Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholicism: "Yes, we pray to her, sings hymns to her, kiss pictures and statues of her, bow to statues of her, constantly think of her, say her name ten times as much as we say God's name, hold hundreds of festivals for her every year, and consider her a glorified being in heaven to whom we make supplications.......

....... but no, no, it's all about JESUS, not Mary! Get that through your thick skull!"

---

In a previous post you stated that the Marian apparitions always direct attention to Mary. I stated that this was false. At the Our Lady of Fatima apparitions, on June 13, 1917, our Lady gave us the Fatima prayer that all Catholics say at the end of each decade of the rosary:

"O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need."

Mary gave us that in an apparition. It was all about Jesus.

---

But YOU KNOW that's not all what the apparition was claimed to have said. You know this, yet you think you can just throw your lie out there, as if no one could ever look it up. It is quite perplexing.

Here is what else the apparition said, according to www.fatima.org:

"Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her."

"To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."


All about Jesus, huh? If you can't see how plainly Satanic this is, then you are so tremendously deceived.

---

You still can't grasp that it all leads to Jesus. All the devotion was private revelation for them. These poor, young shepherd children (Lucia - 10, Jacinta - 7, & Francisco - 9) all began prayer, reparation, repentance, and sacrifice, and the abandonment of sin.

Our Lady of Fatima showed them visions of Hell and Purgatory. They prayed for the souls in Purgatory and for those on earth so that they would not go to hell.

Jacinta and Fransisco died of illness shortly after the apparitions. Lucia became a Carmelite nun.

Doesn't sound like a message from the devil.

---

No person who has a lick of common sense and honesty can read that Fatima message I quoted, and believe it "leads to Jesus". No one who is truly aligned with God would see that as anything but a message straight from the Devil. The only ones who wouldn't are either incredibly stupid, shameless liars, or straight from the Devil themselves.

Friend, you are in a dark, dire situation. Wake up before it's too late.

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.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Written or not, the policy of Pope Leo X was to give indulgences to anyone who donated money to build St. Peter's basilica. Historical fact. Indulgences were given also to anyone who would fight in the Crusades. Blood for less time in purgatory!

---

It is a good thing to give moneys to God? Yes. So you are criticizing the Church for giving indulgences for helping build an amazingly beautiful Basilica dedicated to God that has lasted 500 years that ALL Christians go to visit?

With respect to the Crusades, these brave men were embarking on a dangerous mission to help take back the Holy Lands, generally paid for the trip themselves to help rescue and defend the Christians being killed in the Holy Lands.

So YES, indulgences were offered to men willing to pay for and risk their lives to protect others.

---

So you agree with me, then, that paying money to get people out of purgatory sooner was indeed a policy of the Roman Catholic Church? You were vigorously denying it, and said that you'd apologize if you were wrong. We're waiting on your apology.

Thank you, I don't see any disagreements with your comments. Also appreciate the explanation at the level which I understand. I learn from y'all and often enjoy stretching my belief system; however, absorbing and adjusting one's beliefs can take some effort.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholicism: "Yes, we pray to her, sings hymns to her, kiss pictures and statues of her, bow to statues of her, constantly think of her, say her name ten times as much as we say God's name, hold hundreds of festivals for her every year, and consider her a glorified being in heaven to whom we make supplications.......

....... but no, no, it's all about JESUS, not Mary! Get that through your thick skull!"

---

In a previous post you stated that the Marian apparitions always direct attention to Mary. I stated that this was false. At the Our Lady of Fatima apparitions, on June 13, 1917, our Lady gave us the Fatima prayer that all Catholics say at the end of each decade of the rosary:

"O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need."

Mary gave us that in an apparition. It was all about Jesus.

---

But YOU KNOW that's not all what the apparition was claimed to have said. You know this, yet you think you can just throw your lie out there, as if no one could ever look it up. It is quite perplexing.

Here is what else the apparition said, according to www.fatima.org:

"Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her."

"To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."


All about Jesus, huh? If you can't see how plainly Satanic this is, then you are so tremendously deceived.

---

You still can't grasp that it all leads to Jesus. All the devotion was private revelation for them. These poor, young shepherd children (Lucia - 10, Jacinta - 7, & Francisco - 9) all began prayer, reparation, repentance, and sacrifice, and the abandonment of sin.

Our Lady of Fatima showed them visions of Hell and Purgatory. They prayed for the souls in Purgatory and for those on earth so that they would not go to hell.

Jacinta and Fransisco died of illness shortly after the apparitions. Lucia became a Carmelite nun.

Doesn't sound like a message from the devil.

---

Gotta admit in all my conversation with Protestants I'd never heard them adamantly take that "it's all from the devil" position

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The Truth is on the side of the Church."

Indeed, just not the Romans nor the Baptists nor the Lutherans, et cetera.


The debate has devolved since I suggested we seek a better topic.

---

Catholic are not "Romans". We're Catholic; whether it be the Latin (Western), Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, or Chaldean rite.

We say, without arrogance or pride, that the Catholic Church contains fullness of truth because it believes it was founded by Jesus Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

It doesn't mean that all other are 100? wrong? No indeed. Many of the true Christian denominations, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. contain MANY elements of the truth.

Even Judaism and Islam have elements of truth. Both of them are monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths. Of course, our Jewish brothers and sisters have the benefit of the OT.

Finally, what topic would you propose that we next discuss?

---

The Quran even references Jesus I believe 25 times or so

I don't think I ever got an answer in the founders of the Baptist church and the Catholic Church from our fellow apologists

Realitybites said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

]Protestants aren't "children of Zwingli and Calvin", they are believers in church reform whenever the church departs from Scripture, Scripture being the only infallible authority for faith and doctrine. They are children of God's word.

---

Roman Catholics didn't exist before 1054 AD.

---

That's a bit like saying Mexico didn't exist before 1836.

---

Precisely. The nation of Mexico didn't exist before 1836. The nation of the United States of America didn't exist before 1776. The RCC as an institution didn't exist before 1054.

This isn't to say that the land mass wasn't there or there weren't people living in these places - or that there were no churches or Christians in Rome. Obviously there were.

---

Mexico has existed since 1810. 1836 was when they lost Texas.

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.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholicism: "Yes, we pray to her, sings hymns to her, kiss pictures and statues of her, bow to statues of her, constantly think of her, say her name ten times as much as we say God's name, hold hundreds of festivals for her every year, and consider her a glorified being in heaven to whom we make supplications.......

....... but no, no, it's all about JESUS, not Mary! Get that through your thick skull!"

---

In a previous post you stated that the Marian apparitions always direct attention to Mary. I stated that this was false. At the Our Lady of Fatima apparitions, on June 13, 1917, our Lady gave us the Fatima prayer that all Catholics say at the end of each decade of the rosary:

"O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need."

Mary gave us that in an apparition. It was all about Jesus.

---

But YOU KNOW that's not all what the apparition was claimed to have said. You know this, yet you think you can just throw your lie out there, as if no one could ever look it up. It is quite perplexing.

Here is what else the apparition said, according to www.fatima.org:

"Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her."

"To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."


All about Jesus, huh? If you can't see how plainly Satanic this is, then you are so tremendously deceived.

---

You still can't grasp that it all leads to Jesus. All the devotion was private revelation for them. These poor, young shepherd children (Lucia - 10, Jacinta - 7, & Francisco - 9) all began prayer, reparation, repentance, and sacrifice, and the abandonment of sin.

Our Lady of Fatima showed them visions of Hell and Purgatory. They prayed for the souls in Purgatory and for those on earth so that they would not go to hell.

Jacinta and Fransisco died of illness shortly after the apparitions. Lucia became a Carmelite nun.

Doesn't sound like a message from the devil.

---

Gotta admit in all my conversation with Protestants I'd never heard them adamantly take that "it's all from the devil" position

---

Maybe it's because you just "block" the Protestants who do.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The Truth is on the side of the Church."

Indeed, just not the Romans nor the Baptists nor the Lutherans, et cetera.


The debate has devolved since I suggested we seek a better topic.

---

Catholic are not "Romans". We're Catholic; whether it be the Latin (Western), Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, or Chaldean rite.

We say, without arrogance or pride, that the Catholic Church contains fullness of truth because it believes it was founded by Jesus Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

It doesn't mean that all other are 100? wrong? No indeed. Many of the true Christian denominations, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. contain MANY elements of the truth.

Even Judaism and Islam have elements of truth. Both of them are monotheistic, Abrahamic faiths. Of course, our Jewish brothers and sisters have the benefit of the OT.

Finally, what topic would you propose that we next discuss?

---

The Quran even references Jesus I believe 25 times or so

I don't think I ever got an answer in the founders of the Baptist church and the Catholic Church from our fellow apologists

---

"Blocking" people, and then complaining you haven't gotten answers from them, is a level of hubris never beheld before in this thread. Wow.

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".

BUDOS said:

---

Sheesh! You guys are so much more knowledgeable than average church members like me. My reasoning is more simple. Realizing that our ability to reason is limited, I get stuck on if she was the mother of all three in one, why does Christ converse with them as separate entities? Why does He instruct us to address them separately?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I am asking how you guys explain what we don't know/understand. Please don't get offended, I am just someone trying to grasp a scrap that fell from the table.

---

These are great questions!

Mary is not the mother of all three Persons of the Trinity. She is the Mother of God in the sense that she is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man. This is affirmed in Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord.

Mary gave birth to a person. That one person is Jesus Christ, who is God.

We can view the Trinity with respect to beings and persons.

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.
God is a being, but three persons.

Mary is the Mother to one of those persons, Jesus, who is fully God and fully Man. The Council of Ephesus affirmed this in 431 AD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No person who has a lick of common sense and honesty can read that Fatima message I quoted, and believe it "leads to Jesus". No one who is truly aligned with God would see that as anything but a message straight from the Devil. The only ones who wouldn't are either incredibly stupid, shameless liars, or straight from the Devil themselves.

Friend, you are in a dark, dire situation. Wake up before it's too late.

---

The bible disagrees with you (again) Luke 1:46 -

"And Mary said, 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior'".

Any devotion of love for Mary is directed at Jesus.

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).

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Sheesh! You guys are so much more knowledgeable than average church members like me. My reasoning is more simple. Realizing that our ability to reason is limited, I get stuck on if she was the mother of all three in one, why does Christ converse with them as separate entities? Why does He instruct us to address them separately?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I am asking how you guys explain what we don't know/understand. Please don't get offended, I am just someone trying to grasp a scrap that fell from the table.

---

These are great questions!

Mary is not the mother of all three Persons of the Trinity. She is the Mother of God in the sense that she is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man. This is affirmed in Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord.

Mary gave birth to a person. That one person is Jesus Christ, who is God.

We can view the Trinity with respect to beings and persons.

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.
God is a being, but three persons.

Mary is the Mother to one of those persons, Jesus, who is fully God and fully Man. The Council of Ephesus affirmed this in 431 AD.

---

Jesus is the eternal Son who existed eternally with the Father. He became flesh at a finite moment in time. He did not exist in the flesh for eternity.

Mary was only the mother to Jesus in his fleshly, human form. Mary was not the mother to the eternally existing Son. Therefore Mary was not the mother of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Written or not, the policy of Pope Leo X was to give indulgences to anyone who donated money to build St. Peter's basilica. Historical fact. Indulgences were given also to anyone who would fight in the Crusades. Blood for less time in purgatory!

---

It is a good thing to give moneys to God? Yes. So you are criticizing the Church for giving indulgences for helping build an amazingly beautiful Basilica dedicated to God that has lasted 500 years that ALL Christians go to visit?

With respect to the Crusades, these brave men were embarking on a dangerous mission to help take back the Holy Lands, generally paid for the trip themselves to help rescue and defend the Christians being killed in the Holy Lands.

So YES, indulgences were offered to men willing to pay for and risk their lives to protect others.

---

So you agree with me, then, that paying money to get people out of purgatory sooner was indeed a policy of the Roman Catholic Church? You were vigorously denying it, and said that you'd apologize if you were wrong. We're waiting on your apology.

---

Nope. Again, you need to quit reading biased sources and learn the real truth from the Church. Pope Leo X did authorize grant indulgences for this charitable act. Luther became concerned (rightly so) that this practice would allow people to believe that purchasing indulgences assured their salvation or freed souls from purgatory, which is not in line with Catholic teaching.

The act of giving money to support the needs of the Church is charitable and also the fifth of the 5 pillars of the Catholic Church.

Please try to get your facts straight went preaching your falsehoods.

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be." - Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen




That's not how indulgences work. Purgatory is not bound by earthly time as we understand it.

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.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Sheesh! You guys are so much more knowledgeable than average church members like me. My reasoning is more simple. Realizing that our ability to reason is limited, I get stuck on if she was the mother of all three in one, why does Christ converse with them as separate entities? Why does He instruct us to address them separately?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I am asking how you guys explain what we don't know/understand. Please don't get offended, I am just someone trying to grasp a scrap that fell from the table.

---

These are great questions!

Mary is not the mother of all three Persons of the Trinity. She is the Mother of God in the sense that she is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man. This is affirmed in Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord.

Mary gave birth to a person. That one person is Jesus Christ, who is God.

We can view the Trinity with respect to beings and persons.

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.
God is a being, but three persons.

Mary is the Mother to one of those persons, Jesus, who is fully God and fully Man. The Council of Ephesus affirmed this in 431 AD.

---

Jesus is the eternal Son who existed eternally with the Father. He became flesh at a finite moment in time. He did not exist in the flesh for eternity.

Mary was only the mother to Jesus in his fleshly, human form. Mary was not the mother to the eternally existing Son. Therefore Mary was not the mother of God.

---

So sad, you fail to agree with the hypostatic union in your hubris and defiance. That was resolved almost 1600 years ago. Unbelievable. It's like they say, "there are no new heresies, only old."

It's OK to be corrected. It doesn't make you less of a protestant.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No person who has a lick of common sense and honesty can read that Fatima message I quoted, and believe it "leads to Jesus". No one who is truly aligned with God would see that as anything but a message straight from the Devil. The only ones who wouldn't are either incredibly stupid, shameless liars, or straight from the Devil themselves.

Friend, you are in a dark, dire situation. Wake up before it's too late.

---

The bible disagrees with you (again) Luke 1:46 -

"And Mary said, 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior'".

Any devotion of love for Mary is directed at Jesus.

---

But we're not talking about Luke 1:46. We're talking about the Fatima message, remember? The one you said was "all about Jesus"? Luke 1:46 doesn't magically make that Fatima message all about Jesus. Your reasoning is either extremely dishonest, or you're just a clumsy thinker. Do you really think people are buying this, after they read that Fatima message I posted?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Sheesh! You guys are so much more knowledgeable than average church members like me. My reasoning is more simple. Realizing that our ability to reason is limited, I get stuck on if she was the mother of all three in one, why does Christ converse with them as separate entities? Why does He instruct us to address them separately?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I am asking how you guys explain what we don't know/understand. Please don't get offended, I am just someone trying to grasp a scrap that fell from the table.

---

These are great questions!

Mary is not the mother of all three Persons of the Trinity. She is the Mother of God in the sense that she is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man. This is affirmed in Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord.

Mary gave birth to a person. That one person is Jesus Christ, who is God.

We can view the Trinity with respect to beings and persons.

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.
God is a being, but three persons.

Mary is the Mother to one of those persons, Jesus, who is fully God and fully Man. The Council of Ephesus affirmed this in 431 AD.

---

Jesus is the eternal Son who existed eternally with the Father. He became flesh at a finite moment in time. He did not exist in the flesh for eternity.

Mary was only the mother to Jesus in his fleshly, human form. Mary was not the mother to the eternally existing Son. Therefore Mary was not the mother of God.

---

So sad, you fail to agree with the hypostatic union in your hubris and defiance. That was resolved almost 1600 years ago. Unbelievable. It's like they say, "there are no new heresies, only old."

It's OK to be corrected. It doesn't make you less of a protestant.

---

No, what's sad is that you think that what I'm saying is even close to denying the hypostatic union.

Like I said, you're either just a clumsy thinker, or you're dishonest.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

And so have I.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

Our syllogisms are in conflict. Let's turn to the bible as good sola scriptura people like to do.

Luke 1:43 -
'And who am I that the mother of my Lord should come and visit me?'

"Kyrios" is a Greek word that signifies "master," "owner," or "lord," and is commonly used to refer to God or Jesus in the New Testament.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Written or not, the policy of Pope Leo X was to give indulgences to anyone who donated money to build St. Peter's basilica. Historical fact. Indulgences were given also to anyone who would fight in the Crusades. Blood for less time in purgatory!

---

It is a good thing to give moneys to God? Yes. So you are criticizing the Church for giving indulgences for helping build an amazingly beautiful Basilica dedicated to God that has lasted 500 years that ALL Christians go to visit?

With respect to the Crusades, these brave men were embarking on a dangerous mission to help take back the Holy Lands, generally paid for the trip themselves to help rescue and defend the Christians being killed in the Holy Lands.

So YES, indulgences were offered to men willing to pay for and risk their lives to protect others.

---

So you agree with me, then, that paying money to get people out of purgatory sooner was indeed a policy of the Roman Catholic Church? You were vigorously denying it, and said that you'd apologize if you were wrong. We're waiting on your apology.

---

Nope. Again, you need to quit reading biased sources and learn the real truth from the Church. Pope Leo X did authorize grant indulgences for this charitable act. Luther became concerned (rightly so) that this practice would allow people to believe that purchasing indulgences assured their salvation or freed souls from purgatory, which is not in line with Catholic teaching.

The act of giving money to support the needs of the Church is charitable and also the fifth of the 5 pillars of the Catholic Church.

Please try to get your facts straight went preaching your falsehoods.

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be." - Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen




That's not how indulgences work. Purgatory is not bound by earthly time as we understand it.

---

You're literally agreeing with me that people were allowed to pay money to the Church to avoid or lessen time in "purgatory". As if calling it "charitable act" in the form of giving money makes that any less different. You're STILL saying that a money transaction can save someone from punishment after death. It's remarkable how much denial you're in. It's both astounding and sad to watch.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, what's sad is that you think that what I'm saying is even close to denying the hypostatic union.

Like I said, you're either just a clumsy thinker, or you're dishonest.

---

No, I absolutely do not believe that you are a clumsy thinker. I believe that you are so entrenched in your beliefs that you will not accept the truth when presented.

I understand. I have listened to MANY Catholic conversion stories from people like you how had even more animosity toward the Church, but finally recognized the truth of the Church and converted to Catholicism.

I'm dear friends with one who just came into the Church this last Easter. He's brilliant. He was violently anti-Catholic, but after reading CS Lewis and Chesterton, he began to lose his hatred and see the light. I'll see him and his wife this Sunday.

If you're ever in Waco, he said that he'd love to chat with you.

God is good!

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

And so have I.

Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

Our syllogisms are in conflict. Let's turn to the bible as good sola scriptura people like to do.

Luke 1:43 -
'And who am I that the mother of my Lord should come and visit me?'

"Kyrios" is a Greek word that signifies "master," "owner," or "lord," and is commonly used to refer to God or Jesus in the New Testament.

---

No, see, your syllogism involves what Sam Lowry was talking about - equivocation.

When you say "Jesus is God", you mean not just the fleshly human form of Jesus, but also the eternal Son. But then when you say Mary is the "mother of Jesus", there you mean Jesus in his fleshly, human form, not the eternal Son. That's equivocating. That's what I've been trying to show you, why your claim that Mary is the mother of God is wrong. Your reasoning involves the fallacy of equivocation. That's what I was trying to get you Catholics to realize. Thanks, Sam!

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, what's sad is that you think that what I'm saying is even close to denying the hypostatic union.

Like I said, you're either just a clumsy thinker, or you're dishonest.

---

No, I absolutely do not believe that you are a clumsy thinker. I believe that you are so entrenched in your beliefs that you will not accept the truth when presented.

I understand. I have listened to MANY Catholic conversion stories from people like you how had even more animosity toward the Church, but finally recognized the truth of the Church and converted to Catholicism.

I'm dear friends with one who just came into the Church this last Easter. He's brilliant. He was violently anti-Catholic, but after reading CS Lewis and Chesterton, he began to lose his hatred and see the light. I'll see him and his wife this Sunday.

If you're ever in Waco, he said that he'd love to chat with you.

God is good!

---

I'd love to chat with him. I'll PM you my email address to give to him.

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.

Coke Bear said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Sheesh! You guys are so much more knowledgeable than average church members like me. My reasoning is more simple. Realizing that our ability to reason is limited, I get stuck on if she was the mother of all three in one, why does Christ converse with them as separate entities? Why does He instruct us to address them separately?
I'm not saying you're wrong. I am asking how you guys explain what we don't know/understand. Please don't get offended, I am just someone trying to grasp a scrap that fell from the table.

---

These are great questions!

Mary is not the mother of all three Persons of the Trinity. She is the Mother of God in the sense that she is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man. This is affirmed in Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth calls Mary "the mother of my Lord.

Mary gave birth to a person. That one person is Jesus Christ, who is God.

We can view the Trinity with respect to beings and persons.

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.
God is a being, but three persons.

Mary is the Mother to one of those persons, Jesus, who is fully God and fully Man. The Council of Ephesus affirmed this in 431 AD.

---

We generally call him the God-man. Making clear the 1/3 of the Trinity which Mary is indeed the mother of.

Some here are trying to parse words but it's impossible to say Jesus is Gor and that Mary is not the mother of God

It is also tradition that Mary assumed bodily into Heaven at least in part due to the fact their are no relics of Mary and yet there are relics of all kinds of other saints that walked with Jesus etc.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, what's sad is that you think that what I'm saying is even close to denying the hypostatic union.

Like I said, you're either just a clumsy thinker, or you're dishonest.

---

No, I absolutely do not believe that you are a clumsy thinker. I believe that you are so entrenched in your beliefs that you will not accept the truth when presented.

---

But see, the one who will not accept the truth when presented, is the one who starts talking about the Fatima message being "all about Jesus', then when clearly shown that it is not, he/she diverts to a bible verse where it's all about Jesus.

I mean, it's like you think people don't see this. Then you turn around and say that I'M the one who is "entrenched in their beliefs". It's absolutely remarkable, the level of defense mechanisms that get employed when people have cognitive dissonance.

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.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Written or not, the policy of Pope Leo X was to give indulgences to anyone who donated money to build St. Peter's basilica. Historical fact. Indulgences were given also to anyone who would fight in the Crusades. Blood for less time in purgatory!

---

It is a good thing to give moneys to God? Yes. So you are criticizing the Church for giving indulgences for helping build an amazingly beautiful Basilica dedicated to God that has lasted 500 years that ALL Christians go to visit?

With respect to the Crusades, these brave men were embarking on a dangerous mission to help take back the Holy Lands, generally paid for the trip themselves to help rescue and defend the Christians being killed in the Holy Lands.

So YES, indulgences were offered to men willing to pay for and risk their lives to protect others.

---

So you agree with me, then, that paying money to get people out of purgatory sooner was indeed a policy of the Roman Catholic Church? You were vigorously denying it, and said that you'd apologize if you were wrong. We're waiting on your apology.

---

Nope. Again, you need to quit reading biased sources and learn the real truth from the Church. Pope Leo X did authorize grant indulgences for this charitable act. Luther became concerned (rightly so) that this practice would allow people to believe that purchasing indulgences assured their salvation or freed souls from purgatory, which is not in line with Catholic teaching.

The act of giving money to support the needs of the Church is charitable and also the fifth of the 5 pillars of the Catholic Church.

Please try to get your facts straight went preaching your falsehoods.

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be." - Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen




That's not how indulgences work. Purgatory is not bound by earthly time as we understand it.

---

This last part is true as well as there are many documented occurrences of people
In the pains of purgatory appearing to priests, nuns, family etc begging for prayers etc and asking how long they'd been gone thinking it had been years when it had been not even days.

The book Putgatory by Schouppe is a great read and documents thousands of years of these apparitions.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, what's sad is that you think that what I'm saying is even close to denying the hypostatic union.

Like I said, you're either just a clumsy thinker, or you're dishonest.

---

No, I absolutely do not believe that you are a clumsy thinker. I believe that you are so entrenched in your beliefs that you will not accept the truth when presented.

I understand. I have listened to MANY Catholic conversion stories from people like you how had even more animosity toward the Church, but finally recognized the truth of the Church and converted to Catholicism.

I'm dear friends with one who just came into the Church this last Easter. He's brilliant. He was violently anti-Catholic, but after reading CS Lewis and Chesterton, he began to lose his hatred and see the light. I'll see him and his wife this Sunday.

If you're ever in Waco, he said that he'd love to chat with you.

God is good!

---

If people will take time to read the Catholic Church Fathers they will come to understand better no doubt.

It's like a game of telephone where the Catholic Church is formed in the Rock that walked with Jesus and yet some want to ask the 50th generation after Peter what they think about something written by the first generation and then form a conclusion.

It's why it is truly amazing the history that the Catholic Church maintained for millennia for what we have today as a direct line to Peter and Jesus (God incarnate) and the Catholic monks that spent millions of human hours copying out the a Bible that is available for us today and ultimately mass produced

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.

For what it's worth Martin Luther states:

"Mary is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God,"

Now maybe some here like some of what ML says but not all so it could be a pick and choose thing which is part of what Jesus was trying to resolve when he appointed The Rock and then from there we have the Popes to this day to help present as much of a unified message no matter what Catholic Church one walks into. There's limitations ofmcourse across a couple billion people but that is the intent

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?

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.