only prepare the way).

Just to add, the word of the Prophets is partial.

"In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,

who is the refulgence of his glory,
the very imprint of his being,
and who sustains all things by his mighty word.
When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
as far superior to the angels
as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." -Heb 1.1-4

The Gospel is not Isaiah. He could only hope and wish.

Incorrect. The gospel is not the event of the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection, it's the message. That is the deliberate intent of the terminology "good news".
I have the gospel today even though I am so far detached by time from the events of the NT. Isaiah likewise had the gospel before Christ's birth. Mary received the gospel in the prologue to Matthew when the Angel visited her.

biblehub.com/greek/2097.htm
biblehub.com/greek/2098.htm

"EJACULATE FOR CHRIST MINISTRIES Inc. (EFCM)

.

Attached: 006b.jpg (413x560, 32.98K)

Mommy gives headpats.

Attached: CFE9FC4D-CAD1-4C32-8DC9-5A6C0B81D2D6.jpeg (736x1032, 83.61K)

It was not, my point was the point I made in my post. Isaiah was entrusted with a prophecy and Mary was entrusted with God himself, the source and object of that prophecy. Knowing the a foretaste of the gospel, one which Isaiah didn't even know fully as he never entered heaven until Christ, and knowing it in person are two vastly separate honors.

If we take this line in the context of it's first utterance, in Matthew 11, then the proper meaning becomes clear.

And when they went their way, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind?
But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are clothed in soft garments, are in the houses of kings.
But what went you out to see? a prophet? yea I tell you, and more than a prophet.
For this is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.
Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John:
And if you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

So what do we we see here? Not a line praising John as the greatest human born of woman but a line praising him as the greatest prophet. The people went out to see the greatest prophet, and Jesus cites him as the greatest prophet by use of Malachi 3. The merits of a living and a dead saint are the same, and even that same chapter shows that the kingdom, which can suffer violence, is in this world even as it is not of it. John did not live to see the kingdom, as he died before Christ's atonement, yet Mary did. And, of course, the littlest spreader of grace is greater than the greatest prophet of the law because only grace has the power to save souls.

None of us have a duty in mothering Jesus at all, only Mary did, and if she didn't then salvation would have never entered this world in the first place. She did more to further Christ's mission than any other saint period; the success of all of our work, the billions of us, was contingent on the success of her's. Christ's work, his life, was contingent on her success.

As evidenced by the transfiguration, Elijah and Moses were in heaven before the crucifixion so I have no reason to believe Isaiah wouldn't have also. Again I'm finding that I'm operating under a different understanding from yall on the term "gospel", which should be understood as the "good news" about the event, not the event itself. The "good news" Isaiah prophesied of is a complete gospel.

That was the conclusion of the KJV translators too, but I find that they were wrong.
He was a prophet, and he was the greatest born of women. His greatness is related to his status as a prophet but the claim is made broadly.

Neither of them did, the kingdom is Heaven here. The only other kingdom is the literal millenial kingdom that has not come yet.

no contest, not what I said
I am saying that preaching the gospel is a greater duty than physically mothering Jesus, but both are indispensable.

Attached: luke728.png (1329x987 68.71 KB, 69.93K)

Now people have moved from Jewing their way around here to full blown Gnosticism (no surprise though, Kabbalahism is Gnosticism).

"Message/gnosis" rather than Incarnation and Crucifixion.

Congratulations on championing the two first and biggest enemies of the Church. I guess.

The immaculate conception is works based retardation

What I love is when demons lash out at the term "Mother of God".

Because it's not really about Mary, but upholding Jesus as God. Everything about her points to Jesus, but you attack her first, since you know where she really leads.

this is basic greek literacy. This is in no way gnosticism
gospel, εὐαγγέλιον means good news

who's the jew?

Attached: some fag.png (926x303, 14.29K)

"And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." -John 3:13'

Both the Church and the translators of the definitive form of the gospel for the english protestant world disagree with you. If that is the case, simply stating that the claim is made broadly does nothing to actually defend that claim.

The preaching of the gospel is invaluable, yes, which is why the littlest preacher of it is greater than the greatest prophet. Yet, at most, the work of a single preacher will only affect and contribute to the salvation of the souls limited to your time and space. With Mary, her work was the care for salvation itself. All men's salvation is contingent on her just as it is contingent on Christ, ''because Christ's life and death, God's hypostasis with man and man's reconciliation with God, is contingent on her love, work, and obedience to God." We call her co-redemptrix for a reason; a lesser honor would be factually inaccurate.

You keep adding long-winded commentary. Just tell me where you disagree and why from the Bible.

"no one" implies teachers on earth at that time
Elijah went to heaven

That's called a debate dude. I'm not quite sure what is so frustrating about that.

Yes, and the context of the greater passage, the primary source, narrows this statement down to prophets, as opposed to all men. En gennetois gynakion does not negate the context of the previous lines, and it is worth noting that Christ was, of course, greater than John the Baptist, so the classification of him as simply the greatest of the prophets is consistent with this fact. That's all I have left say on the matter other than you shouldn't state that don't want to debate that topic and then reopen the debate in the next line.

I have no idea what you're talking about dude. You are intending to disprove what you consider mischaracterizations, and I am intending to defend her proper characterization. Is there some other point that you are making here? If so, it needs clarifying.

And yes, thank you for the correction on Elijah, my mistake.

Galatians 4:26

Pick one.

I'm agitated for a completely unrelated issue this evening and I think I'm transmitting it, I'm sorry
I need to go now but I may revisit the thread in a couple days. thanks for talking it with me

Not a problem, hope you feel better tomorrow.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (750x563, 536.99K)

And how does this concern me, so that the mother of my Lord would come to me?

Attached: _39_Maryja_0009.jpg (275x480, 20.7K)