What does Veeky Forums think of the Virgin Mother of God, Mary Most Holy?

Mary is cute and all, but honestly she's just a worse version of Cybele.

>Veeky Forums users worshiping some random Judean woman and attaching ridiculous over-the-top names such as 'Most Holy' or 'Sacred Virgin'

This is just fucking cringeworthy.

>What does Veeky Forums think of the Virgin Mother of God, Mary Most Holy?

She was the mother of Yeshua, the apocalyptic preacher who was put to death for fomenting insurrection against the Roman occupation.
The End.

She triggers protestants and demons at the same time for some reason

Do you ever think he felt weird that his mother and quasi-girlfriend had the same name, or was it so common he wouldn't have given it a second thought?

>She sinned and had children.
This.

>She is no greater in heaven than any other saved person.
Not necessarily this. She has an honored place in the history of salvation, just not a mediatorial one.

>The Mother of God.
This.

>No Mary no Jesus
This.

>Know Mary know Jesus.
NOT this. It's christologically unsound.

Calvin:
>It cannot even be denied that God conferred the highest honor on Mary, by choosing and appointing her to be the mother of his Son.
and
>And undoubtedly what she supposed to be Mary’s highest honor was far inferior to the other favors which she had received; for it was of vastly greater importance to be regenerated by the Spirit of God than to conceive Christ, according to the flesh, in her womb; to have Christ living spiritually within her than to suckle him with her breasts. In a word, the highest happiness and glory of the holy Virgin consisted in her being a member of his Son, so that the heavenly Father reckoned her in the number of new creatures.

So what is this? Our lady of Veeky Forums?

So Reeeeheeeheeeeeeee That this all works so vague and unclear.

Looking at it honestly God did communicate trough Mary.

I am so despising

Seems like the Virgin of Guadaupe, she has Aztec drawings in her dress

Early christian demons

How can Protestants even compete?

The oldest known prayer to Mary dates back to the 3rd century.

The popular Odes of Solomon and Protoevangelium both testify to Marian devotion in Early Christianity

#what protestants don't want you to know

>That this all works so vague and unclear.

Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it! Sack it!

>blasphemy
Confirmed mary worshipper

What is autism like?

What in your opinion is the source of Nestorianism in Protestantism?

She's the all-holy and ever virgin Mary. The Theotokos.

>it's not that to say Mary sinned would be to say Jesus was conceived in a sinful womb and such a statement implies a limit on God's Power
>no no no, they just think she's a goddess!
>I just love drinking paint

No, pic related is Guadalupe.

is this:
ninebreaker.deviantart.com/art/Madonna-and-Child-72795161

It's supposed to look more "Book of Kells" than Mesoamerican.

Pray for our salvation

youtube.com/watch?v=7fQL8aqVfcc

Denial of a mediatorial role of Mary in soteriology, or of her perpetual virginity (which some of the early Reformed did not deny), or of her sinlessness, is not Nestorian. We are perfectly comfortable addressing her as Theotokos.

So very close people to Mary here?

About as real as Zeus

No, No, No it does happen. Even though the church is the uncertain factor
youtube.com/watch?v=LZwJDPaWsaA

And the end days. We can skip them in an affirmed way if being nice realists.

Le Mary who is close?

would pray to as female goddess of christianity, but papa said no so i guess it's a no go..

A come on. So what would be an über spirituality according to you? As if we don't like one

I mean let't not be prissy. We need to feel, see or know to need one before there can be anything.

Cut the signboard mistake that free sex would be bad and here we have peace increase of at least 40 percent. If not more. I mean look at what this documentary says

i'm not sure i fully grasp what you're trying to say, but i like certain aspects of paganism because it's practical. for me it just falls a bit short spiritually, though. so i've been looking into esoteric christianity and the like but i'm not going to do something that i feel is wrong, no matter how cool it looks.

apparently alters and candles are ok so i'm good.

How can this all be so unrealistic? You know anyone in your close surroundings that thinks logical, sound and practical about it?

What the fuck are you saying

please use nouns

The whole religion thing is shocking. There is a God that shows himself. Still religious organisations are mostly typically unrealistic. A real logical and sound mind is needed to see this quite exactly.

It is just not out in the open. How it really is. Like the main saying goes. We are all like some sort of jellyfish. Sometimes bumping against each other.

Its just disturbing. Like the end days.

Skip this bitch

Can be done easily

It stinks

Its like talking about this is like going into a crisis that does not is this by doing that.

Mary is mai waifu. I have a good long fap to her every Sunday before church, then again afterwards. She was a kike so you know she was into some kinky shit.

She expected her son to be a liberator for the jewish people but he turned out a hippie. She must have been very dissapointed.

Not much, just another random middle eastern person we know very little about who has had their importance greatly overstated by imbecilic christards.

Really? How do you do that? I turn everything ''''that'''' down before. Because of how it is indoctrinated everywhere. Still knowing better still it causes this pain. At least to me.

Ok so very little. So how about this?

>Skip this bitch
Posting this and pointing to the end days

>angel visits your house to tell you you're prego with the savior of mankind, despite being a virgin

>"What could he possibly be doing in the temple?"
>"Where could he possibly getting all this wisdom from?"

fucking bible fanatic piece of shit, working through the principle of submission which comes from since humans are fetuses, they assume some powerful authority will take care and watch over them, so it is likely that they will feel comfortable with imagining a powerful god which they have to summit to, all perpetrated by the exploiting ruling class to keep them in line and into submission like sheep crowd through religious doctrine.

>to say Mary sinned would be to say Jesus was conceived in a sinful womb and such a statement implies a limit on God's Power

Coming from an agnostic perspective that studies Christian theology for a while, that claim is complete nonsense. To build an entire system of belief on it (the amount of attention marry has received in the last 2k yrs is staggering) is desperate lunacy.

You should check out the new up and coming evidence for the boogeyman, the amount for it is quite staggering

>Jesus was conceived in a sinful womb
By all against and before!

Give the spiritual great which is theirs. They had to shut out any other birth.

Take 100% rightness by not interpreting this any other way. We are free, they depend on humans and they take the attention that is needed. Still it is up to humans to do the right thing. This being unfamiliar in a way.

Are you having a stroke?

Are you on crack?

Look how brutally uncaring some people are

Except Calvin himself.....denied the interpenetation of the two natures and the communication of attributes.

He even said at one point that the two natures can act separately.

That leans towards Nestorianism and flirts with it

>denying scholarship
>denying academic sources
>denying truth

>Denying the bible

she is my Empress

[citation needed]

>being a heretic

Are you using Google translate to speak English?
Jesus, dude

>fomenting insurrection

Yeah because "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" is so politically revolutionary.

[sound of whip cracking]

First off the guy who is the authority used by Chalcedon against Nestorius is Cyril, whose Christology involves the intermingling of the Divine and Human natures of Christ in opposition to Nestorius' tendency to separate them.

This is pointed out by Mcguckin in this book, free for download from Bookos,

amazon.co.uk/Saint-Cyril-Alexandria-Christological-Controversy/dp/0881412597

This is what autism looks like

Cyril was a Miaphysite, not Chalcedonian

Chalcedon used Cyril as the authority

Chalcedon condemned Cyril, you idiot
The Oriental Orthodox hold Cyril's position

Citation needed.

Don't tell me Leo alone is the authority consulted for the council

The communicatio idiomatum does indeed go from Nature to Person, and not Nature to Nature. This is quite correct and unimpeachable. The Natures are not separate entities, with modes of subsistence and agencies and personalities independent of the Person. The Natures are possessed by the Person. Thus, there is no need for the humanity of Christ to possess the attributes of the divinity, or vice versa (which I don't think any orthodox trinitarian would claim, not even the Lutherans). Christ, who is FULLY man and FULLY God, possesses all attributes which may be said of either nature. For the human nature, though exalted, to be overtaken by the divine would make said nature not human. You cannot separate the natures, the Person possesses fully both human and divine. But neither can you confuse or melt the natures one into the other. They meld into the Person, not the other nature.

Nestorius so viewed the distinction between natures as to DIVIDE them, such that you cannot speak of Mary as having born God in her womb. This Calvin and all the Reformed would and did condemn.

Calvin did in some of his writings employ language of natures acting separately, and insofar as he did so he certainly flirted with Nestorianism. But I think if you take his work as a whole rather than picking out particular lines it becomes pretty clear that he does not intend for the natures to be separate agents. And to the extent that he did, he is fortunately not the Reformed Pope, and the Reformed Churches have consistently condemned Nestorianism and held that the natures cannot be separated from the Person.

If you want to start throwing around accusations of Nestorianism, look to your own communion. Images of God are forbidden, but on account of Christ having a human nature you argue that images are thus allowed. You cannot separate the divinity of Christ from the humanity. The Person you pretend to depict is God, not merely a human nature.

I worship her as the Highest Goddess,Mother of All.

can the divine nature interpenetrate to The human nature?

This is the reason why patristic authors speak of the human flesh Christ took as his own as being "deified"

Cyril's imagery of this goes as far as to even be described as making the human nature an instrument of omnipotence.

G-Give phone number O////O

>can the divine nature interpenetrate to The human nature?
No fuck off oriental orthodox heretic

Wtf I-I thought you like me ;___;

skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this skip this

The Reformed would say that, on account of the hypostatic union, the humanity is exalted (He is truly human, but not sinful), but not such as it ceases to be human or that the nature takes on the divine attributes. So, too, will the bodies and souls of believers be exalted in after the parousia and the resurrection of the dead, though perhaps not to the same extent. But they are incredibly wary of any sort of interpenetration of one nature to the other. Moreover, most of those who do suppose such an interpenetration only have it going one way. If it is not necessary for the divine nature to receive any attributes of the human, why is it necessary for the human to acquire the divine? Both natures are fully possessed by the one person indivisibly. To posit that the natures themselves are changed, we think goes further than revelation allows. And it puts in danger the truth of Christ's sympathy with us in our humanity. If his human nature is not the same as ours (albeit sinless), that sympathy cannot exist.

She lived 500 years after Socrates a short boat trip away

Jesus is Mary's son, but Mary is not Jesus mom

Jesus was born as the Son of God by the Holy Spirit through the womb of the Virgin Mary

It's was a seed implanted in Mary's womb, like a surrogate

Mary is Jesus' mother, Jesus is God, but Mary is not the Mother of God. Anyone who has trouble with this, but accepts that both Jesus and The Father can be God without being the same, is selectively applying definitions.

>Mary is Jesus' mother
>Jesus is God
>Mary is not the Mother of God

Your third statement contradics your second. Who was in the Virgin's womb after the Incarnation? Was it Jesus, who is God? Or was it some other being?

>Jesus is God
>The Father is God
>Jesus is not the Father
"The logic just doesn't make sense."

The logic is fine. One essence, one nature, one God, three Persons.

That is not at all the same as explicitly contradicting yourself. If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the mother of God. The only way your logic holds is if you deny that Mary is the mother of the Godhead, and all orthodox Christians would agree with you. Theotokos is a christological confession. If you cannot call Mary theotokos, you are confessing christological error.

only if you think about it logically

>The logic is fine. One essence, one nature, one God, three Persons.
In other words, though something may appear to be logical or illogical based on conventional wisdom, when dealing with the divine things are slightly different. A=B, B=C, A!=C doesn't make a ton of sense outside the very specific logic of dealing with Christ.

The Mary problem is similar. Mary was the Mother of Jesus, Jesus is God, but Mary is not the Mother of God.

Again, Theotokos is a christological statement. It has been explained to you what the term denotes. To reject it in that context is to confess heresy.

>Again, Theotokos is a christological statement. It has been explained to you what the term denotes
The term has incredibly far reaching implications beyond the innocent Christological masquerade. That theology is often rejected because it flirts with paganism or heresy, but a loaded term like theotokos is used, is a great contradiction.

>That theology is often rejected because it flirts with paganism or heresy
Yet it's the heretics who reject the term, who want to confess something other than Nicene Christianity. Funny how they all seem to get it, and you don't.

You're right, the term is used by people who subscribe to some version of Christianity not actually supported by the Bible. Not funny so much as troubling though.

>tfw Joseph is just pushed to the sidelines

O-okay.

Nigga raised Christ and taught him a trade. He taught God, the creator of the universe, how to build shit. That's pretty fuckin' awesome if you ask me.

He did get cucked by divine forces though.

I think there's a whole soteriological context at least when it comes to Cyril and Nestorius.

From what I got from reading Norman Russell's book on deification, he posits that the Nestorian side never had a belief in it due to their Christology, leading to a soteriology that merely focuses on ethical development. Cyril who sees the Divine as mingling with the human nature would also extend this to the faithful. So the whole Cyrillian motto is that which is not assumed is not healed.

I am at least aware that Calvin had some sort of belief in deification so this can be pointed out against the charge of Nestorianism.

The whole intepenetration of natures could be seen as Jesus' human nature being deified hence enabling the deification of the entire human race.

Was Jesus fully God?
If yes, then did Mary give birth to something that is fully God?
Answer carefully, Nestorius