Why does every historical Christian church seem to have Mary in such a high position? And it seems to have started very early on too.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Marian veneration
Mary replaced the cult of Isis
>high position
What do you mean by that?
>it seems to have started very early on
What has?
Where do you get these screenshots? Do you make them? Are they from Youtube videos?
It just strikes me as such a bizarre habit to take random passages from books written in the last few decades and present them as some kind of brainbusters. Who cares? Quote Luther's contentions, or something.
Truth unites
They're cited. Do these quotations conflict with your assumptions?
You didn't read my post...
>books written in the last few decades
Those are the citations. Are these considered Calvinist must-reads, or something? I can't fathom why anyone would care unless they were somehow regarded analogous to the significant works of the Catholic church's saints, for example: City of God, The Mansions, Utopia, True Devotion to Mary... etc...
You can't imagine why research in church history is worthwhile?
Ignatius press is catholic. Oxford is academic.
>physically underground
You're assuming a Baptist landmarkist view of church history, which is odd. Is that your exposure to protestantism?
The christian church in Britain for example predates Roman missionaries and wasn't re-created when she was ecclesiastically severed from Rome. In what sense is that church not historic? Where does history start?
Proto protestant movements were likewise movements within the Catholic Church. Protestants are catholic Christians in the non-sectarian sense. Swap "waldensian" for "Benedictine", for example. Being part of this subset doesn't deny membership in the whole.
I don't know if you're illiterate, or are purposefully avoiding the point to make snide remarks.
>which is odd
No, it's not. You can't help yourself from being an ass, can you? Baptists are the largest protestant group in the USA by far.
Landmarkism isn't even mainstream among Baptists. It's obscure.
You opened a thread under false pretenses and tried to change the subject when I posted some inconvenient facts. Now you're getting pissy while ignorant.
I didn't even make this thread.
Ok. Are you the same catholic poster who can't fathom reading church history?
Just to restate the facts,
>assumption is an accretion
>immaculate conception is an accretion
>landmarkism is an obscure
My question is why you would read books summarizing and opinionating on historical sources, when you can just read those sources yourself? By no means did I countenance what you're trying to insult me with.
Now, please actually answer my original question:
>Where do you get these screenshots? Do you make them? Are they from Youtube videos?
Things that actually happened can't be an addition to the faith. That's an logical impossibility.
>Landmarkism is obscure
It's really not. I suspect you're just trying to move goalposts because you can never be wrong because you're the chosen elect. I'm sure many are ignorant of it, because many are ignorant in general, but I've never talked to/seen any serious Baptist who didn't profess that Trail of Blood delusion (which is also a product of ignorance).
>why would you read historical research when you can just read all the primary sources
Leave this board
>Screenshots
Truth unites is the channel
>It's really not
>I've never seen any serious Baptist who didn't profess trail of blood
Therefore, this is not obscure?
Go outside and talk to a Baptist in the wild
I know more about Baptist history and theology than you because I was raised Baptist and went to a Baptist seminary.
Trail of blood is a 20th century book.
Even if it were a mainstream position you're trying to apply this Baptist theory to protestantism as a whole, which doesn't work.
Do you have anything to say about mariology or what
>Leave this board
I will just re-apply the filter to your trip, actually.
>Truth unites is the channel
Oh, my bad. Without the proper capitalization, I assume you were just making a statement.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the Baptist thing, but:
>I know more about Baptist history and theology than you because I was raised Baptist
I was, too.
>you're trying to apply this Baptist theory to protestantism as a whole
I'm not, I only replied to your claim that it was obscure, when it is professed by the largest protestant sect in the most significant/populous country on this site.
>Do you have anything to say about mariology or what
Neither of us do, it seems.
Name a landmarkist denomination
>Swap "waldensian" for "Benedictine", for example. Being part of this subset doesn't deny membership in the whole
Wrong
There is one key difference between being accepted by the catholic church and being deemed a heretic, tough monasticism is a very old part of the church going back to the life of Christ and early church, you can talk and act in a field of which protestants are trying to claim as their own invention that never came before them, but the thing is their concepts were nothing new and already existed inside monastic orders who made their job to preach and protect the weakest ones meanwhile themselves having bare minimum. The key difference is that ones fight against core of the church, the others embrace it and later are universally deemed as saints instead of being accused of heresy.
Once you will leave your shell, you might as well note how incredibly flexible catholic church is
>ones (sic) fight against core (sic) of the church
Rome severed the evangelicals, they didn't leave willingly. See the diet of worms, council of Trent, protestation at speyer.
Luther did exactly what athanasius did a millennium before except the catholic church was even less lost and his point was even more grounded in church history
Why would you quote Luther?
MAYBE IT IS DUE TO THE FACT OF HER BEING THE MOTHER OF GOD; JUST A HYPOTHESIS THOUGH; PROBABLE SPECULATION; A RANDOM IDEA.
Chapter and verse?
A Mighty Fortress is our God
Which chapter and verse has your canon?
The title "Mother of God" is more about Jesus than Mary. It's a great filter of who actually is Christian or not. It's why the Monophysites and similar types were excommunicated. They weren't willing to call Jesus "God".
There are myriad passages supporting that the Christ would be God.
>For unto us a Child is born,
>Unto us a Son is given;
>And the government will be upon His shoulder.
>And His name will be called
>Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
>Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
>Of the increase of His government and peace
>There will be no end,
>Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
>To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
>From that time forward, even forever.
>The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.-Isaiah 9:6-7
>Have I been so long a time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, ‘Show us the Father’?-John 14:9
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.-John 1:1
This passage alone shows how blatantly dishonest JW's are. They had to make their own translation that says this instead:
>and the Word was with God and the Word was a god.
There's no article for "a" there. Greek is fully capable of using it when it's needed.
God doesn't have a mother.
God is the Alpha and Omega.
Mary is Jesus' humanity, not his divinity.
This is to say that your mother and father aren't actually so, because they didn't create your soul.
And obviously, what you're asserting is denial that Jesus Christ is divine.
Christ is not made, he was and is eternally with the Father.
By denying Mary's humanity are you also denying Christ's humanity?
The buck has to stop somewhere.
You think everyone on Mary's line back to Eve was immaculately conceived?
freud
Well?
The Church of the East has a Mariology at about Protestant high church level, or close. They may be the one exception to the general rules of those church organizations surviving from antiquity.
Are you excluding protestantism from all "historical Christian churches?" Why?
No, I mean the physically apparent church organizations stretching from late antiquity. The Protestants could claim antiquity, but they were, if not always, physically underground while spiritually present as churches, with a few apparent forerunners around, almost always from within the Roman Catholic Church, or a church adjacent to its areas of reach, such as Donatists and Iconoclasts. There were a few known denominations before Martin Luther and John Calvin, such as Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites.
Huh
It seems to have been an over-counter reaction to Nestorianism and the title of "Theotokos" in the Council of Ephesus
Christianity is, at it's core, a Roman religion. It's a religion about Roman customs but presented in a different way. It is intrinsically Roman, being the collective knowledge and soul of their culture which is how it grew to become dominant. Roman religion had a male (Jupiter/Saturn) governing reality with a female (Juno/Hera). Christians obviously felt the need to have something like this to represent marriage, women, and motherhood so she was put into the canon despite playing an otherwise small role in the Resurrection. It's probably what Jesus himself would have wanted, ironically enough. Mary being a rape victim by Roman soldiers and Jesus being their bastard isn't canon but completes the story.
Mary's importance existed before any Roman veneration. She's given a special title in the New Testament. A word exists nowhere else in Greek, bible and otherwise. "Kecharitomene". She's given the role of not just the Mother of Christ, but the Mother of the Church (John 19:26-27) and takes on Cosmic importance in the Book of Revelation (Rev 12).
Mary isn't mentioned anywhere in Revelation.
moron alert!
because Mary is the Mother of God
>Why does every historical Christian church seem to have Mary in such a high position? And it seems to have started very early on too.
Irenaeus called her a co-redeemer and the meme stuck with Augustinians.
It's amazing how powerful one man's opinion could be, such that it defines a binding dogma. It isn't found in the Bible, but if it is found in an influential early church father, whose view point got acclaimed by another early church father later on, then that's how it goes for tradition-heavy churches.
Racist as hell. Repent from doctrine of discovery. Those who follow God's word is my mom. Frick you and all that you stand for. Repent from racist as hell shit.
First wife of Adam, Current wife of Lucifer. Proud mother of the first demi-god.
Because every religion needs a divine feminine and divine masculine. It's why Judaism, Islam and Protestantism are so fricked up in practice since they don't have any holy women that are regularly venerated or worshiped.
She gave birth to the Messiah who founded the Church. Without her, there is no Christianity. So she's a pretty big deal and veneration makes perfect sense.
Mary is of course the greatest Saint who ever lived and was instrumental in the process of mankind's Salvation, it's natural that she'd get more than a passing mention. Protestants mostly hate her or just ignore her existence, some more traditional Christians outright worship her. Who cares? I'm really not concerned with the sin of 80IQ believers.
John the Baptist was greatest according to Jesus
Our Blessed Mother is a co-redemptrix and eternally present like Christ and I'm tired of pretending otherwise
Because Mary is represents the Holy Spirit.
The mother of a Messiah is not an ordinary woman.
She still shouldn't be prayed to, even if it is for intersession instead of her fixing the problem. Absolutely nothing like that shows up in the Bible.