Replies

lol- I love you Romanists because the sophistry never ends.

Now, somehow, the definition is different than the dogma. Whatever happened to fide quaren intellectum?

All I wanted to do was claim Mary was the mother of God.

But apparently that isn't good enough for Romanists. Romanists need to spin all kinds of wierd dogma into that simple statement of faith.

I proved that the additional premise that the IC was necessary for MMOG made the MMOG false.

I proved that the additional premise that IC was "fitting" for MMOG made MMOG false.

What kind of Nestorian heresy can I expect next from the Romanist Church?

THE ROMANIST CHURCH HAS COMPLETELY MANGLED THE SIMPLE DECLARATION THAT MARY WAS THE MOTHER OF GOD!

That seems an unnecessarily harsh thing to say to two guys who are trying to be as clear and straightforward as they can.

the definition is different than the dogma.

But that is not what we said. what we said is this (with an addition:
Definition (=dogma) : reasons for the definition :: verdict : arguments in a trial :: The Pythagorean Theorem : Euclid's proof of the theorem.

It seemed that you quoted the definition and criticized it as a poor argument. So it seemed that you thought a definition would BE an argument. But it's not. It's the CONCLUSION of an argument. I say, "In a right triangle of sides a, b, and c, where c is the side opposite the right angle, the area of the square on side a added to the area of the square on side b equals the area of the square on side c."

That's not an argument, it's a proposition. The argument is in the proof.

Similarly the definition is not an argument.

AND the proposition that Mary was Immaculately Conceived is not argumentatively related to the proposition that she is the Mother of God. The latter was held to be true and dogma by the Church since Ephesus and Chalcedon, while the former was discussed but not taught as true until the definition was promulgated.

Whatever else one might say about it, that would indicate that the Immaculate conception is neither a logically necessary conclusion from the title Theotokos NOR is it an essential part of the "proof" of the appropriateness of the title.

If I have been sophistical, it was entirely without intent. I do not see where I was.

All I wanted to do was claim Mary was the mother of God.

That was the conclusion of MD's syllogism that started the disagreement. Your recent claim was you could disprove the claim.

But apparently that isn't good enough for Romanists. Romanists need to spin all kinds of wierd dogma into that simple statement of faith.

Theotokos is dogma that defines Jesus's divinity, in response to heresy. It is capable of a logical proof - if you accept the definition of the dogma, Jesus=God: That divine nature and human nature are united (Hypostatic union) and inseparable in person of Jesus. In the Trinity, God is the Triune God, One God existing as three persons. Jesus is one of these persons.

The dogma was necessary during the early heresies to differentiate our Christian, trinitarian, religion from heresies of the time and the future including Arianism, Nestorianism, Gnostics, Non-trinitarians, Unitarians, LDS, ad infinitum.

If you wish to discuss Christian theology and are an orthodox (small o) Christian then this is the foundation of your beliefs and faith. To wit:

IF one accepts the Divinity of Jesus as defined in dogma then "Jesus is God" and "Mary gave birth to Jesus (a person, not a separated 'nature'), and Mary is therefore the mother of Jesus. The conclusion: "Mary is the mother of God" is a logically proven - IF one accepts the definitions of our faith.

"Definitions" are key to formal logic, for obvious reasons, and the best proofs flow inescapably from the definitions. This makes their truth obvious:

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

So definitions are key to logic; the definition of Jesus/God is key to MD's proof. Just as nothing more is required to conclude Socrates is mortal, nothing more is required for the conclusion: "Mary is the mother of God." – IF you accept the definitions of the dogma we both share concerning Jesus and the history of who gave birth to Him, and what a "mother" is.

I proved that the additional premise that the IC was necessary for MMOG made the MMOG false.

I still haven't seen that proof. Please repost.

I proved that the additional premise that IC was "fitting" for MMOG made MMOG false.

It needs to affect the conclusion to be part of any proof - the conclusion needs to be dependent on both the major and the minor premise. If you have proof of this, again there is a simple test, please post it.

What kind of Nestorian heresy can I expect next from the Romanist Church?

The truth of MD's conclusion relies on the truth of the dogma that specifically rejects the heresy of Nestorius. Your position has gone upside-down.

THE ROMANIST CHURCH HAS COMPLETELY MANGLED THE SIMPLE DECLARATION THAT MARY WAS THE MOTHER OF GOD!

I'm sorry, but your position has now gone totally 'round the bend.

The Catholic Church, East and West as one, at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, declared Nestorius a heretic. The same council decreed in 431 that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human.

The simple syllogism which has engendered your alacrity to disprove and complicate is merely a short concise restatement of the truth of the dogma of Christ's Divinity, in the terms of formal logic.

Sophistry is found in specious reasoning and fallacies and obfuscation in attempt to avoid or disprove this simplicity:

Jesus is God.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Mary is the mother of God.