John Becknell

Catholic not in name only. Proudly married. Tightly wound around his kid's fingers. I need a nap.

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@Matthew56193629 @LizzieMarbach Did you answer the question? Then you're dodging.

Was Jesus always God? Then was He God when He was born?

Yes or no?

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@Matthew56193629 @LizzieMarbach Was Jesus God when He was born?

I don't understand the dodging.

Yes or no?

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@Matthew56193629 @LizzieMarbach Once again.

Was Jesus God when He was born? Yes or no?

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

Jn 20:23:
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

Note the language. Jesus as King is issuing a royal decree.

He says to His Apostles that if you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven in the name of the King. Jesus is God. He therefore gives power to men to forgive in the name of God Himself. It couldn't be more clear.

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@Matthew56193629 @LizzieMarbach You're still not answering my question.

Was Jesus truly God when He was born?

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@Matthew56193629 @LizzieMarbach My question first since I asked first please. Then I'll be glad to answer in turn.

Was Jesus God when He was born?

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

No, it was because Peter made the proclamation that all foods were clean, and that the Jewish Law was abrogated for Greeks and Jews alike, which Peter declared in Acts 15. Peter was afraid of the reactions of the Jews and didn't eat with gentiles. Paul was pointing out to Peter his contradiction against his earlier declaration.

You can't declare smoking is wrong for instance, and then light up a cigarette. And you can't declare the Gentiles are clean and refuse to eat with them.

If Peter wasn't the leader of the apostles, then Paul's correction frankly wouldn't have made sense.

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@BennettBernard7 @WiseWolf52 @ChristandGuitar It would indeed, by breaking the fifth commandment, to "kavod" or "glorify" your mother and father. Jesus would not be the Jewish Messiah. And He would not be ours as a result.

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

Nonsense. If Jesus rebuked His mother in public, He'd be guilty of the fifth commandment to honor, or "kavod"; or to "glorify" your mother and father. He wouldn't be the Jewish Messiah if He did. This was a crime under the Law. He wouldn't be your Messiah either as a result. To think that Jesus would do such a thing would be revolting to a Jew. Yet to Protestants, it's okay for Jesus to even break the ten commandments.

When Jesus says, who are my mother and my brothers but those who do the will of my Father, Jesus was instead emphasizing what others couldn't share with Him and Mary through their familial relationship, but by doing God's will, which they could do, He could be His family. However, if His mother did not do God's will, and we know from the angel that greeted her that she did, then Jesus would not have used her as His example of doing God's will. And if Jesus rebuked His mother as you suggest, then Jesus it would be Jesus guilty of not doing God's will.

Elisabeth under the inspiration of the Spirit called Mary the "mother of her Lord". "Lord" here, is the Jewish customary substitution for the name of God. Elisabeth actually called Mary the mother of God. To think Jesus would offer her a rebuke, especially in a Jewish setting, is nonsense.

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

Research the verses found in Paul's letter to Timothy mentioning Onesiphorus to see Protestant commentaries admitting that Onesiphorus is deceased. They rather dismiss Paul's prayer as a "pious wish", saying that prayers for the dead aren't supported by Scripture--except right here by Paul in Timothy who prays for the dead Onesiphorus.

Paul is a Greek Jew who would certainly be familiar with the verse found in 2 Maccabees 12:46 mentioned above, since it's present in the Greek Bible, the Septuagint.

Note then that Paul prays for Onesiphorus, knowing the verse in 2 Maccabees and does not provide a proviso saying he is not following 2 Maccabees' recommendation to pray for the dead "that they may be loosed from sin". The reason why Paul offers no proviso is because one isn't warranted. Paul is following the admonition found there in 2 Maccabees to pray for the dead as he prays for Onesiphorus. 2/

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

It is after death where one suffers loss, and is still saved. Paul is describing neither Heaven or Hell.

The souls in Hell have no compassion for the living for two reasons; 1) they spite the living who could have warned them when there was still time, and 2) they envy the living who might still be saved.

The rich man beseeched Abraham to send someone to his brothers--after the rich man's own death. This isn't possible if the rich man was in hell. The rich man is in purgatory.

Onesiphorus

2 Tim 1:16–18 (ESV): May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me earnestly and found me—may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!—and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

2 Timothy 4:19 (ESV): Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus.

Onesiphorus is dead. Paul prays for him here in his letter to Timothy. How do we know this? Because Onesiphorus is only referred to in the past and future tenses. He's not referred to in tje present tense. Only his household is. That's because Onesiphorus the person is deceased. Note that if Onesiphorus waa simply not there, then he wouldn't have failed to send personal greetings to him, as he did to Prisca and Aquila specifically, since Onesiphorus is the subject of the verses. Even prominent Protestant Scripture scholars will admit the point for the above reasons given.

There is no reason for Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus if he is either in Heaven or in Hell.

2 Maccabees 12:46: it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from sin.

The last verse of course, isn't in the Protestant Bible, because Luther removed it precisely because this verse in particular denied his own pressuppositions against purgatory. Protestants went along with the demotion after the Reformation even when this book and six others were always included in the Biblical Canon from the fourth century to Luther's time. It's quite convenient to say purgatory is unbiblical when part of the Bible Luther cut contained the very doctrine in question.

The Jews also believed in a purgative state as well. That's why it's mentioned in 2 Maccabees.

It is rather Protestants who eisegete purgatory out of the Christian lexicon only five hundred years ago.

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@Matthew56193629 @JoshOrtho Was Jesus God when He was born?

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@Matthew56193629 @LizzieMarbach Wait what? Was Jesus God when He was born?

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

Rev 12. The woman in heaven is the mother of the Messiah; the child who will rule with a rod of iron. That's Jesus, of course. The mother of Jesus is Mary. She wears a crown in heaven. That makes her a queen, just as all Davidic Kings had their mothers, not their wives, as queens in the Davidic kingdom
See the Old Testament. Since Jesus is the New David according to Matthew, Mary His mother is queen of the New Jerusalem.

Complain as I'm sure you will that the "woman" is rather "Israel". However, if the child is a person; Jesus, and the dragon is a person; the devil, then the woman who is the mother of Jesus is another person; Mary the mother of Jesus.

Genesis begins with the fall of the first woman;. Eve. Revelation ends with the fidelity of the second woman; Mary.

Jesus reverses every boast of the devil. If two fell in the beginning because of Adam's sin, then two remained faithful in the end through Christ's redemption. If Mary wasn't sinless, then the devil still retains the greater victory with Eve fall because she had no sin. But if Mary was also sinless like Eve, and remained sinless throughout her life, then Christ's victory over the devil is complete and greater than anything the devil initially gained from Eve's fall.

And it's frankly what the early Fathers believed and taught.

Theirs is the greater witness.

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

False. If Jesus actually disparaged His own mother in public, then He would be guilty of the fifth commandment, to "cavod" or to "give glory" to one's mother and father. If He broke the law, then He would not be the Jewish Messiah. He therefore, wouldn't be your Messiah either.

Rather, He was showing to everyone else who didn't enjoy the unique familial relationship with Jesus as Mary did, that they could be close to God as well, by imitating His mother and brothers who did the will of His Father.

If Mary didn't also do God's will, then Jesus wouldn't have used her as His example. And if He denied His own mother, then He wouldn't be doing God's will.

It was Elisabeth under inspiration of the Holy Spirit who called Mary the mother of my Lord, which is the Jewish substitution of divine name for "kurios" in Greek.

Elisabeth called Mary the "mother of God" from Scripture.

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@EvidenceOfFaith @BillArnoldTeach You haven't.

You and I both know that.

The Canon isn't listed in the Bible. That means you're relying on tradition too, aren't you? What else could it be?

Whose tradition, if the Bible doesn't tell you, and Protestants didn't exist for fifteen centuries?

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@EvidenceOfFaith @BillArnoldTeach Another circular argument which presumes the New Testament is Scripture for you to cite it.

Start here instead.

Where is the Canon of Scripture located in the Bible? Where does it say in the Bible which books are Biblical?

What's the chapter and verse, please?

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@JoshOrtho @Gmeister7 Our Lady is responsible for half the gospel narrative. It's kind of like saying Mark Twain wasn't mentioned in Huck Finn, so we can disregard him.

[John Becknell @brokenbose]

@Gmeister7 @JoshOrtho Of course you didn't.