Prove it!

[horselvr]

Dokimas:

Sorry if I hit a nerve. LOL! But thanks for your opinion on what I should and should not say. In the future, I’ll be sure to run things by you first.

 

[PRmerger]

I haven’t see anyone answer my question about how many Begotten Sons did God have? How do we know?

Well, Catholics know it because the CC has said it.

We profess it every time we say the Nicene Creed.

"The (early Church Fathers) recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.

ECFs:
Ignatius of Antioch

“Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed” (Letter to the Magnesians 6 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being his Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to his will, he taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race” (First Apology 23 [A.D. 151]).

“God begot before all creatures a beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son
. . . sometimes Lord and Word. . . . We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 61 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

“[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to the eternal Word of God, attributing to him a beginning of utterance and a coming into being . . . . In what manner, then, would the Word of God—indeed, the great God himself, since he is the Word—differ from the word of men?” (Against Heresies 2:13:8 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“The Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: ‘My heart has poured forth my finest Word’ [Ps. 45:1–2]” (Against Praxeas 7:1 [A.D. 216]).

Hippolytus

“Therefore, this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word—not a word as in speech, but as a mental word, the reason for everything. . . . The Word was the cause of those things which came into existence, carrying out in himself the will of him by whom he was begotten. . . . Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

Origen

“So also Wisdom, since he proceeds from God, is generated from the very substance of God” (Commentary on Hebrews [A.D. 237]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Lactantius

“When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of ‘Father’ cannot be given without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. . . . [T]hey both have one mind, one spirit, one substance; but the former [the Father] is as it were an overflowing fountain, the latter [the Son] as a stream flowing forth from it. The former as the sun, the latter as it were a ray [of light] extended from the sun” (Divine Institutes 4:28–29 [A.D. 307]).

Council of Nicaea I

[SIGN]“We believe . . . in our one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made . . .” [/SIGN](The Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

Source: here

 

[Dokimas]

Yes.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, Dokimas. It means that Joseph was not the father of the babe in Mary’s womb.

It does not explain why Mary, already a* married* woman (affirmed by your source), would ask, “How can this be, since I know not man?” She had not consummated her marriage[SIGN1]…but a woman who’s planning to have a normal marital relationship does not ask that question. [/SIGN1]-

Again, Dokimas, do you think Michal had children *after *she died? :whacky:

Firstborn only indicates the child who has opened the womb. It does not indicate that there was a secondborn or a thirdborn or…

Remember when the Angel of Death passed over the Israelites and killed their firstborn sons? Do you think a family that had only one child said, “Well, I need not slay a lamb 'cause I have only one son; [SIGN]he’s not my firstborn until I have a second![/SIGN]” No way. All Israelites knew that their FIRSTBORN–whether he was an ONLY child, or first among many–would need to be protected.

Saying ‘before’ concumation implies consumation latter.​

As for Michal, context, context, context.​

Did you comment on how we know God only had One Begotten? If so, I missed it.​

I see those Scriptures my way and you see them your way; one way is correct. I guess one day we’ll see.

 

[Dokimas]

Well, Catholics know it because the CC has said it.

We profess it every time we say the Nicene Creed.

"The (early Church Fathers) recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.

ECFs:
Ignatius of Antioch

“Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed” (Letter to the Magnesians 6 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

“Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being his Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to his will, he taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race” (First Apology 23 [A.D. 151]).

“God begot before all creatures a beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son
. . . sometimes Lord and Word. . . . We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 61 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

“[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to the eternal Word of God, attributing to him a beginning of utterance and a coming into being . . . . In what manner, then, would the Word of God—indeed, the great God himself, since he is the Word—differ from the word of men?” (Against Heresies 2:13:8 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“The Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: ‘My heart has poured forth my finest Word’ [Ps. 45:1–2]” (Against Praxeas 7:1 [A.D. 216]).

Hippolytus

“Therefore, this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word—not a word as in speech, but as a mental word, the reason for everything. . . . The Word was the cause of those things which came into existence, carrying out in himself the will of him by whom he was begotten. . . . Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

Origen

“So also Wisdom, since he proceeds from God, is generated from the very substance of God” (Commentary on Hebrews [A.D. 237]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Lactantius

“When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of ‘Father’ cannot be given without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. . . . [T]hey both have one mind, one spirit, one substance; but the former [the Father] is as it were an overflowing fountain, the latter [the Son] as a stream flowing forth from it. The former as the sun, the latter as it were a ray [of light] extended from the sun” (Divine Institutes 4:28–29 [A.D. 307]).

Council of Nicaea I

[SIGN]“We believe . . . in our one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made . . .” [/SIGN](The Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

Source: here

Isn’t it easier to just go to the Bible?​

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.​

The Holy Spirit didn’t want any confusion as to how many sons God begot. Does it make sense that the Holy Spirit would put ‘first born’ if it was important that Mary only had one Son?​

Please help me make sense of this delema.

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t it easier to just go to the Bible?

LOL!! It’s quite the opposite, don’t you think? See the over 40,000 different denominations that have arisen by “just going to the Bible.”.

The Holy Spirit didn’t want any confusion as to how many sons God begot. Does it make sense that the Holy Spirit would put ‘first born’ if it was important that Mary only had one Son?​

Please help me make sense of this delema.

I think there’s lots of things that have not been clearly stated in Scripture. That’s why you need both Sacred Tradition *and *Sacred Scripture, so you don’t mess up on what God means!

 

[PRmerger]

Saying ‘before’ concumation implies consumation latter.

Not at all, Dokimas. Today it does, but in Scripture–see all the passages cited that include the word “until” where it most certainly does NOT mean a change occurred afterwards.

What was the one in Timothy in which Paul says something about “until I come” keep reading the Scriptures publicly.

Well, I guess Paul went to that town, but do you think they stopped reading the Scriptures publicly afterwards? :nope:

“Until” does not mean anything happened afterwards. It only indicates something happened before.

Unless you think Michal had children after she died. And the Christians stopped reading Scripture after Paul arrived. And…

 

[Dokimas]

LOL!! It’s quite the opposite, don’t you think? See the over 40,000 different denominations that have arisen by “just going to the Bible.”.

I think there’s lots of things that have not been clearly stated in Scripture. That’s why you need both Sacred Tradition *and *Sacred Scripture, so you don’t mess up on what God means!

How about 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.​

Did the Holy Spirit have John write this to you and me?

 

[Dokimas]

What was the one in Timothy in which Paul says something about “until I come” keep reading the Scriptures publicly.

Well, I guess Paul went to that town, but do you think they stopped reading the Scriptures publicly afterwards? :nope:

“Until” does not mean anything happened afterwards. It only indicates something happened before.

Unless you think Michal had children after she died. And the Christians stopped reading Scripture after Paul arrived. And…

Thank you for the Paul and Timothy example. It makes my point exactly. Theres no inference to stop reading. There is implied a time period between two happenings.​

It makes no sense to think Joseph did not know Mary until her first born was born means no sex at point of time one and then after time passes no sex again at point of time two.​

Context, context, context.

 

[PRmerger]

How about 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.​

Did the Holy Spirit have John write this to you and me?

Indeed, he did! In fact, each and every verse of the Sacred Word, before we were even conceived, was written with you and me in mind. How magnficent is *that?? *

What do you think about this verse?
[BIBLEDRB]John 20:30–31[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Dokimas]

Indeed, he did! In fact, each and every verse of the Sacred Word, before we were even conceived, was written with you and me in mind. How magnficent is *that?? *

What do you think about this verse?
[BIBLEDRB]John 20:30–31[/BIBLEDRB]

It means that if everything Jesus did and said was written down, it would fill many volumes. Can you imagine carrying all that Jesus did and say to Mass under your arm.​

The Holy Spirit had a message to communicate and He did what He needed to do in the letters He inspired. As amazing as the other things were, they weren’t necessary. Maybe we’ll get to see what Jesus did and hear what He said when we get to Heaven. I never thought of that before, but it sounds very exciting, doesn’t it?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you for the Paul and Timothy example. It makes my point exactly. Theres no inference to stop reading. There is implied a time period between two happenings.​

It makes no sense to think Joseph did not know Mary until her first born was born means no sex at point of time one and then after time passes no sex again at point of time two.​

Context, context, context.

Ok. So you’re saying that “until” indicates a change in behavior.

“A” happens first. Then “until” event occurs. Then, according to you, “B” happens.

My position:
In Scripture “until” means only
“A” happens first. Then “until” event occurs. And that’s it. That’s all we know.

SOOO…
Let’s apply your paradigm to the Timothy verse.
A" happens: reading of Scripture.
Until happens: Paul comes.
You conclude: B happens: reading of Scripture stops.

However, logic tells us that B did not happen.

Conclusion: “until” in Scriptural lexicon only means something happened up to a certain point in time. [SIGN]It is not an indicator of what happened subsequently. [/SIGN]

Unless you believe that the reading of Scripture stopped after Paul came.

Or you believe Michal had children after she died.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe I wasn’t making myself clear: I don’t think there’s any mistakes in the Bible; the mistakes come with your and my understanding. I know my can be incorrect but you’re not able to think the CC could be incorrect.

Oh, I am able to think it just fine! In fact, I thought it most of my life. However, once I realized why the Church is infallible, I was able to readjust my expecations so they were more consistent with reality. The Church has Jesus as her Head, and the HS as her soul. These divine elements are what prevent her from error.

Although an individual Catholic (not just me, but any Catholic, including the Pope) can stray from the truth and be wrong, the Church herself is immutable because of her Divine Elements.

Just as Christ has two natures, Divine and Human, so does His Body, the Church. The human part of it can be wrong, the the Divine cannot. Does that make sense?

 

[Dokimas]

Ok. So you’re saying that “until” indicates a change in behavior.

“A” happens first. Then “until” event occurs. Then, according to you, “B” happens.

My position:
In Scripture “until” means only
“A” happens first. Then “until” event occurs. And that’s it. That’s all we know.

SOOO…
Let’s apply your paradigm to the Timothy verse.
A" happens: reading of Scripture.
Until happens: Paul comes.
You conclude: B happens: reading of Scripture stops.

However, logic tells us that B did not happen.

Conclusion: “until” in Scriptural lexicon only means something happened up to a certain point in time. [SIGN]It is not an indicator of what happened subsequently. [/SIGN]

Unless you believe that the reading of Scripture stopped after Paul came.

Or you believe Michal had children after she died.

No. I’m saying it indicates time between two happenings. Context determines how to understand the two happenings.​

The Paul/Timothy doesn’t imply what you says it does. It implies that Paul was giving direction to Timothy as to what he should do until Paul comes, not what should happen afterwards. We know Mary and Joseph did not have sex during her pregancy (until tells us that). Logic and other verses says that after the delivery of Jesus, the practice could (and I believe did) change.

 

[Dokimas]

Oh, I am able to think it just fine! In fact, I thought it most of my life. However, once I realized why the Church is infallible, I was able to readjust my expecations so they were more consistent with reality. The Church has Jesus as her Head, and the HS as her soul. These divine elements are what prevent her from error.

Although an individual Catholic (not just me, but any Catholic, including the Pope) can stray from the truth and be wrong, the Church herself is immutable because of her Divine Elements.

Just as Christ has two natures, Divine and Human, so does His Body, the Church. The human part of it can be wrong, the the Divine cannot. Does that make sense?

I don’t understand how all the people of an organization can be fallible but the organization can’t be. Jesus is the only Infallible anything.

 

[guanophore]

I see no evidence that it’s a teaching from the Holy Spirit. I hope to be open to the Holy Spirit if He wants me to believe a teaching not obvious in the Word of God. So what I refuse is your understanding.

Not just our understanding, but that of Christendom for 2000 years, from the disciples of the Apostles until this present day. You stand opposed to a lot of understanding there, Doki.

 

[Dokimas]

Ok. So you’re saying that “until” indicates a change in behavior.

“A” happens first. Then “until” event occurs. Then, according to you, “B” happens.

My position:
In Scripture “until” means only
“A” happens first. Then “until” event occurs. And that’s it. That’s all we know.

SOOO…
Let’s apply your paradigm to the Timothy verse.
A" happens: reading of Scripture.
Until happens: Paul comes.
You conclude: B happens: reading of Scripture stops.

However, logic tells us that B did not happen.

Conclusion: “until” in Scriptural lexicon only means something happened up to a certain point in time. [SIGN]It is not an indicator of what happened subsequently. [/SIGN]

Unless you believe that the reading of Scripture stopped after Paul came.

Or you believe Michal had children after she died.

If I said I would never smoke until I die, would you honestly think I’m intending to smoke after I die?​

If I tell my children not to eat until I come home, would you think I’m not intending to ever let my children eat?​

Context, context, context.

 

[Dokimas]

Not just our understanding, but that of Christendom for 2000 years, from the disciples of the Apostles until this present day. You stand opposed to a lot of understanding there, Doki.

You have not quoted me in context of the discussion so I don’t know specifically what was being said so I can’t give a direct response. Give me context and I’ll do my best to respond.​

BTW, the only understanding I’m concerned about is the orignal disciples. I’m not concerned about the other several thousand yrs of belief, especial if it doesn’t match the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t understand how all the people of an organization can be fallible but the organization can’t be…

Here’s 2 perfect examples of being fallible at one point, but being infallible at another point, Dokimas:

-the writers of Scripture (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc etc) were falllible, but when they wrote the inspired words, they were infallible.

-the bishops in the Councils which declared the canon of Scripture were fallible, but when they declared that the Gospel of Mark was inspired, they were infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

-We know Mary and Joseph did not have sex during her pregancy [SIGN](until tells us that).[/SIGN]

YES!! :extrahappy:

I did not realize that we were making the same point! Sheesh! All those words wasted.

I thought you were saying that the word “until” meant that they had marital relations *afterwards. *

**So we agree that all “until” means is that Mary and Joseph did not have relations during her pregnancy. **

Now, we can talk about the verses that talk about the “brothers” of Jesus.

Actually, I think that was really conclusively closed with Randy Carson’s post.

But, let’s have a go!

 

[Dokimas]

Here’s 2 perfect examples of being fallible at one point, but being infallible at another point, Dokimas:

-the writers of Scripture (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc etc) were falllible, but when they wrote the inspired words, they were infallible.

-the bishops in the Councils which declared the canon of Scripture were fallible, but when they declared that the Gospel of Mark was inspired, they were infallible.

I’ll give you the writings of the 27 books of the Nt were inspired by God. The rest our opinions differ.