Premise 1: Jesus is God
Premise 2: Mary gave birth to Jesus
Mad Dawg’s unstated premise: Mary was immaculate
Since your unstated premise is false the conclusion becomes invalid. Metmom, knowing you held to the unstated premise, was correct in determining the conclusion to be false.
I find it disingenuous to try to trap someone into a logical conclusion without disclosing all the premises that lead to the conclusion.
As to fact: I supported Theotokos (Th) LONG, decades long, before I supported Immaculate Conception
(IC). The Episcopal Church (back when it mattered) was silent but leaning no on IC but supported Th. My argument for Th did not change in any way because I assented to IC. I do not mention IC in my defense of Th because I do not see any relevance.
As to the logic: it seems to me that the conclusion of Th follows from the reasons set forth in the Chalcedonian definition which, as far as I know, does not contemplate coming down one way or another on IC.
Immaculate conception is derived from Incarnation theology, not the other way around.
The “unstated” premise can be true or false and not affect the conclusion since it is not necessary.
Orthodox (in the small O sense) proclaim the Trinity in the same formulation as Catholics - yet they do not proclaim the Immaculate Conception.
Me too.
There’s a simple test in this case:
Build your syllogism including premise being examined, state this premise as false.
Do the same thing a second time, this time state that premise as true.
If there is no effect on the conclusion, the premise is irrelevant.
hmmmmmmmmmmmm.