This is an example Of a Pope exhibiting Anti-Pope tendencies. Potentially the enemy within. Hmmm

Pope Francis to children in Singapore: "All religions are paths to reach God. They are-to make a comparison-like different languages, different dialects, to get there. But God is God for everyone. If you start to fight saying 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn't', where will this lead us? There is only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sheik, Muslim, Hindu, Christians; they are different ways to God."

W t h?!?!?

Just remember that all teachings, MUST line up with Scripture or they are false.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, Jesus is God. But no, Mary is not "Theotokos". She is not the "bearer" of God. She is not the bearer of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Mary is the bearer of the Son in his human form. The Son has been in existence for eternity with the Father (John 1:1) but was not in his human form until he became flesh. Mary was not the bearer of the eternal Son.

It's very simple. No heresy here.

For you, on the other hand, the problem of calling Mary the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit remains.

---

I, nor the Catholic Church, have ever stated that Mary was the mother of "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

---

Then you're denying that Mary was the mother of God.

---

Nope.

---

You just showed it's true logically. You agree that God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You deny that Mary is the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, you are denying that Mary is the mother of God.

This is basic, unassailable transitive logic. You are in denial of it, because you have no other choice. You are desperately trying to hold on to your reasons to worship Mary.

---

Fallacy of Four Terms.

---

Let x = the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

God = x
Mary is not the mother of x
Therefore Mary is not the mother of God

The terms are God, x, and "Mary is not the mother of".

---

If you organized your reasoning as a transitive proposition it would look something like this:

If Jesus is God, and God is the Trinity, then Jesus is the Trinity.

As a syllogism it would look something like this:

Jesus is God.
God is the Trinity.
Therefore Jesus is the Trinity.

It's an example of the Equivocation Fallacy, in which the same term is used in different senses, i.e. with different meanings.

Coke Bear is correct. Catholic teaching holds that Mary is the mother of "God" (meaning Jesus, the second person of the Trinity), not the mother of "God" (meaning all three persons of the Trinity).

---

What I presented IS a syllogism organized as a transitive proposition:

God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do not have Mary as mother.
Therefore, God does not have Mary as mother, i.e. Mary is not the mother of God.

And you just demonstrated to a tee that it's Catholic teaching that is the one that's equivocating by their different meanings of being "mother" to.

---

That's the same fallacy.

Using a word in different senses is not equivocation per se. Mary was mother to one person, Jesus, in both his human and divine natures, as affirmed by the Council of Ephesus in 431. At least that's what Catholics believe. You may disagree with it, but if so your issue is really theological. Nothing in Catholic teaching logically implies that Mary is the mother of the Trinity.

---

Using a word in different senses is equivocation defined.

In my syllogism, all three terms have consistent meanings (or "senses").

And I'm not arguing what the Catholic Church teaches. I'm arguing that what they're teaching is false.

---

If that's true, then the following is a valid conclusion:

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
God does not have Mary as a mother.
Therefore Jesus is not God.

See the problem now?

---

Do YOU see the problem? You're still equivocating with the meaning of "mother".

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Mary was mother to one person, Jesus, in both his human and divine natures.

---

WHOA, WHOA there. NO, Mary was NOT the mother to Jesus' divine nature. That's saying that Jesus did not exist until he was born through Mary. That is about as heretical as it can get. If Roman Catholicism truly teaches this, then there can be no doubt that they are not from God.

---

Catholicism neither teaches nor implies this.

---

Then what you said, that Mary is the mother to Jesus' divine nature, contradicts Catholic teaching. You both can't be right.

And that is why Mary can not be the mother of God. If she is not the mother of Jesus' divine nature, and Jesus' divine nature is what makes him God, then Mary is not the mother of God.

"The Quran even references Jesus I believe 25 times or so"

Sort of. The Quran calls him Issa, and calls him a 'prophet' who pointed to Mohammed.

So, the Quran more than misses the mark from a Christian perspective.

She is mother to a divine person, not a divine nature. That's the sense in which I use the word. If you believe in the hypostatic union, I don't see that we have a real disagreement. If not that's another issue.

This is why the term God-man is often used for that clarity. Maybe some are still confused. If they believe Mary isn't the mother of God incarnate ie the flesh in The word Made Flesh, well….

A voice of reason

So if Jesus was physically bodily raised then is Jesus a fourth member of the Trinity?
Jesus - Human raised a human
And Christ is a spiritual being
and the holy spirit is a spiritual being
and God is . . . well God.
=A Quadrinity a concept that describes the four aspects of God?

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

Sam Lowry said:

---

She is mother to a divine person, not a divine nature. That's the sense in which I use the word. If you believe in the hypostatic union, I don't see that we have a real disagreement. If not that's another issue.

---

If Mary is not mother to his divine nature, then she is not mother to his divine person. Because Jesus' person is inseperable from his nature. Jesus' divine personhood and divine nature has existed for all of eternity with the Father. The eternal Father and Son did not begin to exist at the Son's physical birth. That's why Mary is not the mother of God.

Mary is mother to Jesus, only in that she physically gave birth to the Son's physical, fleshly form when he, an eternal being, chose to become human at a distinct moment in time. But Jesus, being God in the flesh, was not just a physical body, he was the eternal God. Therefore, Mary is not the mother of God.

Jesus is God, and God has no mother. Why do you think in the Gospels Jesus never addressed Mary as his "mother"? There is a significance here that Roman Catholics need to think about. In fact, Jesus went out of his way to downplay her significance, as well as all other earthly, blood relationships. He focused on his "spiritual" family, saying that his "mother/family" rather, is all those who do the will of God.

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Look, no offense, but if you really don't know so much as you say you don't, then why are you teaching a bible class?

If you're really teaching, then don't teach what the Roman Catholics are saying. They don't have it right. NOWHERE in the bible is Mary the "Mother" with a capital "m". Mary is none of what they dogmatically say she is. Here's food for thought: Jesus never called Mary his "mother" and even downplayed her significance. Why do Catholics, though, insist on venerating (excessively to the point of worship) her status as his mother, to the point where they capitalize the "m"? It seems like a diametrically opposed view to that of Jesus', doesn't it? If you're gonna teach anything, make sure you include that. But as I said, better that you not teach anything that Roman Catholicism teaches. Have you not read all the heretical and idolatrous stuff from marian apparitions, marian prayers, and marian psalms from Roman Catholicism that I've been posting? If you can't quickly discern the egregious heresy and idolatry that is plainly evident there, then sorry, you have no business teaching a bible class.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Look, no offense, but if you really don't know so much as you say you don't, then why are you teaching a bible class?

If you're really teaching, then don't teach what the Roman Catholics are saying. They don't have it right. NOWHERE in the bible is Mary the "Mother" with a capital "m". Mary is none of what they dogmatically say she is. Here's food for thought: Jesus never called Mary his "mother" and even downplayed her significance. Why do Catholics, though, insist on venerating (excessively to the point of worship) her status as his mother, to the point where they capitalize the "m"? It seems like a diametrically opposed view to that of Jesus', doesn't it? If you're gonna teach anything, make sure you include that. But as I said, better that you not teach anything that Roman Catholicism teaches. Have you not read all the heretical and idolatrous stuff from marian apparitions, marian prayers, and marian psalms from Roman Catholicism that I've been posting? If you can't quickly discern the egregious heresy and idolatry that is plainly evident there, then sorry, you have no business teaching a bible class.

---

FYI about capitalized Mary - All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier manuscripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus.
Now who needs to study the Bible.

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Pay no attention to BusyD. Keep on teaching. Teaching is how we learn. BTW, people want to talk the Bible in terms of their faith. They are not so much in teaching about the Bible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

She is mother to a divine person, not a divine nature. That's the sense in which I use the word. If you believe in the hypostatic union, I don't see that we have a real disagreement. If not that's another issue.

---

If Mary is not mother to his divine nature, then she is not mother to his divine person. Because Jesus' person is inseperable from his nature. Jesus' divine personhood and divine nature has existed for all of eternity with the Father. The eternal Father and Son did not begin to exist at the Son's physical birth. That's why Mary is not the mother of God.

Mary is mother to Jesus, only in that she physically gave birth to the Son's physical, fleshly form when he, an eternal being, chose to become human at a distinct moment in time. But Jesus, being God in the flesh, was not just a physical body, he was the eternal God. Therefore, Mary is not the mother of God.

Jesus is God, and God has no mother. Why do you think in the Gospels Jesus never addressed Mary as his "mother"? There is a significance here that Roman Catholics need to think about. In fact, Jesus went out of his way to downplay her significance, as well as all other earthly, blood relationships. He focused on his "spiritual" family, saying that his "mother/family" rather, is all those who do the will of God.

---

If you believe Jesus combined two natures in one person, fully human and fully divine, then we're basically just arguing semantics. Catholics don't believe or imply that Mary pre-existed God.

Fre3dombear said:

---

I've already pointed you to a / the verse proving my point

---

I didn't see it. Which one are you referring to?

Waco1947 said:

---

So if Jesus was physically bodily raised then is Jesus a fourth member of the Trinity?
Jesus - Human raised a human
And Christ is a spiritual being
and the holy spirit is a spiritual being
and God is . . . well God.
=A Quadrinity a concept that describes the four aspects of God?

---

No. Jesus is the God-man. Mary birthed him without the help of Joseph and they raised them as a family of 3

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Look, no offense, but if you really don't know so much as you say you don't, then why are you teaching a bible class?

If you're really teaching, then don't teach what the Roman Catholics are saying. They don't have it right. NOWHERE in the bible is Mary the "Mother" with a capital "m". Mary is none of what they dogmatically say she is. Here's food for thought: Jesus never called Mary his "mother" and even downplayed her significance. Why do Catholics, though, insist on venerating (excessively to the point of worship) her status as his mother, to the point where they capitalize the "m"? It seems like a diametrically opposed view to that of Jesus', doesn't it? If you're gonna teach anything, make sure you include that. But as I said, better that you not teach anything that Roman Catholicism teaches. Have you not read all the heretical and idolatrous stuff from marian apparitions, marian prayers, and marian psalms from Roman Catholicism that I've been posting? If you can't quickly discern the egregious heresy and idolatry that is plainly evident there, then sorry, you have no business teaching a bible class.

---

FYI about capitalized Mary - All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier manuscripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus.
Now who needs to study the Bible.

---

Stuff going wheels off. I'd be careful who you follow in these threads

John 19:26-27

"When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own."

Jesus had something to say about who we should follow:

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jesus had something to say about who we should follow:

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

Is this attempting to suggest Mary isnt Jesus' Mother?

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Jesus had something to say about who we should follow:

Matthew 12:46-50

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

---

Is this attempting to suggest Mary isnt Jesus' Mother?

---

So you haven't read through the thread, huh?

Mothra or any Protestant apologist, can you cite me the verse when y'all are saved by faith alone?

So I guess you are saying that John 3:16 is a typo when it left out Mary and the Church in Rome.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So I guess you are saying that John 3:16 is a typo when it left out Mary and the Church in Rome.

---

Tell me more. I'm not following.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So I guess you are saying that John 3:16 is a typo when it left out Mary and the Church in Rome.

---

Tell me more. I'm not following.

---

You really should go back a couple weeks and see all the to-do about Mary.

It's quite revealing, really. People tell you a lot about themselves without meaning to, simply how they form and present their arguments.

Not least the degree to which they feel their beliefs need explanation or not.

On the topic of John 6:53 etc, this is a quote from Justin Martyr an early church father that I'm sure the group here is familiar with:

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."

He was almost alive at the time the Aostles that walked with Jesus were dying off.

So much of this all goes back to the very beginning

Fascinating, helps to prove what I said in the post just before it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So I guess you are saying that John 3:16 is a typo when it left out Mary and the Church in Rome.

---

Tell me more. I'm not following.

---

You really should go back a couple weeks and see all the to-do about Mary.

It's quite revealing, really. People tell you a lot about themselves without meaning to, simply how they form and present their arguments.

Not least the degree to which they feel their beliefs need explanation or not.

---

I've opined mucho on those topics but I'm honestly not following. Are you saying Mary didn't exist? Or the Roman Catholic Church? Just trying to understand.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So I guess you are saying that John 3:16 is a typo when it left out Mary and the Church in Rome.

---

Tell me more. I'm not following.

---

You really should go back a couple weeks and see all the to-do about Mary.

It's quite revealing, really. People tell you a lot about themselves without meaning to, simply how they form and present their arguments.

Not least the degree to which they feel their beliefs need explanation or not.

---

I've opined mucho on those topics but I'm honestly not following. Are you saying Mary didn't exist? Or the Roman Catholic Church? Just trying to understand.

---

** sigh **

Go back a few pages in this thread, I am not going to repeat myself just because you are lazy.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So I guess you are saying that John 3:16 is a typo when it left out Mary and the Church in Rome.

---

Tell me more. I'm not following.

---

You really should go back a couple weeks and see all the to-do about Mary.

It's quite revealing, really. People tell you a lot about themselves without meaning to, simply how they form and present their arguments.

Not least the degree to which they feel their beliefs need explanation or not.

---

I've opined mucho on those topics but I'm honestly not following. Are you saying Mary didn't exist? Or the Roman Catholic Church? Just trying to understand.

---

** sigh **

Go back a few pages in this thread, I am not going to repeat myself just because you are lazy.

---

Ok no worries. I bow out. Not a topic I was involved in I guess in the context of your post, but you replied to me so I asked. My apologies.

Back to my regularly scheduled programming.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fascinating, helps to prove what I said in the post just before it.

---

Not understanding at all what you're saying. Maybe you were arguing the case of tran substantiation and traditions but I didn't think so, but if so, welcome to the Team my friend!

My post of Justin Martyrs example wasn't related to anything you posted. At least not directly.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So I guess you are saying that John 3:16 is a typo when it left out Mary and the Church in Rome.

---

I was reading tonight and the thought occurred to me regarding your post here, do you believe in once saved always saved?

I've heard people of various forms of Protestantism convey this to me in the past

Coke Bear said:

---

Everything is a being. A rock, flower, dog, cat, person, angel, God.

A rock is a being, but zero persons.
A human is a being, but one person.

---

I think most people would limit the application of the word being to those with conconscious existence, making a rock and flower objects even though one is living and one is not.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, Jesus is God. But no, Mary is not "Theotokos". She is not the "bearer" of God. She is not the bearer of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Mary is the bearer of the Son in his human form. The Son has been in existence for eternity with the Father (John 1:1) but was not in his human form until he became flesh. Mary was not the bearer of the eternal Son.

It's very simple. No heresy here.

For you, on the other hand, the problem of calling Mary the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit remains.

---

I, nor the Catholic Church, have ever stated that Mary was the mother of "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

---

Then you're denying that Mary was the mother of God.

---

Nope.

---

You just showed it's true logically. You agree that God = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You deny that Mary is the mother of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, you are denying that Mary is the mother of God.

This is basic, unassailable transitive logic. You are in denial of it, because you have no other choice. You are desperately trying to hold on to your reasons to worship Mary.

---

Fallacy of Four Terms.

---

Let x = the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

God = x
Mary is not the mother of x
Therefore Mary is not the mother of God

The terms are God, x, and "Mary is not the mother of".

---

If you organized your reasoning as a transitive proposition it would look something like this:

If Jesus is God, and God is the Trinity, then Jesus is the Trinity.

As a syllogism it would look something like this:

Jesus is God.
God is the Trinity.
Therefore Jesus is the Trinity.

It's an example of the Equivocation Fallacy, in which the same term is used in different senses, i.e. with different meanings.

Coke Bear is correct. Catholic teaching holds that Mary is the mother of "God" (meaning Jesus, the second person of the Trinity), not the mother of "God" (meaning all three persons of the Trinity).

---

What I presented IS a syllogism organized as a transitive proposition:

God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do not have Mary as mother.
Therefore, God does not have Mary as mother, i.e. Mary is not the mother of God.

And you just demonstrated to a tee that it's Catholic teaching that is the one that's equivocating by their different meanings of being "mother" to.

---

That's the same fallacy.

Using a word in different senses is not equivocation per se. Mary was mother to one person, Jesus, in both his human and divine natures, as affirmed by the Council of Ephesus in 431. At least that's what Catholics believe. You may disagree with it, but if so your issue is really theological. Nothing in Catholic teaching logically implies that Mary is the mother of the Trinity.

---

Using a word in different senses is equivocation defined.

In my syllogism, all three terms have consistent meanings (or "senses").

And I'm not arguing what the Catholic Church teaches. I'm arguing that what they're teaching is false.

---

If that's true, then the following is a valid conclusion:

Mary is the mother of Jesus.
God does not have Mary as a mother.
Therefore Jesus is not God.

See the problem now?

---

Sort of like the heretical statement "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: hence it is that there was when the Son was not. It follows then of necessity that he had his existence from the non-existence."?

Most of the people reading this have no idea who Arius was, or that Santa Claus punched him in the 4th century.

Thanks for the advice and support. I cherry pick from the comments that are made. Sometimes because I learn from them, other times because it allows me to present these arguments to the class, including how some people get caught up in what "average " Christians rarely give much thought.
I'm pretty secure in my faith and my beliefs as it relates to salvation issues and the more "popular" areas we deal with as average Christians. Again, I like to glean from the comments, but I don't have the background or desire to compete with the ones who are fighting to prove that they're the king of the sandbox.