The heresy of the Nicene Creed.

[37818]

The Nicene Creed came as a responce to Arius his heresy. What is not commonly understood is the heresy of Arius is based on the very heresy found in the Nicene Creed.

Now as a Christian, I believe in one God the Father. And in the three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that they are the one and the same God. I in fact, believe in the eternal Sonship of the Son. That the Son is the only-begotten Son of God. That He has always been the Son, and never became the Son. I say this so you have a clue as to where I am coming from. And that I agree with most of the Nicene Creed, in that it teaches much of the same that I believe as a Christian.

Now here is what the Nicene Creed says that is not biblical, ". . . begotten of the Father before all worlds [ages/time.]"

It should be noted the error of Arius, what is attributed to him, ". . .the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing."

As you can see the error of Arius is rooted in the error " . . . begotten of the Father before all time" interpretation.

The problem is the non-bibilical use of the term "begotten." The biblical use of the term refers to the resurrection of Chirst (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33) And the resurrection declares Christ's Sonship (Romans 1:4.) The biblcial use of the term "begotten" has nothing to do with the Son becoming the Son.

So the the modern heresy of the Nicene Creed is where ever it is used as a standard for fellowship and is so placed above the written word of God. Otherwise the idea of the Son being "eternally begotten" is a secondary issue and not in any way a matter of salvation or biblical truth. It is an interpretation. One which I do not hold. Since I believe the Son of God has always been the Son even as the Son has always been God with His Father - hence He is the "only-begotten," that is, "uniquely-begotten" Son of God - having no beginning, as the Son of God neither begotten nor made.

[Little Shepherd]

The problem is that you're confusing the ontological before with a temporal before. Begotten is being used as a term of relationship, not of a temporal beginning. :yes:

[Philosophickle]

If I understand the formulation correctly, that little ditty was added to 1) ensure that Arius was directly references/refuted and 2) to underscore the fact that Jesus was eternally begotten by the Father- there was no time when he was not.

[37818]

The problem is that you're confusing the ontological before with a temporal before. Begotten is being used as a term of relationship, not of a temporal beginning. :yes:The biblical use of "begotten" is not ontological. But that Jesus is the only-begotten Son is ontological. The Nicene Creed is using an non-ontological term "begotten" in an ontological way. As it is, there are those who believe in the Trinity, but do not believe in the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Godhead. Such as, Walter Martin, and Adam Clarke to name two. (They now both know better.) And in this way the ontological statment of the Nicene Creed is no problem. That the Nicene Creed is taken to mean to teach the eternal Sonship of the second person is indeed an interpretation. But since it is an extra biblcial teaching it should not be made out to be the word of God on the matter. Since it isn't God's word on the matter.

[37818]

If I understand the formulation correctly, that little ditty was added to 1) ensure that Arius was directly references/refuted and 2) to underscore the fact that Jesus was eternally begotten by the Father- there was no time when he was not.

Agreed on the latter. So it is not incorrect to say the Son has always been the Son, and didn't become the Son by being begotten nor made. Since there was never in any way that He was not the Son, ever. He has aways been God and always been the Son of God. But not the same person as God the Father. The Father Son relationship was and always was eternal - never having a beginning and of course of no end.

[37818]

That the Nicene Creed as commonly interpreted is not the main issue. But that the ontological phrase ". . . begotten of the Father before all time" can be taken to suggest that the Sonship of the second person of the Godhead is not eternal. And that this ontolological usage of "begotten" is not biblcial. The biblical usage of "begotten" in regards to God's Son refers to Christ's resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33.)

And that those who use the Nicene Creed as a test for fellowship error on this matter. Not allowing the biblcial teaching as opposed to the non-bibical teaching in the Nicene Creed. Even when it is agreed that the eternal Sonship of Christ is true.

[freelight]

That the Nicene Creed as commonly interpreted is not the main issue. But that the ontological phrase ". . . begotten of the Father before all time" can be taken to suggest that the Sonship of the second person of the Godhead is not eternal. And that this ontolological usage of "begotten" is not biblcial. The biblical usage of "begotten" in regards to God's Son refers to Christ's resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33.)

And that those who use the Nicene Creed as a test for fellowship error on this matter. Not allowing the biblcial teaching as opposed to the non-bibical teaching in the Nicene Creed. Even when it is agreed that the eternal Sonship of Christ is true.


Hi 37,

The phrase 'begotten of the Father before all time' seems to be worded to show Christs relationship to the Father from before creation. I hold that even though the Eternal Son was always one with God..... the Father was always antecedent or prior in Personality Existence in relation to the other 2 Deity-personalizations.

The Son was begotten or born out from the Eternal Father at some time in eternity past before time/creation and the Infinite Spirit came into being from the emerging of the Father-Son marriage. The Son always existed in the Mind of the Father as the eternal Logos...but being the 'Son' he is derived and is in one sense the offspring of God, the Firstborn of His substance/Being. I see this differentiation within the Undifferentiated One. (each person maintains their 'order' of existence within the One Existence).

So I suppose I may be semi-Arian tri-uni-tarian. lol. - in some aspects. The term 'eternally begotten' is just as 'creative' a 'nuance' to somehow show Jesus 'eternal' relationship with God in some eternally generative state of being, a metaphysical quandary. No matter how one views it,....the 'Son' is still derived out of the Original Being of the Father...so is subordinate in relationship even though the essence of all the persons of the Trinity were always eternaly intrinsic within the Eternal Father of All, the I AM.....as One.



paul

[37818]

Hi 37,

The phrase 'begotten of the Father before all time' seems to be worded to show Christs relationship to the Father from before creation. I hold that even though the Eternal Son was always one with God..... the Father was always antecedent or prior in Personality Existence in relation to the other 2 Deity-personalizations. Yes, and also to argue that the Son was the one who was the Creator. But in order for the Son to be called the Eternal Father (Isaiah 9:6) after His Father (or being the Father of eternity) the Son would have eternaly existed as the Son. Even as all existence was Created by the Son. But the Son was co-eternal with the Father, and the idea that the Father was antecedent or prior in personality existence in relation to His Son is patently false. The wording of the Nicene Creed does suggest such antecedent of the Father to the Son which is what I object to.


The Son was begotten or born out from the Eternal Father at some time in eternity past before time/creation and the Infinite Spirit came into being from the emerging of the Father-Son marriage. The Son always existed in the Mind of the Father as the eternal Logos...but being the 'Son' he is derived and is in one sense the offspring of God, the Firstborn of His substance/Being. I see this differentiation within the Undifferentiated One. (each person maintains their 'order' of existence within the One Existence).Again the wording of the Nicene Creed seems to support this more than the "eternal Sonship" touted to be supported by the creed. Those who deny the eternal sonship and believe in the Trinity teaching do not deny the second person of the Godhead. One God three Persons co-eternal the one God.


So I suppose I may be semi-Arian tri-uni-tarian. lol. - in some aspects. The term 'eternally begotten' is just as 'creative' a 'nuance' to somehow show Jesus 'eternal' relationship with God in some eternally generative state of being, a metaphysical quandary. No matter how one views it,....the 'Son' is still derived out of the Original Being of the Father...so is subordinate in relationship even though the essence of all the persons of the Trinity were always eternaly intrinsic within the Eternal Father of All, the I AM.....as One.There is no semi-Arian. Either one believes in the second person of the Godhead and in the Trinity expliantion or one denies the Son is God too.

The whole point of the creed was to refute Arius' notion that if the Son was begotten before all time then the Son was made. The creed saying "begotten and not made." It is my contention that the error of the creed is that it fails to argue "begotton of the Father before all time" being "not begottten nor made." So the creed really fails to teach the genuine eternal sonship of God the Father's only (uniquely) begotten Son - in that the Son as the Son is co-eternal with His Father as Son and God. (Hebrews 13:8.) And that the Son always had two natures one as God and the other with God being the Son (John 1:1, 2, 14.) It was the second nature of being with God which could change, since God does not change (Malachi.3:6.) So the only begotten Son as God could create (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Genesis 1:1) and be incarnate (John 1:14) live and die (John 19:30.) All of which are changes. Yet remain the unchanging God (John 1:1. Malachi 3:6.)

Also that the biblical use of the term "begotten" regarding the Son (not the term "only begotten") has to do with His resurrection not His pre-existence (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4.) The term "only begotten" refers to the Son's pre-existence.

[Provoker]

The Nicean Creed is the product of a democratic vote between bishops of several opposing factions of Christianity. Since only one faction could be true Christianity, the false factions must have come about by pagan influences. Since the one doctrine which was common to virtually all the pagan religions of that time, and 1000 years before, was "the virgin born, dying rising, god man, saviour", it is only natural that the universal church which was spawned by the Nicean council would have that as it's key doctrine.
Other views are welcome:-)

[spitndirt]

The Nicene Creed came as a responce to Arius his heresy. What is not commonly understood is the heresy of Arius is based on the very heresy found in the Nicene Creed.

Now as a Christian, I believe in one God the Father. And in the three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that they are the one and the same God. I in fact, believe in the eternal Sonship of the Son. That the Son is the only-begotten Son of God. That He has always been the Son, and never became the Son. I say this so you have a clue as to where I am coming from. And that I agree with most of the Nicene Creed, in that it teaches much of the same that I believe as a Christian.

Now here is what the Nicene Creed says that is not biblical, ". . . begotten of the Father before all worlds [ages/time.]"

It should be noted the error of Arius, what is attributed to him, ". . .the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing."

As you can see the error of Arius is rooted in the error " . . . begotten of the Father before all time" interpretation.

The problem is the non-bibilical use of the term "begotten." The biblical use of the term refers to the resurrection of Chirst (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33) And the resurrection declares Christ's Sonship (Romans 1:4.) The biblcial use of the term "begotten" has nothing to do with the Son becoming the Son.

So the the modern heresy of the Nicene Creed is where ever it is used as a standard for fellowship and is so placed above the written word of God. Otherwise the idea of the Son being "eternally begotten" is a secondary issue and not in any way a matter of salvation or biblical truth. It is an interpretation. One which I do not hold. Since I believe the Son of God has always been the Son even as the Son has always been God with His Father - hence He is the "only-begotten," that is, "uniquely-begotten" Son of God - having no beginning, as the Son of God neither begotten nor made.

So....you would say the scripture '... thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee...', Heb. 5:5 , refers to the ressurected Jesus? How, then, will you explain Heb. 5:7-8? Hmmmm.....

peace

[carelinks]

I agree that the Nicene creed is heretical theologically, but the background to it was just awful. I wrote the following at http://www.aletheiacollege.net/dbb/1-4trinity_in_europe.htm , where you can pick up the footnotes.
Rubenstein's book "When Jesus became God" gives more details.

A review of the "Letters concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea", published in English translation in the Collection Of Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers, reveals that Athanasius kept insisting that the church had the right to definitively interpret Scripture, and it was their authority to interpret it as they wished, and therefore no great weight should be placed on the fact that at times their conclusions and dogmas weren't supported by the Bible text. Letter 5.20,21 reads: "The bishops... were compelled to collect the sense of the Scriptures... the expressions [of the proposed doctrine of the Trinity] are not in so many words in the Scriptures". It was not a question of those men being 'compelled' at all- they ought to have been faithful to the Biblical text, rather than demanding that others accept their "sense" on pain of being called non-Christian and cast out of the church. It is this attitude to the Bible itself which ultimately determines whether we accept or reject the Trinity.

The argument between Arius (non-trinitarian) and Athanasius (trinitarian) was more political than it was theological or Biblical. There was a power struggle between the two men. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire, power within the church became political power. These two Christian leaders both had significant followings; and they both wanted power. The followers of the two groups fought pitched battles with each other in the urban centres of the empire. There are numerous accounts of Athanasius’ followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around (1). The trinitarian Athanasius was by far the more brutal. “Bishop Athanasius, a future saint… had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces” (2). As in any power struggle, the opponents of both sides became vilified and demonized; the issue of how to formulate a creed about the nature of Jesus became a matter of polemics and politics, with the non-trinitarians being described in the most vitriolic of language. Non-trinitarians were accused of “rending the robe of Christ”, crucifying Him afresh, and far worse. Sadly this spirit of vilification of those who hold another view has continued to this day, with many trinitarians refusing to accept any non-trinitarian as a Christian. Arius complained in a letter that “We are persecuted because we say that Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning” (3). At the Council of Nicea, Bishop Nicholas- who later became the legendary saint of Christmas in much of Europe- slapped Arius around the face (4). It would be wrong to think of the dispute as a matter of learned men of God disagreeing with each other over a matter of Biblical interpretation. Athanasius, who had the ear of Constantine more than Arius, was out for victory. He therefore emotionalized the issue and used every manner of politics and destruction of his opponents in order to get Constantine to come down on his side, exile Arius for heresy, and therefore leave him as the senior churchman of the Roman empire- which meant major political power, in an empire which had newly adopted Christianity and sought to enforce it as the empire’s religion. Often I hear the comment ‘Well this matter was all looked into long ago, and wise Christians weighed it up and came to a prayerful conclusion, which tradition Christians rightly follow and uphold’. The history of the matter is quite different. Athanasius compounded his physical attacks on Arius’ supporters, his burning of their churches etc, with a series of personal slanders against the leading non-trinitarians, calling them seducers, rapists, frequenters of prostitutes, etc (5). If the argument was really just about the interpretation of Scripture, there needn’t have been all this personal attacking and politicking and rioting. Clearly, the issue of accepting the trinity was all about power politics.

Constantine was a politician, not a Bible student. "Constantine's goal was to create a neutral public space in which Christians and pagans could both function... creating a stable coalition of both Christians and non-Christians" in the Roman empire (6). He also realized that Christianity itself had to be united if it were to be the state religion, and so he wanted there to be only one view on this contentious issue of who Jesus was. It was intolerable for him that Christians were rioting against each other over it. The matter had to be resolved. One side had to be chosen as right, and the other side must be silenced. He came down on the side of Athanasius for political reasons- adopted the trinitarian creed for the church, and exiled Arius. And so, Jesus ‘became’ God because of that. In the same spirit of wanting a united church at all costs, Constantine agreed at Nicea a whole range of other measures which were likewise not Biblical- e.g. that anyone excommunicated by a Bishop in one province could never be accepted in another province, and the appointment of “superbishops” in Alexandria, Rome and Antioch who would decide all contentious issues in future. Personal conscience and understanding didn’t matter; all Constantine wanted was a united church, as he believed it would result in a united empire. One empire, one religion- and therefore, that religion had to be united, and dissent had to quashed. Someone had to be made out as totally right, and someone as totally wrong. Sadly one sees today the very same mentality in so many churches and local congregations. It’s all about power. The mess made in early Christianity remains our sober warning in these last days.

Constantine's Legacy

Constantine's integrity is for me self-questioned by his claim to be "the thirteenth apostle". Such a person can hardly be taken as a founding father of the true church. And add to this his murder of his rivals, boiling his wife to death in her bath, murdering one of his sons. Paul Johnson documents all this, and in the context of the trinity [and other] political agreements, comments: "His abilities had always lain in management... he was a master of the smoothly-worded compromise" (7). Indeed, Constantine wrote to both Arius and Alexander that he considered the theological issues themselves to be of no importance: "Having inquired carefully into the origin and foundation of these differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature, quite unworthy of such bitter contention" (8). It really was all just dirty politics- for soon after writing this, non-trinitarians were cast out of the church as infidels and heretics, over an issue which Constantine considered "insignificant". It wasn't many centuries later that the Crusaders raped and pillaged both Moslem and Jewish cities, in the name of the Trinity and justified by the idea that those who didn't accept it, and were monotheists, should be put to the sword. John Calvin, in this spirit, ordered the destruction of Michael Servetus, because he too came to deny the Trinity. For this, he "deserved to have his bowels ripped out and to be torn in pieces" (9). So much for Calvin as a father of the so-called reformation. Nothing very fundamental was reformed. And Michael Servetus was taken to his execution in a dung cart, and burned alive with his anti-trinitarian writings, and the flames were fed with every known copy of his book Christianismi Restutio- a book which called for the restoration of Christianity to its non-trinitarian original form. The downright nastiness of many Trinitarians to non-Trinitarians today, branding them as cults etc., is a continuation of this spirit.

[jobitr]

Ontological shmontillogical.
Confusion begets more confusion. Believe the Truth, Yahshua was born one hundred percent a man and is eternal only in the sense that as spoken in John 1:1-3, he was the manifestation of the eternal plan of the Father. The confusion comes not from the Father nor from the Word, it comes from foolish men attempting to understand the things of the Father by filtering the Father's Truths through the hazy lens of man's understanding instead of by leaning on and depending upon the Spirit for the understanding of all things.

[37818]

So....you would say the scripture '... thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee...', Heb. 5:5 , refers to the resurrected Jesus? How, then, will you explain Heb. 5:7-8? Hmmmm.....

peace

"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec." -- Hebrews 5:5-10.

The Son of God was decleared to be the Son, which He always was, by the resurrection (Romans 1:4.) But in His ascension He is that High Priest. (Hebrews 9:24-26; 1 Timothy 2:5-6.)

So I fail to see any problem with the reference Hebrews 5:5-8 as you seem to suppose.

[spitndirt]

"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec." -- Hebrews 5:5-10.

The Son of God was decleared to be the Son, which He always was, by the resurrection (Romans 1:4.) But in His ascension He is that High Priest. (Hebrews 9:24-26; 1 Timothy 2:5-6.)

So I fail to see any problem with the reference Hebrews 5:5-8 as you seem to suppose.

The problem I am seeing is that in one place Jesus is begotten and in another place He is made high priest. If it is true as you say that Jesus is made high priest at His resurrection then that leaves only a previous place where He is said to have been begotten. These very scriptures identify this previous place as '...in the days of His flesh...'. No...?

I agree with you bye the way....that the phrase '...begotten before all worlds...' is an addition to scripture. Only I would say that Jesus was begotten in time - the fullness of time to be exact.

My thoughts.....

[37818]

The problem I am seeing is that in one place Jesus is begotten and in another place He is made high priest. If it is true as you say that Jesus is made high priest at His resurrection then that leaves only a previous place where He is said to have been begotten. These very scriptures identify this previous place as '...in the days of His flesh...'. No...?

I agree with you bye the way....that the phrase '...begotten before all worlds...' is an addition to scripture. Only I would say that Jesus was begotten in time - the fullness of time to be exact.

My thoughts.....

The citation, " . . . but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. " -- Hebrews 5:5 is from the second Psalm, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. " He is already the Son, and on that given day, " this day have I begotten thee." That day is explained in the book of Acts, ". . . that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. "

That is the explicit meaning of "this day have I begotten thee."

[jobitr]

Open your eyes and use your brains, people. It is obvious that someone has been adding to and changing the Scriptures.

Our savior, on one hand, is said to have been dead, but is now alive. He is also said to have been made our high priest in the order of Melchitzedec, which implies that at another time, he wasn't. At another time, he is said to have become tired (John 4:6).

But then, in what is left of the Messianic Scriptures, we are told, in Hebrews 13:8, that Yahshua Messiah is the same yesterday and today and forever. (For me, this is a very suspect verse.)

We are told to study the Scriptures word upon word, line upon line... However, these are a few lines that just don't add up. All of the word must be in agreement with all the rest of the word, or we are understanding something incorrectly or something is out of place.

It is clear from this example, as well as in other examples, that there has been post-apostolic editing of the Scriptures. Changes have been made. For one to think that all changes have been made to enable a more clear understanding for all readers is to be both ignorant and gullible. There must be a reason for these changes. Someone must have an agenda. Friends, we must never underestimate the pervasive and boundless tactics of our enemy satan. He has been, for the last 2000 years and is still leading a conspiracy, using religion, to deprive us of a correct understanding of the Truth.

He was using religion to keep people away from the Truth back when Yahshua was here.
Why should anyone think it is any different now?

Friends, please pray to receive the Truth and stop listening to the errors of religion.

[spitndirt]

The citation, " . . . but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. " -- Hebrews 5:5 is from the second Psalm, "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. " He is already the Son, and on that given day, " this day have I begotten thee." That day is explained in the book of Acts, ". . . that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. "

That is the explicit meaning of "this day have I begotten thee."


Hmmmm....I must admit 37818, your argument has merit. I shall have to study this out a bit more. I would still say that the man Jesus was begotten in the fullness of time. But this could be qualified by adding according to the flesh. It is true that this same Jesus is also the Word made flesh - so perhaps the term begotten has a fuller meaning that I have previously thought......one the may connote both a beginning (the Son born to Mary according to God's Word) and also a fruition (substantiated as the Son when raised from the dead also according to God's Word). Yes.....by the scriptures you have offered it does seem so. Jesus is not a Son according to the flesh alone but also according to the Spirit.

I still reject the notion that Jesus was begotten before all worlds....as the creed in question says. Even if all was/is according to the foreknowledge of God. In my mind there is a difference between things foreordained and things actually playing out in time.

Peace....

[spitndirt]

Open your eyes and use your brains, people. It is obvious that someone has been adding to and changing the Scriptures.

Yes....but at the same time many scriptures have not been tampered with.

Our savior, on one hand, is said to have been dead, but is now alive. He is also said to have been made our high priest in the order of Melchitzedec, which implies that at another time, he wasn't. At another time, he is said to have become tired (John 4:6).

Yes.....so what are you trying to say?

But then, in what is left of the Messianic Scriptures, we are told, in Hebrews 13:8, that Yahshua Messiah is the same yesterday and today and forever. (For me, this is a very suspect verse.)

Yes....and notice the referrences to time as oppsed to apart from it.

We are told to study the Scriptures word upon word, line upon line... However, these are a few lines that just don't add up. All of the word must be in agreement with all the rest of the word, or we are understanding something incorrectly or something is out of place.

Usually the former.

It is clear from this example, as well as in other examples, that there has been post-apostolic editing of the Scriptures. Changes have been made. For one to think that all changes have been made to enable a more clear understanding for all readers is to be both ignorant and gullible. There must be a reason for these changes. Someone must have an agenda. Friends, we must never underestimate the pervasive and boundless tactics of our enemy satan. He has been, for the last 2000 years and is still leading a conspiracy, using religion, to deprive us of a correct understanding of the Truth.

I tend to agree...but would say that Satan has no power to deprive us of anything provided we keep our eyes on Jesus who is the author and perfector of our faith.

He was using religion to keep people away from the Truth back when Yahshua was here. Why should anyone think it is any different now?

No difference....but again, Jesus has overcome the world and in Him - provided we remain there - so will we.

Friends, please pray to receive the Truth and stop listening to the errors of religion.

Good advice.... and something I do on a regular basis so that I may grow up into Him whom I have received and in whom I do believe.

Peace

[37818]

Open your eyes and use your brains, people. It is obvious that someone has been adding to and changing the Scriptures.
Oh, really? That would be another thread. Not this one. Don't make vain accusations. Cite your example, don't just make idle accusations.

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." -- Psalm 119:89


Our savior, on one hand, is said to have been dead, but is now alive. He is also said to have been made our high priest in the order of Melchitzedec, which implies that at another time, he wasn't. At another time, he is said to have become tired (John 4:6).
What you don't seem to understand is the concept that the Savior and Lord had two distinct natures. One that He was the One with God. And the second was that He was God too. It was in His nature of being with God, that He died, arose and became High Priest.



But then, in what is left of the Messianic Scriptures, we are told, in Hebrews 13:8, that Yahshua Messiah is the same yesterday and today and forever. (For me, this is a very suspect verse.)

And Jesus[Yahshua] had said something like this, ". . . that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. "


We are told to study the Scriptures word upon word, line upon line... However, these are a few lines that just don't add up. All of the word must be in agreement with all the rest of the word, or we are understanding something incorrectly or something is out of place.

Actually, ". . . they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

It is clear from this example, as well as in other examples, that there has been post-apostolic editing of the Scriptures. Changes have been made. For one to think that all changes have been made to enable a more clear understanding for all readers is to be both ignorant and gullible. There must be a reason for these changes. Someone must have an agenda. Friends, we must never underestimate the pervasive and boundless tactics of our enemy satan. He has been, for the last 2000 years and is still leading a conspiracy, using religion, to deprive us of a correct understanding of the Truth.

Again, vain accusations without substance. And belongs in another thread. Not hear.

He was using religion to keep people away from the Truth back when Yahshua was here.
Why should anyone think it is any different now?Religion is not the problem, denying explicit truth is.

Friends, please pray to receive the Truth and stop listening to the errors of religion.

"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Now here is what the Nicene Creed says that is not biblical, ". . . begotten of the Father before all worlds [ages/time.]"Actually, the Nicene Creed says "eternally begotten of the Father," indicating that Christ was not begotten in time, but has always had this relationship with the Father.
It should be noted the error of Arius, what is attributed to him, ". . .the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing." Right, and it was specifically to avoid this view that the Nicene Creed says eternally begotten of the Father.
As you can see the error of Arius is rooted in the error " . . . begotten of the Father before all time" interpretation.Wrong.

[spitndirt]

Actually, the Nicene Creed says "eternally begotten of the Father," indicating that Christ was not begotten in time, but has always had this relationship with the Father.

Ummm....I can hardly imagine a more blatant contradiction. Eternally begotten???? Srsly........


:tongue:

[jobitr]

Ummm....I can hardly imagine a more blatant contradiction. Eternally begotten???? Srsly........

That's just another clear demonstration of the vanity, the futility of man's twisted religion.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Ummm....I can hardly imagine a more blatant contradiction. Eternally begotten???? Srsly........


:tongue:So you agree that the thread starter failed to see what the Creed said? Or not?

And I explained the intended meaning. If you assert a contradiction, be prepared to show what the contradiction is, or admit that you don't know that there is one.

[37818]

I still reject the notion that Jesus was begotten before all worlds....as the creed in question says. Even if all was/is according to the foreknowledge of God. In my mind there is a difference between things foreordained and things actually playing out in time.

Peace....OK. Even though I don't see the distiction you are making between "forordained" and "actually playing out in time." Other than one is the "plan" and the other is the "event." The term "begotten" is used differently than the term "only begotten."

As I understand the usesage, "begotten" refers to "in time." Where as "only begotten" refers to the status of being God's Son.

Actually, the Nicene Creed says "eternally begotten of the Father," indicating that Christ was not begotten in time, but has always had this relationship with the Father.
Actually that reading is a modern translation of "begotten of the Father before all worlds/ages." But the creed goes on to say, "begotten and not made." Which was to refute Arius' idea of "begotten and made." Which would have been better stated for the intended meaning, " not begotten nor made." By reason of the idea that the Son was always the Son and never "became" the Son as such.



As you can see the error of Arius is rooted in the error " . . . begotten of the Father before all time" interpretation.

Wrong.It is my understanding that Arius held the view that before "all worlds" He was "begotten" of the Father, hence "made." Modern holders of Arius' error, teach the Word was first "created" and then through "him" every thing else was created. Colossians 1:15-17 and Revelation 3:14.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It is my understanding that Arius held the view that before "all worlds" He was "begotten" of the Father, hence "made." Modern holders of Arius' error, teach the Word was first "created" and then through "him" every thing else was created. Colossians 1:15-17 and Revelation 3:14.Exactly. An Arian view holds that before God created other things, He created Christ.

The Nicene view rejects this, teaching that Christ is eternally begotten, and there was no time when He was not.

[carelinks]

OK... but how can one understand that Christ was "begotten" and yet "there was no time when He was not"? Doesn't that make nonsense of the concept of begettal / beginning? And where exactly is this concept of "eternal begettal" in Scripture?

Duncan

[37818]

Exactly. An Arian view holds that before God created other things, He created Christ.

The Nicene view rejects this, teaching that Christ is eternally begotten, and there was no time when He was not.Actually, that is a modern interpretation of what it more literally says, ". . . begotten before all worlds/ages." Worlds/ages being "created." And as I pointed out it does not say "not begotten nor made" rather reads, "begotten and not made." The intent is to mean one thing, but what it says is not biblical by any means. The term "begotten" is never used in since of "eternally begotten" = "never begotten." The error begins with a false view of "begotten."

OK... but how can one understand that Christ was "begotten" and yet "there was no time when He was not"? Doesn't that make nonsense of the concept of begettal / beginning? And where exactly is this concept of "eternal begettal" in Scripture?

DuncanThe term "begotten" was used in God's word (Psalm 2) to refer to Christ's resurrection, not to His per-existence. The fundamental error is applying the term "begotten" to His pre-existence. Now the term "only begotten" refers to His unique status as being God's Son. And does not mean that He had been begotten in order to "become" God's Son. Since as the Son, He always was both "with" and "was" God. (John 1:1-3.)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Actually, that is a modern interpretation of what it more literally says, ". . . begotten before all worlds/ages." Worlds/ages being "created." It is wrong to think here of "worlds" like places or galaxies, as things created. Rather the term is better rendered ages, indicating that the Creed intends the meaning that Christ was begotten before time. thus, eternally begotten, which is opposed tot he Arian view.
And as I pointed out it does not say "not begotten nor made" rather reads, "begotten and not made."Who said that it says "not begotten"? As I already said, it affirms that Christ was begotten, and that he has always had this son/father relationship, from eternity.
The intent is to mean one thing, but what it says is not biblical by any means.You're welcome to make that case if you really want to.
The term "begotten" is never used in since of "eternally begotten" = "never begotten." The error begins with a false view of "begotten."You are the one with a false view of what they meant by "begotten." You seem to be thinking in naturalistic terms, when a sperm fuses with an egg, which is an event in time. But that is not at all the kind of thing the Nicene Creed speaks of. The Creed is stressing that the relationship that Christ and the Father have is one that they have had from eternity, before time.
The term "begotten" was used in God's word (Psalm 2) to refer to Christ's resurrection, not to His per-existence.John 3:16 and 1 John 4:9 are against you there.
The fundamental error is applying the term "begotten" to His pre-existence.Why? Did Jesus become the son of God later?
Now the term "only begotten" refers to His unique status as being God's Son. And does not mean that He had been begotten in order to "become" God's Son. Since as the Son, He always was both "with" and "was" God. (John 1:1-3.)I agree with this last part. He was always God's son, for he is eternally begotten of the Father.

[37818]

It is wrong to think here of "worlds" like places or galaxies, as things created. Rather the term is better rendered ages, indicating that the Creed intends the meaning that Christ was begotten before time. thus, eternally begotten, which is opposed tot he Arian view..The ages are in fact God' s creation! I believe I made it clear in all my posts that the word translated "worlds" meant "ages" "time."

Who said that it says "not begotten"? As I already said, it affirms that Christ was begotten, and that he has always had this son/father relationship, from eternity..So are you interpreting the Son was "eternally begotten" to "become" the Son of God? Either the Son was always the Son "not begotten" to become the Son. Or the Son was "eternally begotten" to be "begotten" to "become" the Son. Which is it?

It seems you want to have it both ways.

"Eternally begotten" = "begotton" to become the Son.
"Eternally begotten" = "not begotten" because He always was the Son.

The creed says "begotten not made." Hince really ;denies eternal Sonship. But does afirm the Son's full deity. That He was co-eternal with the Father.

The Son's eternal deity is not at issue. That the second Person of the Godhead was always the "Son" is at issue.

We do agree: That the Son was always the Son.

What we do not agree is the the creed does not really teach this. It says "begotten not made" NOT "not begotten nor made."

Give me ONE verse from God's written word where the term "begotten" (Not the term "only begotten") is used to refer Christ's pre-existence.


You're welcome to make that case if you really want to..
So are you agreeing that the creed's use to the term "begotten" is not biblical?

You are the one with a false view of what they meant by "begotten." You seem to be thinking in naturalistic terms, when a sperm fuses with an egg, which is an event in time. But that is not at all the kind of thing the Nicene Creed speaks of. The Creed is stressing that the relationship that Christ and the Father have is one that they have had from eternity, before time..You think so. I know in that case writers of the Creed are wrong as I accuse them regarding their use of the term "begotten." It is in fact a non-biblcal use of the term. And applying the term "begotten" to Christ's pre-existence is the whole basis of the error of Arius.


John 3:16 and 1 John 4:9 are against you there..
Not so. The compound term "only begotten" is different in meaning and use than of the term "begotten." To claim they are the same is in error.

Why? Did Jesus become the son of God later?There are some who believe in the Trinity teaching that the Second Person of the Godhead did before the creation of "time" become the Son. He was aways the second Person in relationship with the First. Only when He become the Son did the first Person of the Godhead become the Father, etc. Do I agree with this? no.


I agree with this last part. He was always God's son, for he is eternally begotten of the Father.

So does:
"eternally begotten" = "not begotten" = always was the Son,
or
"eternally begotten" = "begotten" = and became the Son?

The error of Arius was that the Son was made by being "begotten." Therefore not God. Sonship = Deity.
Trinitarians who deny the eternal Sonship do not deny the eternal deity of the One who became the Son. "Eternally begotten" - "begotten not made."

My postion and arguement is the use of the term "begotten" to refer to Son of God's pre-existence is the basis of the error of Ariius. And is a fundamental error in itself. It is not a biblical use of the term "begotten" to the Son of God's pre-existence. And not to be confused with the compound term "only begotten."

[carelinks]

Thanks 37818
I appreciate the tone of your posts even if unable to agree with everything.
>Since as the Son, He always was both "with" and "was" God. (John 1:1-3.)

I don't see Jn. 1:1-3 actually saying this; amd how can a son "be" his father, and always have been with him?The categories of fatherhood and sonship seem- to me- to be inappropriately applied to God and Jesus by the trinitarian doctrine. My take on John 1 is at http://www.realchrist.info/a2.html

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So are you interpreting the Son was "eternally begotten" to "become" the Son of God?No. Once more, as I said int he words that you quoted, "As I already said, it affirms that Christ was begotten, and that he has always had this son/father relationship, from eternity."

How could you think that I'm saying that the Son "became" the Son of God? :huh:
Either the Son was always the Son "not begotten" to become the Son. Or the Son was "eternally begotten" to be "begotten" to "become" the Son. Which is it?You are still overlooking what "eternally begotten" means. It means the Son was always the Son.

You can choose to simply not like that use of language, but that's what it meant, like it or not.
"Eternally begotten" = "begotton" to become the Son.No, that is not what Nicea meant.
"Eternally begotten" = "not begotten" because He always was the Son.I've slightly corrected your wording. Now it reflects what Nicea taught.
The creed says "begotten not made."Right. It denies that Christ was credted.
Hince really ;denies eternal Sonship.No, it afirms eternal sonship. That's why it says eternally begotten. That YOU would not choose such wording is not important.
But does afirm the Son's full deity. That He was co-eternal with the Father.Absolutely.
The Son's eternal deity is not at issue. That the second Person of the Godhead was always the "Son" is at issue.Agreed. Nicea affirmed both. As, incidentally, did the Athanasian Creed, which affirmed the same doctrine, more explicitly, just in case anyone misunderstood the doctrine of eternal begetting. It stresses, "The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal." (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html)Not just eternally Christ, but then becoming the Son. No, the Son eternal.
We do agree: That the Son was always the Son. Great. So if He was begotten, it must have been an eternal begitting, and not a point in time when He became the Son.
What we do not agree is the the creed does not really teach this. It says "begotten not made" NOT "not begotten nor made."I know it says begotten not made. An eternal begetting.

This issue is just that you want to insist that the only kind of begetting that is possible is the kind, like in nature, where something becomes begotten. But you then deny this in the same breath, saying that the Son is eternal. If he has always been the Son, and He is begotten, then you're stuck with the rest of us, and with the creed: Christ is eternally begotten of the Father.
Give me ONE verse from God's written word where the term "begotten" (Not the term "only begotten") is used to refer Christ's pre-existence.I thought we were talking about the meaning of the Nicean Creed.
So are you agreeing that the creed's use to the term "begotten" is not biblical?What is in discussion is the meaning of the Creed. If you want to simply say that the creed is wrong, that is your right.
You think so. I know in that case writers of the Creed are wrong as I accuse them regarding their use of the term "begotten." It is in fact a non-biblcal use of the term. And applying the term "begotten" to Christ's pre-existence is the whole basis of the error of Arius.Good heavens no! The error of Arius is that he thought Christ was itemporally begotten, that there was a point where there was no Son of God. My position, and that of the Council of Nicea, is that Christ is eternally begotten, and thus Arius is wrong.
Not so. The compound term "only begotten" is different in meaning and use than of the term "begotten." To claim they are the same is in error.I said those verses are against you because those verses indicate that Christ was begotten prior to the resurrection, which is what you say.

You only say the term is different in usae because to think it means something different from begotten, because you don't allow for the possibility of Christ beiong previously begotten, much less eternally so. But on the face of it, those verses teach that Christ was begotten prior to His death.
There are some who believe in the Trinity teaching that the Second Person of the Godhead did before the creation of "time" become the Son.What?
He was aways the second Person in relationship with the First. Only when He become the Son did the first Person of the Godhead become the Father, etc. Do I agree with this? no.No, and you dont agree with that either. As you have said, " We do agree: That the Son was always the Son."

Always.
So does:
"eternally begotten" = "not begotten" = always was the Son,No, because "not begotten" is not what Nicea meant.
or
"eternally begotten" = "begotten" = and became the Son?No, both of those options are contrary to what Nicea said.
The error of Arius was that the Son was made by being "begotten." Therefore not God. Sonship = Deity.Begotten is what makes the relationship one of Sonship. It the begetting is eternal, then Nicea is right and Arius is wrong. If the Begetting is in time, then Nicea is wrong, and Arius is at least partly right.
Trinitarians who deny the eternal Sonship do not deny the eternal deity of the One who became the Son. "Eternally begotten" - "begotten not made."I never said they did.
My postion and arguement is the use of the term "begotten" to refer to Son of God's pre-existence is the basis of the error of Ariius. And is a fundamental error in itself. It is not a biblical use of the term "begotten" to the Son of God's pre-existence. And not to be confused with the compound term "only begotten."
It's no God asserting, on your own authority, that the word "begotten" in the compound "only begotten" means something else. I have no reason for adopting your belief about that.

[37818]

Thanks 37818
I appreciate the tone of your posts even if unable to agree with everything.
>Since as the Son, He always was both "with" and "was" God. (John 1:1-3.)

I don't see Jn. 1:1-3 actually saying this; amd how can a son "be" his father, and always have been with him?The categories of fatherhood and sonship seem- to me- to be inappropriately applied to God and Jesus by the trinitarian doctrine. My take on John 1 is at http://www.realchrist.info/a2.html
First, the Son is NOT the Father. Secondly the Son DOES FULLY represent His Father (Isaiah 9:6; John 14:6-9.) The Son is God because His Father is God (John 5:18; John 10:33.)

Son of God (with God.) God the Father (God.) (John 5:18, 23; John 10:30, 33, 36, 37.) He as the Son was God WITH His Father. (John 17:3.)(John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17; Gensis 1:1, 26.)

. . .-2 Wisdom In Proverbs
Wisdom in Proverbs is a "she" as is Understanding (Proverbs 3:10; Proverbs 4:5;Proverbs 7:4; Proverbs 8:1; Wisdom she speaks, Proverbs 8:1-13; Understand she says, Proverbs 8:14-36.) And it was the Logos who is the LORD who possessed them (John 1:1, 3; Genesis 1:1.)


No. Once more, as I said int he words that you quoted, "As I already said, it affirms that Christ was begotten, and that he has always had this son/father relationship, from eternity."

How could you think that I'm saying that the Son "became" the Son of God? :huh:
No, I'm not thinking you are saying that. Rather it is that the creed teaches literally "begotten of the Father before all worlds [ages]." And it does not say "not begotten nor made" rather it says "begotten and not made." Arius' argument was that if "begotten" then the Son was "made." Both Arius and the writers of the creed agreed on "begotten of the Father before all ages." But not on "not made."


You are still overlooking what "eternally begotten" means. It means the Son was always the Son.Arius denied that the Logos was uncreated. But where did Arius deny "begotten of the Father before all ages?"

You can choose to simply not like that use of language, but that's what it meant, like it or not.
The language being used in the creed for "begotten" is not a biblical usage. Prove that it was and is. It is in fact this unbiblical pre-existence of the Son usage which is the basis of the error of Arius.


"Eternally begotten" = "begotton" to become the Son.
No, that is not what Nicea meant.

Even so, the creed is wrong in its language and usage. Not being biblical in its use of the term "begotten."


"Eternally begotten" = "not begotten" because He always was the Son.

I've slightly corrected your wording. Now it reflects what Nicea taught.
Yes, I understand that is how the creed is commonly understood.


Right. It denies that Christ was created.The error of Arius was in the thinking, because the Son was "begotten," that, would mean, in his thinking, the Son was "created."


No, it afirms eternal sonship. That's why it says eternally begotten. That YOU would not choose such wording is not important. Oh, so its not important that it isn't a biblcal usage, and that unbiblical usage is behind the error of Arius?

Had the creed read, "eternally begotten of the Father before all ages. . . . . . eteranlly begotten not made." It would still not be biblical. And as it is, It literally dones not read that way. The Greek for "before all ages" is what is being paraphrased as "eternally" in "eternally begotten of the Father" translation. And it says "begotten and not made" against the error of Arius.

Agreed. Nicea affirmed both. As, incidentally, did the Athanasian Creed, which affirmed the same doctrine, more explicitly, just in case anyone misunderstood the doctrine of eternal begetting. It stresses "The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal." (http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html)Not just eternally Christ, but then becoming the Son. No, the Son eternal.,"Eternally begotten which is spiritual nonsense, in that it is not biblical. And and as such is not true. That the Son is eterally the Son is true. The "only begotten" is true. The Athanasian creed has a different set of problems, which is not the subject of this thread. Creeds no matter how close they cite the teachings of the word of God, are never the word of God, and should never be given the same weight as the word of God.

Great. So if He was begotten, it must have been an eternal begitting, and not a point in time when He became the Son.We agree that the Son was always the Son and never had to become the Son. We do not agree on the unbiblical use of the term "begotten." We agree that the Son was the "only begotten Son of God." But not as to the unbiblical use of the term "begotten" as I just said.


I know it says begotten not made. An eternal begetting.Is the heresy of the creed, in that that usage is NOT according to the word of God.

This issue is just that you want to insist that the only kind of begetting that is possible is the kind, like in nature, where something becomes begotten. But you then deny this in the same breath, saying that the Son is eternal. If he has always been the Son, and He is begotten, then you're stuck with the rest of us, and with the creed: Christ is eternally begotten of the Father.The creed is NOT the word of God on the matter.

I thought we were talking about the meaning of the Nicean Creed.The creed means to use the term "begotten" in regards to Christ's pre-existence. And that is the root heresy of the error of Arianism. (Colossians 1:15-17.)


What is in discussion is the meaning of the Creed. If you want to simply say that the creed is wrong, that is your right.If this was just a "secondary issue" where true believes can disagree, fine. But I have been falsely accused of "heresy" because I didn't agree with the wording of the creed, even though I agreed with the intended meaning. And kicked of Christian forums for not agreeing with the wording. And after proving I believe in the trinity, the eternal Sonship, that He is God the Creator, I will not be re-instated. Never.

And on top of that what I wrote, was not blocked(?) as being wrong. I was banned after being falsely accused of denying truth. This thread was started for that reason.

Good heavens no! The error of Arius is that he thought Christ was itemporally begotten, that there was a point where there was no Son of God. My position, and that of the Council of Nicea, is that Christ is eternally begotten, and thus Arius is wrong.[/QJOTE]Arius' error was based on that unbiblical concept of using the term "begotten" to refer to the Son of God's pre-existence. (Colossians 1:15-16. Yes, the term "begotten" is not used there, rather "firstborn." It is the same error, Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5.)

[QUOTE=Jack Bauer;2230900]I said those verses are against you because those verses indicate that Christ was begotten prior to the resurrection, which is what you say.The compound term "only begotten" refers the Christ's status as being the Son of God (John 1:14; 1 John 4:9) and not in the same way as the term "begotten" is used (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33.)

You only say the term is different in usae because to think it means something different from begotten, because you don't allow for the possibility of Christ being previously begotten, much less eternally so. But on the face of it, those verses teach that Christ was begotten prior to His death.No. They teach that Christ was uniquely God's Son. Not that at any time became God's Son. The phrase "eternally begotten" to mean not begotten to become the Son, is one thing. But the term "begotten" being applied to Christ's pre-existence is at the root of the Arianism error.

What?
Dr Walter Martin held that view. John MacArther had at one time held that view. Adam Clarke held that view: That the second Person of the Godhead was always God, but no eternal Sonship. It was my reading Dr Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults" on the matter of eternal Sonship, that from my own bible study I concluded that the concept of eternal Sonship was true. (Isaiah 9:6.) Contrary to Dr Walter Martin's arguments.


No, because "not begotten" is not what Nicea meant.Hmmm. . . Not begotten to become the Son of God.

No, both of those options are contrary to what Nicea said. Well it says, "begotten and not made." Arius held, "begotten and made."

Begotten is what makes the relationship one of Sonship.So if the Second Person of the Godhead was "not begotten" He wouldn't be the Son. Well that argument kind of kills eternal Sonship.

It the begetting is eternal, then Nicea is right and Arius is wrong. If the Begetting is in time, then Nicea is wrong, and Arius is at least partly right.It is my understanding that Arius believe that the Son was "begotten and made" before the creation of time.


It's no God asserting, on your own authority, that the word "begotten" in the compound "only begotten" means something else. I have no reason for adopting your belief about that.Well then prove the biblcial usage, that "begotten" as used in holy scripture is the meaning of the compound usage "only begotten." I find them different. What truth from holy scripture did I miss?

[Theolog]

Hi 37,

The phrase 'begotten of the Father before all time' seems to be worded to show Christs relationship to the Father from before creation. I hold that even though the Eternal Son was always one with God..... the Father was always antecedent or prior in Personality Existence in relation to the other 2 Deity-personalizations.


The Son was begotten or born out from the Eternal Father at some time in eternity past before time/creation and the Infinite Spirit came into being from the emerging of the Father-Son marriage. The Son always existed in the Mind of the Father as the eternal Logos...but being the 'Son' he is derived and is in one sense the offspring of God, the Firstborn of His substance/Being. I see this differentiation within the Undifferentiated One. (each person maintains their 'order' of existence within the One Existence).

So I suppose I may be semi-Arian tri-uni-tarian. lol. - in some aspects. The term 'eternally begotten' is just as 'creative' a 'nuance' to somehow show Jesus 'eternal' relationship with God in some eternally generative state of being, a metaphysical quandary. No matter how one views it,....the 'Son' is still derived out of the Original Being of the Father...so is subordinate in relationship even though the essence of all the persons of the Trinity were always eternaly intrinsic within the Eternal Father of All, the I AM.....as One.

paul

A time before time??? Please explain.

With all the begetting in Scripture it should not be too hard to figure out what the word means.

I suggest that "The Only Begotten son of God" mean that Jesus was the the only time God was actually born a human. "Before all time" simply means that it was God's plan from the beginning.

I would also suggest that we take what the Church fathers said throughout history with a very large dose of salt. The whole Nicene Creed is a nutty document if you ask me. "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" That's a laugh. And not to leave out "one Baptism for the remission of sins". WOW that's a loaded statement.

It's no wonder that they had no idea that Christ had already came and judged the old covenant world and made all things new. I am sure that none of them ever actually read the Scriptures themselves but much like today they made it up as they went along and if questioned they declared the trouble makers heretics.

[jobitr]

Nicea, the other "church councils" and all of their resulting legislation had nothing whatsoever to do with the Truth. The Father in His infinite wisdom and power has no need of man's worldly government to make His ways known. These councils and church governments are the work of the spirit of antichrist. Anyone looking to them for enlightenment or a deeper understanding will only be lead further down their rabbit trails of confusion and away from the Truth.

[carelinks]

Hi 37818
>First, the Son is NOT the Father. Secondly the Son DOES FULLY represent His Father (Isaiah 9:6; John 14:6-9.) The Son is God because His Father is God (John 5:18; John 10:33.)

My difficulty is in understanding the tautology:
"The Son is not the Father... the Son is God".

To pass it all off as "mystery" doesn't cut it to me.

I also don't see that the Son is God because His Father was. A son has a relationship to his father, but isn't the father. Put it another way- Jesus was the son of Mary, an ordinary woman. So what does that make Him?

And if Jesus = God, then do you believe Mary is mother of God?

In Him

Duncan

[37818]

Hi 37818
>First, the Son is NOT the Father. Secondly the Son DOES FULLY represent His Father (Isaiah 9:6; John 14:6-9.) The Son is God because His Father is God (John 5:18; John 10:33.)

My difficulty is in understanding the tautology:
"The Son is not the Father... the Son is God".
It is simple, a son of a father is not the father.

Now in John 1:1-3, were are told, that the "Word was with God" and the "Word was God," that is, the Word [Logos] was both. Both being with God and was also God the Creator. And we are told this Word became "flesh" v.14. And we know Him to be Jesus Christ the Lord.

In verse 18 we are told "no man has seen God at any time." Yet, in the OT God did appear to men. And according to this verse all those appearances of God were really "the only begotten Son" of God who is in His Father. From creation to salvation the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole access to God. Hence, if for no other reason, He is God to us. (John 14:6, Jesus taught, "no man comes to the Father, but by me.")




To pass it all off as "mystery" doesn't cut it to me.
So why should the only explanation which supports the the whole truth be a mystery? [Error typically pits half the truth against the other half.]


I also don't see that the Son is God because His Father was. A son has a relationship to his father, but isn't the father. Put it another way- Jesus was the son of Mary, an ordinary woman. So what does that make Him?
Jesus in His pre-existence was both "with God" and "was God." Understand being with someone doesn't make one that someone. But this One was "both" before creation. An in His incarnation, became truly human, yet remained God. Mary His human mother gave birth to the Man, not God. Man is not God. God is not man. Yet He is both.


And if Jesus = God, then do you believe Mary is mother of God?

In Him

DuncanNo. Jesus was not just God, He was both a Man (which is not God) and God too. So Mary is the mother of our Lord, not God. ". . . to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. " -- 1 Cornthians 8:6.

Since Jesus Christ in His incarnation still has two natures, one now of being fully and truly a man, and as that Man He is our Lord. And His other nature is that He is God. Yet He is God and not God at the same time. Two natures in one person, and the two natures are not mixed. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." -- 1 Timothy 2:5, 6.

He is medator as the Man. Yet, He could not hear prayers of innumerable people unless He was also truly God too. He has to be both.

Respectfully,
37818

[carelinks]

I respect you for trying to explain it all to me in a polite manner but I have to say that it seems to me all so contradictory and fallacious... it seems once a wrong idea has been accepted, then all these intellectual and philosophical acrobatics are required to justify it.

[Theolog]

Nicea, the other "church councils" and all of their resulting legislation had nothing whatsoever to do with the Truth. The Father in His infinite wisdom and power has no need of man's worldly government to make His ways known. These councils and church governments are the work of the spirit of antichrist. Anyone looking to them for enlightenment or a deeper understanding will only be lead further down their rabbit trails of confusion and away from the Truth.

Yea, the people that use the creeds to bash others usually have run out of defence for their position using the Bible to bash with so they have to go beyond the Holy Scriptures. That's OK though, It's more important to bash than how you bash. Here is a nice verse about them.
Jeremiah 2 2:13
"My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.

The nicene creed is no more than a broken cistern. They that drink from it have forsaken Gods living waters.

[Theolog]

If Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, is the mediator between man and the Father because the Father lives in "unaproachable light" then is stands to reason that Moses was talking to the Son not the Father.

The Jews who scoffed at the idea that God had a Son really would have flipped if they knew that God had a Father.

[37818]

I respect you for trying to explain it all to me in a polite manner but I have to say that it seems to me all so contradictory and fallacious... it seems once a wrong idea has been accepted, then all these intellectual and philosophical acrobatics are required to justify it.
Well, without the correct explanation you will end up with contradictions. The explanation is to show the whole of the truth. Not just one part against another part of the truth.

Tritheist deny One God.
Modalist deny the Persons. They believe God is Jesus. Or the Son and Holy Spirit are really only the Father.
Arianism, unitarianism deny the that God is more than One Person. They deny that Jesus is the true God too. Arianism denies that the Holy Spirit is a Person.

Each of these views takes part of the truth and deny the part they think contradicts the part they take.

The Trinity explanation holds that there is only One God, but is this One God is three Persons.
And those three Persons are the One God. Takes the truth as a whole.

If Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, is the mediator between man and the Father because the Father lives in "unaproachable light" then is stands to reason that Moses was talking to the Son not the Father.

The Jews who scoffed at the idea that God had a Son really would have flipped if they knew that God had a Father.No. God has no Father. God is the Father. The Son IS NOT the Father. The Son is NOT a fathered god.

Moses who is by no means any kind of god was literally made God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1.) Now God did not make Moses a god. (see Isaiah 43:10.) As far as God was concerned with Pharaoh, he had to go through Moses to come to Him. The Son of God, in similar way the whole of creation must come through Him as God.(Genesis 1:1, 26; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17.) (as in salvation: John 5:23; John 8:24; John 14:6-9.) So it is: all appearances of God in the OT was the Son(John 1:18 KJV.) (Genesis 12:7; John 8:56)(Isaiah 6:5; John 12:41.)(Isaiah 43:11; Acts 4:12; Acts 10:43.) The key difference is the Son is God with His Father. Not being the Father. But fully representing His Father as Moses represented Him.

[carelinks]

Hi 37
>The Son is NOT a fathered god.

I agree. But Trinitarian theology has used the phrase "eternally begotten" to describe the Lord Jesus, and that would appear to be saying the Son is a fathered God... Of course, maybe you don't agree with the "eternally begotten" stuff, but maybe someone who does can try to explain it.

Best wishes

Duncan

[spitndirt]

So you agree that the thread starter failed to see what the Creed said? Or not?

And I explained the intended meaning. If you assert a contradiction, be prepared to show what the contradiction is, or admit that you don't know that there is one.

No Jack....I don't agree. The Lutheran version (as well as a few others) of the creed reads "...begotten of the Father before all worlds...".

The contradiction is as follows: The term "begotten" means born of woman via male seed whether we are speaking literally or metaphorically. How can one logically attach the term "eternally" to a phenomenon that not only exists within time but also within the context of creation.

If there is a contradiction in your explanation of the terms in question I'll get back to you after I reread it.

You have brought up a subject, though, that I wish to speak to. You use the phrase "intended meaning". I'm left wondering why the writers of the creed didn't simply say what they meant. That way no one would have to explain what they intended to say.

[spitndirt]

Actually, the Nicene Creed says "eternally begotten of the Father," indicating that Christ was not begotten in time, but has always had this relationship with the Father.

I'm taking this to be your explanation. Sorry....but this contains the same contradictory language. Methinks you are attempting to support the idea that a Son became incarnate. The scriptures paint a different picture altogether. Consider Jesus own testimony in the Gospel of John....particularly in the latter chapters. Jesus was not incarnate....He was begotten precisely in the way the scriptures say. Jesus was a man in whom the fullness of God (the Father) dwelt bodily. Simple stuff really......

[Theolog]

Well, without the correct explanation you will end up with contradictions. The explanation is to show the whole of the truth. Not just one part against another part of the truth.

Tritheist deny One God.
Modalist deny the Persons. They believe God is Jesus. Or the Son and Holy Spirit are really only the Father.
Arianism, unitarianism deny the that God is more than One Person. They deny that Jesus is the true God too. Arianism denies that the Holy Spirit is a Person.

Each of these views takes part of the truth and deny the part they think contradicts the part they take.

The Trinity explanation holds that there is only One God, but is this One God is three Persons.
And those three Persons are the One God. Takes the truth as a whole.

No. God has no Father. God is the Father. The Son IS NOT the Father. The Son is NOT a fathered god.

Moses who is by no means any kind of god was literally made God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1.) Now God did not make Moses a god. (see Isaiah 43:10.) As far as God was concerned with Pharaoh, he had to go through Moses to come to Him. The Son of God, in similar way the whole of creation must come through Him as God.(Genesis 1:1, 26; John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-17.) (as in salvation: John 5:23; John 8:24; John 14:6-9.) So it is: all appearances of God in the OT was the Son(John 1:18 KJV.) (Genesis 12:7; John 8:56)(Isaiah 6:5; John 12:41.)(Isaiah 43:11; Acts 4:12; Acts 10:43.) The key difference is the Son is God with His Father. Not being the Father. But fully representing His Father as Moses represented Him.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understooda it.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,d who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

Jesus is the word/creator. Moses was talking to the word/creator. The the Jews called the God that Moses talked to "Father". The Father was really the Son in this case. "No man has ever seen the Father except the SON".

[spitndirt]

Jesus is the word/creator. Moses was talking to the word/creator. The the Jews called the God that Moses talked to "Father". The Father was really the Son in this case. "No man has ever seen the Father except the SON".

Hmmm.....

What do you make of Hebrews 1:1-2 which says, "...In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son..."?

Seems that God was not speaking by His Son until these last times. I would say, then, that the man Jesus who was born in the fullness of time is the one and only begotten Son of God. Also, that the One who spoke to Israel in past times is the same who begat a Son. The One speaking in the past, then, must necessarily be the Father. No...?

[Theolog]

I was refering to the times that God spoke to Moses. Sending angels with messages is different than man coming into the fathers presence and Moses was in Gods presence. I see Jesus as God, when Scripture refers to God it may mean God the father or God the Son or God the Holy spirit. I also see them as separate beings yet equally one God.

I view the begotten Son as a incarnation of the eternal God into the human race. God became a man by birth and not by creating a body out of nothing. It certainly was not the beginning of the Son/word of God.

My view is that everytime God interacts with man it is God the Son and not the father. The trinity is hard to fathom but it is clear enough to me that the Bible is teaching a triune God. I know many have a hard time with this doctrine but I don't.

[37818]

Hi 37
>The Son is NOT a fathered god.

I agree. But Trinitarian theology has used the phrase "eternally begotten" to describe the Lord Jesus, and that would appear to be saying the Son is a fathered God... Of course, maybe you don't agree with the "eternally begotten" stuff, but maybe someone who does can try to explain it.

Best wishes

DuncanThe term "eternally begotten" is a modern rendition of what the Nicene creed said, "begotten . . . before all worlds." There are Trinitarians who do not believe in the "eternal Sonship" of the second Person in the Trinity. The terminology, "Trinity," "eternal Sonship," and "eternally begotten" are all interpretations of the word of God. These actual terms are not found in holy scripture. The Trinity is the name of the explanation of the Godhead: One God, three Persons who are the One God. "Eternal Sonship" is the interpretation that the second Person of the Godhead was always the Son. "Eternally begotten" is a interpration of the reading of the Nicene creed taken to mean the "eternal Sonship."

Now the compound term translated "only begotten" for the Son of God is used in such a way it can be understood to refer to the pre-existence of the Son as the Son of God.

"And the Word was made 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." -- John 1:14.

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." -- John 1:18.

"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." -- 1 John 4:9.

Add to that that the Son was the one by which Creation was done for and by (Hebrews 1:2; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-18; Genesis 1:1) and this Proverb:

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" -- Proverbs 30:4.

So there are really more than one issue.

God and Persons of this One God.

The Son and having two distinct natures, one nature being God and other nature which is NOT being God Himself, that is, being "with God." (John 1:1,2.) And both these natures are in the One Person called the Son of God. And as such is co-eternal in being "with God" which requires Him to be equal to God, making Him God too. (John 1:1, 3; Genesis 1:1.)

The second Person of the Godhead, is one Person with two distinct natures.

God is one God who is three Persons.

The issues, One God, Persons who are called God, the Son of God with two natures, the non-God nature becoming human. Hence God incarnate.

Since God cannot change. The Son in being God cannot cease being God. But the nature which was "with God" can. Two natures one which can change and one which is unchanging (Hebrews 13:8.) And the nature that could change was not a change in that that changeable nature also co-existed with God. Which requires anything which co-exists with God to be God too.

Consider, God cannot change. At what point was there a creation? Before there was any kind of creation, God would not be a Creator. And if there was a before any creation, upon a creation, God would have changed into a Creator. Then such a God would have changed. But God didn't change.

In order for God to be a Creator and not have changed in becoming a Creator, there had to be something "not God" "with God" that would be something like a creation that had always existed with God, so God could always have been a Creator before any creation.

And anything or any one who co-existed with God would have to be God too. (John 1:1.)

That one we know as the Son of God. "with God." And by whom all things were created (Genesis 1:1, 26; Hebrews 1:2; John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-18.)

Last, the Son is called "eternal Father" or "Father of eternity" this requires the concept of "eternal Sonship" in my view.

And it was the Son of God who had two natures, having the nature that was "with God" allows for change: Creator, incarnation, living a human life, dying, resurrecting as an immortal man, etc.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." -- Hebrews 13:8.

[Theolog]

I agree with Jack. Useing the term "only begotten" causes confustion, leading some to think that the Son came into existence.

It is also clear that the Nicene Creed teaches that Rome is the true universal church, making all of protestantism outside of orthodoxy.

Then it confuses things more by saying that Baptism is salvific. I assume it meant the baptism of Rome.

Christians flying the Nicene flag have, like is said before have; Jeremiah 2 2:13
"My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.

[spitndirt]

I agree with Jack. Using the term "only begotten" causes confustion, leading some to think that the Son came into existence.

But the scriptures use the terms only begotten......but never eternally begotten. So why is it always assumed that the Son has eternally existed? Why is it rarely considered whether the Son may have come into existence specifically as a mediator between Immortal God and mortal man. Before mortal man (and the Son was a mortal man) existed what need is there for a mediator? Remove the bride and what place is left for a groom? Apart from creation what use is there for the Word of God? Truly, the Word of God was brought forth for creation and creation for the Word of God. Take away one and the other loses it's place. No? Then tell me why God brought forth pre-creation conditions prior to speaking His Word. Let's see....we have darkness covering the deep and the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. These conditions were not spoken into being. Rather, these were conditions that were made manifest in order that God might speak. God certainly doesn't speak to Himself...or for His own benefit.

So when did the Word of God come to exist? Well.....precisely when God said "...let there be light...". There the Word was (became)....right there! Prior to this there was (became) no Word at all. God is never found speaking apart from the beginning.....only IN the beginning. This is what is found in scripture. Where is the trinitarian notion ever found in scripture without taking a huge and unnecessary leap of faith??? Simply put...it's not there. Consider.....

Peace....

[37818]

But the scriptures use the terms only begotten......but never eternally begotten. So why is it always assumed that the Son has eternally existed? Why is it rarely considered whether the Son may have come into existence specifically as a mediator between Immortal God and mortal man. Before mortal man (and the Son was a mortal man) existed what need is there for a mediator? Remove the bride and what place is left for a groom? Apart from creation what use is there for the Word of God? Truly, the Word of God was brought forth for creation and creation for the Word of God. Take away one and the other loses it's place. No? Then tell me why God brought forth pre-creation conditions prior to speaking His Word. Let's see....we have darkness covering the deep and the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. These conditions were not spoken into being. Rather, these were conditions that were made manifest in order that God might speak. God certainly doesn't speak to Himself...or for His own benefit.

So when did the Word of God come to exist? Well.....precisely when God said "...let there be light...". There the Word was (became)....right there! Prior to this there was (became) no Word at all. God is never found speaking apart from the beginning.....only IN the beginning. This is what is found in scripture. Where is the trinitarian notion ever found in scripture without taking a huge and unnecessary leap of faith??? Simply put...it's not there. Consider.....

Peace....

John 1:1, 2, 3, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Everything which was made was made by the Word which "was God."

Colossians 1:16, 17, 18, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

[OldShepherd]

But the scriptures use the terms only begotten......but never eternally begotten. So why is it always assumed that the Son has eternally existed? Why is it rarely considered whether the Son may have come into existence specifically as a mediator between Immortal God and mortal man. Before mortal man (and the Son was a mortal man) existed what need is there for a mediator? Remove the bride and what place is left for a groom? Apart from creation what use is there for the Word of God? Truly, the Word of God was brought forth for creation and creation for the Word of God. Take away one and the other loses it's place. No? Then tell me why God brought forth pre-creation conditions prior to speaking His Word. Let's see....we have darkness covering the deep and the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. These conditions were not spoken into being. Rather, these were conditions that were made manifest in order that God might speak. God certainly doesn't speak to Himself...or for His own benefit.

So when did the Word of God come to exist? Well.....precisely when God said "...let there be light...". There the Word was (became)....right there! Prior to this there was (became) no Word at all. God is never found speaking apart from the beginning.....only IN the beginning. This is what is found in scripture. Where is the trinitarian notion ever found in scripture without taking a huge and unnecessary leap of faith??? Simply put...it's not there. Consider.....

Peace....

"Only-begotten" is not a good translation.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

μονογνης mono-genês , es, Ep. and Ion. mouno- , ( [genos] )
A.the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, pais Hes.Op.376 , Hdt.7.221, cf. Ev.Jo.1.14, Ant.Lib.32.1; of Hecate, Hes. Th.426.
2. unique, of to on,[ Parm. 8.4; heis hode m. ouranos gegonôs Pl.Ti.31b , cf. Procl.Inst.22; theos ho m. Sammelb.4324.15 .
3. m. haima one and the same blood, dub. l. in E. Hel.1685.
4. Gramm., having one form for all genders, A.D.Adv. 145.18.
5. name of the foot___^, Heph.3.3.
II. Adv. -nôs, pheretai m. en heni topôi grows only in one place, Peripl.M.Rubr.56, cf. 11.
2. in a unique manner, Aët. 15.13,14.Bottom of Form

http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/resolveform

[hedrick]

Please remember that in traditional theology, Christ is begotten twice. The first is the eternal Logos, the second the human being Jesus (technically, Christ's human nature). The human certainly did come into existence at a specific time.

Argue with the Trinity if you like, but if you're going to believe anything like the Trinity, all three of the persons have to be coeternal. I.e. they can't come into existence at a specific time. I don't think it was intended that this thread should be a debate over the Trinity.

The Nicene Creed is referring to the origin of the Logos, the second Person of the Trinity. Begotten is not a perfect term. At least when used of humans it implies an event occurring at a specific time, a result of sexual relations, neither of which apply to the Logos. However any language that refers to God has to be to some extent metaphorical. It's pretty clear that authors of the Creed didn't mean that the Logos came into being at a specific time, nor that he came into being sexually. They envisioned the Logos as co-eternal with the Father. If God is inherently Triune, then all three Persons must exist together in eternity. After all, the whole debate was over Arius' claim that there was a time when Christ was not. John 1:1-2 seems to envision that the Word exists in eternity along with the Father.

Thus begotten was chosen as something that both contrasts with "made", and indicates that the son is of the same nature as the father. After all, humans beget other humans. A being who is out of time is going to beget outside of time, and a being who is non-sexual is going to beget non-sexually. I have no problem with people saying that the word is misleading, but I think it's pretty clear that the original authors intended to say that the Father is the source of the Son, not at some specific time, but continuously. After all "before all worlds" can just as well be translated "before all times," i.e. outside of time.

[barnasha]

Please remember that in traditional theology, Christ is begotten twice.

most people are on mental auto-pilot and do not realize that the direction being taken is wrong, with regards to the idea of a 'christ'....

a messiah is not necessarily Jesus, the term means anointed, there are other messiahs in the bible.

'the messiah' now generally refers to hebrew messianic prophecy of which Jesus is argued (i.e. by the Christians) to have fulfilled.

Christ is the greek form of the word.

[carelinks]

Hedrick, you're quite correct to point out that the issue of being "begotten" torpedoes the 'Trinity'. They try to wriggle out of it by talking about Jesus being "eternally begotten", but that is both unBiblical and meaningless verbiage. The Lord Jesus was the begotten Son of God according to the Bible. Therefore, He wasn't God Himself. God wasn't begotten, He begat Jesus.

[barnasha]

Indeed, If That Which Begets All is "begotten", it is not That Which Begets All.

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me." - Jesus Christ

[smaneck]

Please remember that in traditional theology, Christ is begotten twice. The first is the eternal Logos, the second the human being Jesus (technically, Christ's human nature). The human certainly did come into existence at a specific time.

Argue with the Trinity if you like, but if you're going to believe anything like the Trinity, all three of the persons have to be coeternal. I.e. they can't come into existence at a specific time. I don't think it was intended that this thread should be a debate over the Trinity.

The Nicene Creed is referring to the origin of the Logos, the second Person of the Trinity. Begotten is not a perfect term. At least when used of humans it implies an event occurring at a specific time, a result of sexual relations, neither of which apply to the Logos. However any language that refers to God has to be to some extent metaphorical. It's pretty clear that authors of the Creed didn't mean that the Logos came into being at a specific time, nor that he came into being sexually. They envisioned the Logos as co-eternal with the Father. If God is inherently Triune, then all three Persons must exist together in eternity. After all, the whole debate was over Arius' claim that there was a time when Christ was not. John 1:1-2 seems to envision that the Word exists in eternity along with the Father.

Thus begotten was chosen as something that both contrasts with "made", and indicates that the son is of the same nature as the father. After all, humans beget other humans. A being who is out of time is going to beget outside of time, and a being who is non-sexual is going to beget non-sexually. I have no problem with people saying that the word is misleading, but I think it's pretty clear that the original authors intended to say that the Father is the source of the Son, not at some specific time, but continuously. After all "before all worlds" can just as well be translated "before all times," i.e. outside of time.

I think the prologue of John's Gospel needs to be understood in the context of Philo of Alexandria's conceptions. Philo viewed the Logos as God's thought, as His eternally generated first-born son. Likewise in Neo-Platonism the Logos is generated first and from it the rest of creation emanates in a hierchical manner. It seems to me that both the Christian concept of Jesus as the Logos and the Asharite notion that the Qur'an is the uncreated Word of God reflect this conception as does the Baha'i belief that the Manifestation is He through Whom the letters B and E (lit. Kaf and Nun) have been joined and knit together.

warmest, Susan

[OldShepherd]

I think the prologue of John's Gospel needs to be understood in the context of Philo of Alexandria's conceptions. Philo viewed the Logos as God's thought, as His eternally generated first-born son. Likewise in Neo-Platonism the Logos is generated first and from it the rest of creation emanates in a hierchical manner. It seems to me that both the Christian concept of Jesus as the Logos and the Asharite notion that the Qur'an is the uncreated Word of God reflect this conception as does the Baha'i belief that the Manifestation is He through Whom the letters B and E (lit. Kaf and Nun) have been joined and knit together.

warmest, Susan

John was a simple Jewish fisherman, not a Greek philosopher, therefore his understanding of God and the Word, would be Jewish, not Greek.

Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra.” מאמר/memra which in Aramaic means “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.

In this citation, which is only representative not comprehensive, there are at least eighty examples where the name יהוה/YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with” מאמר/memra.” When John, the Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God.,” he was not saying anything strange or new.

Remember this is not a Trinitarian source, it is the Jewish Encyclopedia prepared by Jewish scholars showing the faith, beliefs, and practices of the ancient Jews. Some interesting quotes from the below article, all from the Targums, before the Christian era, note the parallels with the N.T..
“The Word brings Israel nigh unto God and [The Word] sits on [God’s] throne receiving the prayers of Israel.” cf. Re 3:21 Re 22:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“His Word has laid the foundation of the earth.” cf. John 1:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“So, in the future, shall The Word be the comforter.” cf. John 14:26, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“In The Word redemption will be found.” cf. Luke 21:28, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“My Word shall be unto you for a redeeming deity.” cf. Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:15, N.T. ca. 70 AD.
More complete citation.

Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," [The Word] instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra [The Word]," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). " I will cover thee with My Memra, [My Word] " instead of "My hand " (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra [My Word] shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra, [The Word] " instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes "a sign between My Memra [My Word] and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra [His Word] has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, [The Word] not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra [The Word] brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" " (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). . . So, in the future, shall the Memra [The Word] be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra [My Word] shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).

The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra [The Word] the redemption will be found " (Targ. Zech. xii. 5).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

[barnasha]

thanks, interesting post

[smaneck]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE=+1]John was a simple Jewish fisherman, not a Greek philosopher, therefore his understanding of God and the Word, would be Jewish, not Greek.

If the writer of John's Gospel was *merely* a simple Jewish fistherman he would not be able to write a gospel in Greek in the first place.

[OldShepherd]

If the writer of John's Gospel was *merely* a simple Jewish fistherman he would not be able to write a gospel in Greek in the first place.
Being a simple fisherman, farmer, baker, carpenter, etc. does NOT make anyone illiterate then or now. This response does NOT address the rest of my post, particularly about John NOT being a Greek philosopher.

Wanna try again?

[hedrick]

I don't see that smaneck and OldShepherd are that far apart. While Philo was a philosopher (though not a Greek one), the examples quoted by smaneck showed that the ideas were fairly widespread, enough so that the targum reflects the same background. I would think that anyone well enough educated to have written John would have heard something about these ideas, whether he had actually read Philo or not.

[smaneck]

Being a simple fisherman, farmer, baker, carpenter, etc. does NOT make anyone illiterate then or now. This response does NOT address the rest of my post, particularly about John NOT being a Greek philosopher.

Wanna try again?

Uh, we're talking about a simple Jewish fishermen being literate and even eloquent in a language not even his own? In the language of philosophy, in fact?

[smaneck]

I don't see that smaneck and OldShepherd are that far apart. While Philo was a philosopher (though not a Greek one), the examples quoted by smaneck showed that the ideas were fairly widespread, enough so that the targum reflects the same background. I would think that anyone well enough educated to have written John would have heard something about these ideas, whether he had actually read Philo or not.

Yes, I think that's true.

[OldShepherd]

Uh, we're talking about a simple Jewish fishermen being literate and even eloquent in a language not even his own? In the language of philosophy, in fact?

Philosophy has NO language! I read somewhere that John's gospel was the simplest Greek in the N.T. And FYI 1st century Israelites were trilingual, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There is a good article on that in the Jewish Encyclopedia. See link above.

I would prefer to discuss historical fact, rather than the false information perpetrated by people who oppose the historic faith of the church.

[smaneck]

Philosophy has NO language!

On the contrary, nearly all the philosophy of antiquity was written in Greek.

I read somewhere that John's gospel was the simplest Greek in the N.T

The grammar is simple, that's true. It is mostly nominal sentences, but it is extremely eloquent in its very simplicity.

. And FYI 1st century Israelites were trilingual, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

I don't doubt many of theme were, but I doubt if fishermen were literate in all three languages, especially since Greek and Hebrew are entirely different scripts.

I would prefer to discuss historical fact, rather than the false information perpetrated by people who oppose the historic faith of the church.

Hmmm. Sounds like you have decided that "historical fact" consists of whatever supports your view of the early church.

[OldShepherd]

On the contrary, nearly all the philosophy of antiquity was written in Greek.

This is your opinion and does NOT support your assertion Greek is the language of Philosophy.

The grammar is simple, that's true. It is mostly nominal sentences, but it is extremely eloquent in its very simplicity.

I agree, but this does NOT support your argument.

I don't doubt many of theme were, but I doubt if fishermen were literate in all three languages, especially since Greek and Hebrew are entirely different scripts.

What you doubt is NOT evidence!

Hmmm. Sounds like you have decided that "historical fact" consists of whatever supports your view of the early church.

Wrong! Something written at or near the times in question by the participants or direct eye witnesses. The opinions of 19th-21st century scholars without supporting evidence is NOT credible, verifiable, historical evidence. OTOH the ECF, the ONLY existing history of the church that Jesus built, on the rock, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail is available to anyone with a computer. If you have credible evidence refuting that history please post it.

[Ben Lomond]

In reply to carelinks post #11, #37, #54 and others:

Your extended post #11 giving an outline of how the motives and tactics of the Council of Nice were more to do with dirty power politics than the theology of Jesus of Nazareth was superb.

Again in your post #37, I think you neatly summed the situation up succinctly when you said (my paraphrase) that if one is on the wrong track from the beginning, then all the philosophical acrobats in the world don't count for much.

Theologians could take a lesson from the immortal words of Sir Walter Scott -" Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

I have read that the eminent Historian Edward Gibbon in his monumental work "The decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" likened the Church Council debates in formulating the doctrine of Holy Trinity as "An argument over a diphthong."

And in the end, just how do we manifest our faith in the doctrine of Holy Trinity???

Over and over, Paul constantly exhorted how we should apply the crucifixion / resurrection of Jesus to our personal lives - by spiritually baptizing our self into his death and being resurrected a new creature.

Ben Lomond.
= = = = = = = = = =

[37818]

The principle problem with the Nicene Creed is "begotten of the Father before all time" & "begotten and not made." True eternal sonship entails the "only begotten" being not begotten and not made, which is in fact the case. The Psalm stating "Thou art my Son, to day I have begotten thee." refers to the Son's bodily resurrection (Acts 13:33.)

[smaneck]

The principle problem with the Nicene Creed is "begotten of the Father before all time" & "begotten and not made." True eternal sonship entails the "only begotten" being not begotten and not made, which is in fact the case. The Psalm stating "Thou art my Son, to day I have begotten thee." refers to the Son's bodily resurrection (Acts 13:33.)

Originally that verse from Psalms referred to the coronation of King David.

[barnasha]

How curious, what is "begotten and not made" supposed to mean?

The wonderful simplicity of Abrahamic theology is polluted and dragged through the mud with all this nonsense.

Better start obeying the first commandment.

[OldShepherd]

How curious, what is "begotten and not made" supposed to mean?

The wonderful simplicity of Abrahamic theology is polluted and dragged through the mud with all this nonsense.

Better start obeying the first commandment.

Perhaps if you actually read the creed, in context, you might understand what the council meant?

[OldShepherd]

Originally that verse from Psalms referred to the coronation of King David.

That is not how the Jews understood it as recorded in the Targums, Aramaic translations of the O.T. before the Christian era.
Targum Psalm 45

1. For praise; concerning those who sit in the Sanhedrin of Moses, which was spoken in prophecy by the sons of Korah; a good lesson, and a psalm, and a thanksgiving.
2. My heart desires fine speech; I will speak my work to the king; the utterance of my tongue is quick, like the pen of a fluent scribe.
3. Your beauty, O King Messiah, is greater than the sons of men; the spirit of prophecy has been placed on your lips; because of this the Lord[25] has blessed you forever.
4. Gird your sword on your thigh, O champion;[26] your glory[27] and your brilliance is to kill kings as well as rulers.
5. And your brilliance is great; therefore you will succeed in mounting the horse[28] of the kingdom, by reason of faithfulness and truth and humility and righteousness; and the Lord will teach you to do fearful things with your right hand.
6. Your arrows are drawn to kill Gentile hordes; beneath you they will fall; and the sons[29] of your bow will be released into the heart of the enemies of the king.
7 The throne of your glory, O Lord,[30] lasts forever and ever; the scepter of your kingdom is an upright scepter.
8. Because you[31] have loved righteousness and hated wickedness – because of this the Lord your God has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your fellows.
9. Pure myrrh and aloe-wood and cassia – your garments are perfected, from the palaces paved with ivory below;[32] from me they will make you glad.
10. The provinces of the kingdom come to welcome you and to honor you, while the book of Torah is stationed at your right side, and written in gold[33] from Ophir.
11. Hear, O congregation of Israel, the Torah of his mouth, and see the wonders of his deeds, and incline your ear to the words of Torah, and you will forget the evil deeds of the wicked of your people, and the place of idols that you worshipped in the house of your father.
12. And then the king will desire your beauty; for he is your master and you will bow down to him.
13. And those who dwell in the fortress of Tyre will come with an offering,[34] and the rich Gentiles will seek your face at your sanctuary.
14. All the best and choicest sacrifices from the provinces, the treasuries of the kings that are hidden within, will they bring[35] for the priests whose clothing is chased with pure gold.
15. In their decorated garments they will offer their sacrifices before the king of the world, and the rest of their fellows who are scattered among the Gentiles will be brought in joy to you to Jerusalem.
16. They will be brought in joy and praise[36] and they will enter the temple of the king of ages.
17. In the place of your fathers will be the righteous, your sons; you will appoint them as leaders[37] in all the land.
18. At that time you will say, “We will invoke your name in every generation”; because of this the Gentiles who are converted will praise your name forever and ever and ever.

Footnotes
[25] The LORD: God.
[26] O champion: like a champion.
[27] Glory: splendor.
[28] Horse: throne.
[29] Sons: arrows.
[30] O LORD: O God in heaven.
[31] Because you: + O King Messiah.
[32] Paved with ivory below: translation uncertain.
[33] In gold: + in a splendid copy.
[34] Come with an offering: be coming to welcome.
[35] Will they bring: + sacrifices before the king and gifts.
[36] Praise: gladness.
[37] Leaders: rulers.

[smaneck]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]That is not how the Jews understood it as recorded in the Targums, Aramaic translations of the O.T. before the Christian era.
<snip>
3. Your beauty, O King Messiah,

Messiah means anointed one. *All* the Kings of Israel were anointed, and in that sense the Messiah.

[OldShepherd]

Messiah means anointed one. *All* the Kings of Israel were anointed, and in that sense the Messiah.

NO, ZERO, NONE ancient Israelite king was ever called "King Messiah." And the last verse does NOT apply to any ancient Israelite king.

[smaneck]

NO, ZERO, NONE ancient Israelite king was ever called "King Messiah." And the last verse does NOT apply to any ancient Israelite king.

Even King Cyrus who was the king of Persia, not Israel is called Messiah in book of Isaiah.

[OldShepherd]

Even King Cyrus who was the king of Persia, not Israel is called Messiah in book of Isaiah.

You are NOT paying attention. There was NEVER any ancient Israelite king who was called or referred to as "the King Messiah" as in the Targum Psalms.

[barnasha]

You are NOT paying attention. There was NEVER any ancient Israelite king who was called or referred to as "the King Messiah" as in the Targum Psalms.

isn't "King Messiah" nonsensical, or at least redundant, since a Messiah refers to the one being anointed (i.e. as king) ? Wouldnt it be "anointed king" ?

Solomon was anointed ("messiah"), we find mention of it explicitly in the bible (even though it would still be true otherwise, no doubt): http://bible.cc/1_kings/1-39.htm

[OldShepherd]

isn't "King Messiah" nonsensical, or at least redundant, since a Messiah refers to the one being anointed (i.e. as king) ? Wouldnt it be "anointed king" ?

Solomon was anointed ("messiah"), we find mention of it explicitly in the bible (even though it would still be true otherwise, no doubt): http://bible.cc/1_kings/1-39.htm

The Targum Psalms reads "O King Messiah" that is a title reserved exclusively for the coming messiah and according to Jews he has even yet to come.

[barnasha]

The Targum Psalms reads "O King Messiah" that is a title reserved exclusively for the coming messiah and according to Jews he has even yet to come.

if we were to translate it completely in English, wouldn't it be O King the Anointed?

[OldShepherd]

if we were to translate it completely in English, wouldn't it be O King the Anointed?

It is translated into English. There is no definite article between "king" and "Messiah." "king Messiah" ALWAYS refers to the coming Messiah, NEVER any ancient Israelite king.

[smaneck]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]That is not how the Jews understood it as recorded in the Targums, Aramaic translations of the O.T. before the Christian era.
[INDENT]Targum Psalm 45

I just realized you switched chapters on me. Acts was quoting Psalm 2 when it quoted the passage, "This day have I begotten thee." Now you are quoting Psalm 45.

[smaneck]

NO, ZERO, NONE ancient Israelite king was ever called "King Messiah." And the last verse does NOT apply to any ancient Israelite king.

The term King Messiah is Aramaic, not Hebrew. It was interpolated into the text and does not appear in the original period. No mention of Gentiles being converted either. Here's how it reads in the KJV.

45:1 My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

45:2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.

45:3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.

45:4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.

45:5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.

45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

45:7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

45:8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

45:9 Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.

45:10 Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house;

45:11 So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him.

45:12 And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour.

45:13 The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold.

45:14 She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee.

45:15 With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace.

45:16 Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

45:17 I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

The Targum does provide interesting evidence of how Judaism had changed by Jesus' time however.

[mudcake]

John was a simple Jewish fisherman, not a Greek philosopher, therefore his understanding of God and the Word, would be Jewish, not Greek.

Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra.” מאמר/memra which in Aramaic means “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.

In this citation, which is only representative not comprehensive, there are at least eighty examples where the name יהוה/YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with” מאמר/memra.” When John, the Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God.,” he was not saying anything strange or new.

Remember this is not a Trinitarian source, it is the Jewish Encyclopedia prepared by Jewish scholars showing the faith, beliefs, and practices of the ancient Jews. Some interesting quotes from the below article, all from the Targums, before the Christian era, note the parallels with the N.T..
“The Word brings Israel nigh unto God and [The Word] sits on [God’s] throne receiving the prayers of Israel.” cf. Re 3:21 Re 22:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“His Word has laid the foundation of the earth.” cf. John 1:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“So, in the future, shall The Word be the comforter.” cf. John 14:26, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“In The Word redemption will be found.” cf. Luke 21:28, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

“My Word shall be unto you for a redeeming deity.” cf. Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:15, N.T. ca. 70 AD.
More complete citation.

Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," [The Word] instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra [The Word]," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). " I will cover thee with My Memra, [My Word] " instead of "My hand " (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra [My Word] shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra, [The Word] " instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes "a sign between My Memra [My Word] and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra [His Word] has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, [The Word] not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra [The Word] brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" " (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). . . So, in the future, shall the Memra [The Word] be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra [My Word] shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).

The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra [The Word] the redemption will be found " (Targ. Zech. xii. 5).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

Jewish thought about the Memra of God in the targums and wisdom doctrine have nothing to do with the erroneous idea of God’s wisdom or Logos subsisting from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'person' along God Almighty, neither the idea that within God exists three distinct persons that form one divine being as conjectured in Trinitarian theology.

The Word of God did not subsisted as a distinct person alongside God Almighty according to the OT biblical history as some Trinitarians conjecture. I am very familiar with Memra (Aramaic) and/or Davar (Hebrew) theology as exemplified in the speculative and conjectural ancient rabbinical thought. It appears however you don’t understand these concepts and their usage within the Targums. THe Memra (Aramaic) and/or Davar (Hebrew) of God did not subsist as a distinct self conscious person alongside God Almighty.

In the Targums, the word of God, memra, is often substituted where the text of the bible speaks of God anthropomorphically. The Jews erroneously interpreted these anthropomorphic examples of God as resembling his creation, which is the first mistake they made. In erroneously comparing the anthropomorphic action of God to the similtudes of his creation, they conjectured a personified abstraction/concept of the divine presence and power of God to keep God from seeming to come too close with man and creation. It was a conjectural framework aimed to preserve God's transcendence. Do your reaserch Old Shepherd, the Memra/Debar was not conceived as a distinct 'hypostasis' or 'person' that subsisted alongside God Almighty, according to ancient rabbinical thought.

Trinitarians like Old Shepherd advance forth forth with a erroneous presumption that God's Word actually subsisted as a self conscious, self aware 'person' that conversed with God Almighty from eternity. OT biblical history knew nothing of the existence of God's Word that emanated from Himself that existed as a distinct divine 'person' identified as a 'Son of God'. An adherence to belief that God's Word subsisted as a divine 'person' alongside God almighty sharing the same essence of divinity is polytheism in the highest degee.

The idea that God's Word/Memra/Debar subisted from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'PERSON' alongsie God Almighty is an erroneous innovation conjectured by a sect of misguided Jews who professed to be so-called followers of Christ that marked the distinct mutation away from biblical monotheism.

Before Jesus appeared on earth, Wisdom/Logos was personified, when Jesus appeared on earth, the Wisdom/Logos was now erroneously literally interpreted in Jesus as pre-existing and subsisting from eternity as a distinct 'PERSON' alongside God Almighty. This is a manifestation of polytheism, not clarified biblical monotheism.

The Christian Christological experience and interpretation of Jesus as the actual pre-existing Word of God as a distinct 'PERSON' traces the Genesis of the erronesous transition and innovation of the Wisdom/Logos philosophical/conjectural mode of thought from personification of the Word to the interpretation of the Word as an actual distinct self conscious 'Person!' subsisting from eternity.

Jesus was not The Word of God, neither was the 'word of God' subsisting as a 'son of God' in OT biblical history..... Jesus was created by The Word of God.

"Behold! The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "BE". And he was. " (Qur’an 3:59).

What was personified in Greek/Jewish Wisdom/Logos/Memra philosophical modes of thought in OT biblical history - God's wisdom/Logos - was now erroneously interpreted literally as a distinct divine 'person' that subsisted from eternity, which consequently prepared the articulation and foundations for the dubious idea that 'one God' subsists as three distinct 'persons' that form one divine being.... REFER HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2435619&postcount=116) for further discussion regarding this point of contention and debate


Muddy....

[OldShepherd]

Jewish thought about the Memra of God in the targums and wisdom doctrine have nothing to do with the erroneous idea of God’s wisdom or Logos subsisting from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'person' along God Almighty, neither the idea that within God exists three distinct persons that form one divine being as conjectured in Trinitarian theology.

The Word of God did not subsisted as a distinct person alongside God Almighty according to the OT biblical history as some Trinitarians conjecture. I am very familiar with Memra (Aramaic) and/or Davar (Hebrew) theology as exemplified in the speculative and conjectural ancient rabbinical thought. It appears however you don’t understand these concepts and their usage within the Targums. THe Memra (Aramaic) and/or Davar (Hebrew) of God did not subsist as a distinct self conscious person alongside God Almighty.

Unsupported assertions and claims which do not address anything I posted..

In the Targums, the word of God, memra, is often substituted where the text of the bible speaks of God anthropomorphically. The Jews erroneously interpreted these anthropomorphic examples of God as resembling his creation, which is the first mistake they made. In erroneously comparing the anthropomorphic action of God to the similtudes of his creation, they conjectured a personified abstraction/concept of the divine presence and power of God to keep God from seeming to come too close with man and creation. It was a conjectural framework aimed to preserve God's transcendence. Do your reaserch Old Shepherd, the Memra/Debar was not conceived as a distinct 'hypostasis' or 'person' that subsisted alongside God Almighty, according to ancient rabbinical thought.

More meaningless argument that does NOT address what I posted.

Trinitarians like Old Shepherd advance forth forth with a erroneous presumption that God's Word actually subsisted as a self conscious, self aware 'person' that conversed with God Almighty from eternity. OT biblical history knew nothing of the existence of God's Word that emanated from Himself that existed as a distinct divine 'person' identified as a 'Son of God'. An adherence to belief that God's Word subsisted as a divine 'person' alongside God almighty sharing the same essence of divinity is polytheism in the highest degee.

The idea that God's Word/Memra/Debar subisted from eternity as a distinct self conscious 'PERSON' alongsie God Almighty is an erroneous innovation conjectured by a sect of misguided Jews who professed to be so-called followers of Christ that marked the distinct mutation away from biblical monotheism.

Before Jesus appeared on earth, Wisdom/Logos was personified, when Jesus appeared on earth, the Wisdom/Logos was now erroneously literally interpreted in Jesus as pre-existing and subsisting from eternity as a distinct 'PERSON' alongside God Almighty. This is a manifestation of polytheism, not clarified biblical monotheism.

The Christian Christological experience and interpretation of Jesus as the actual pre-existing Word of God as a distinct 'PERSON' traces the Genesis of the erronesous transition and innovation of the Wisdom/Logos philosophical/conjectural mode of thought from personification of the Word to the interpretation of the Word as an actual distinct self conscious 'Person!' subsisting from eternity.

Jesus was not The Word of God, neither was the 'word of God' subsisting as a 'son of God' in OT biblical history..... Jesus was created by The Word of God.

"Behold! The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "BE". And he was. " (Qur’an 3:59).

What was personified in Greek/Jewish Wisdom/Logos/Memra philosophical modes of thought in OT biblical history - God's wisdom/Logos - was now erroneously interpreted literally as a distinct divine 'person' that subsisted from eternity, which consequently prepared the articulation and foundations for the dubious idea that 'one God' subsists as three distinct 'persons' that form one divine being.... REFER HERE for further discussion regarding this point of contention and debate.

Since you did NOT address anything I said in any meaningful way, there is no need for me to address anything you posted, including linking to more of the same Islamic rant in another thread.

[OldShepherd]

I just realized you switched chapters on me. Acts was quoting Psalm 2 when it quoted the passage, "This day have I begotten thee." Now you are quoting Psalm 45.


My bad, but the same argument applies.

The term King Messiah is Aramaic, not Hebrew. It was interpolated into the text and does not appear in the original period. No mention of Gentiles being converted either. Here's how it reads in the KJV.

[ . . . ]
45:17 I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.

The Targum does provide interesting evidence of how Judaism had changed by Jesus' time however.

While I quoted the Targum Psalms which as I said was in Aramaic, the same term "king Messiah" is used in the Hebrew Talmud. "king Messiah" is a Jewish term whether spoken/written in Aramaic or Hebrew.

Verse 17 refers to the nations, non-Jews. Whether the Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or English it refers to non-Jews praising the king Messiah for ever and ever.

Your evidence that Judaism changed?

[smaneck]

My bad, but the same argument applies.

While I quoted the Targum Psalms which as I said was in Aramaic, the same term "king Messiah" is used in the Hebrew Talmud. "king Messiah" is a Jewish term whether spoken/written in Aramaic or Hebrew.

Verse 17 refers to the nations, non-Jews. Whether the Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or English it refers to non-Jews praising the king Messiah for ever and ever.

Your evidence that Judaism changed?


I'm suggesting that the very way in which the meaning of Psalm 45 changed from a reference to the David to a future Messiah. Also, the fixation with the demonic emerges just around the time of Christ. You notice all the demons running around the Gospels? Where were all those demons in Old Testament times? This is something which grows out of Judaisms contact with Zoroastrianism which occurred during the Hellenistic period. It is no accident that Magi (Zoroastrian priests, not kings) were said to have visited the Christ child.

warmest, Susan

[OldShepherd]

I'm suggesting that the very way in which the meaning of Psalm 45 changed from a reference to the David to a future Messiah.


You have yet to provide any evidence that Psalm 45 ever referred to David or any other ancient Israelite king.

Also, the fixation with the demonic emerges just around the time of Christ. You notice all the demons running around the Gospels? Where were all those demons in Old Testament times?
Jewish Encycloepdia - Demons in the Bible.

The demons mentioned in the Bible are of two classes, the "se'irim" and the "shedim." The se'irim ("hairy beings"), to which the Israelites sacrificed in the open fields (Lev. xvii. 7; A. V. "devils"; R. V., incorrectly, "he-goats"), are satyr-like demons, described as dancing in the wilderness (Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14; compare Maimonides, "Moreh," iii. 46; Vergil's "Eclogues," v. 73, "saltantes satyri"), and are identical with the jinn of the Arabian woods and deserts (see Wellhausen, l.c., and Smith, l.c.). To the same class belongs Azazel, the goat-like demon of the wilderness (Lev. xvi. 10 et seq.), probably the chief of the se'irim, and Lilith (Isa. xxxiv. 14). Possibly "the roes and hinds of the field," by which Shulamit conjures the daughters of Jerusalem to bring her back to her lover (Cant. ii. 7, iii. 5), are faunlike spirits similar to the se'irim, though of a harmless nature. The (Job v. 23. A. V. "stones of the field"), with which the righteous are said to be in league—obviously identical with, if not a corruption of, the (Mishnah Kil. viii. 5), explained in Yer. Kil. 31c as "a fabulous mountain-man drawing nourishment from the ground" (see Jastrow, "Dict.," and Levy, "Neuhebr. Wörterb." s.v. )—seem to be field-demons of the same nature. The wilderness as the home of demons was regarded as the place whence such diseases as leprosy issued, and in cases of leprosy one of the birds set apart to be offered as an expiatory sacrifice was released that it might carry the disease back to the desert (Lev. xiv. 7, 52; compare a similar rite in Sayce, "Hibbert Lectures," 1887, p. 461, and "Zeit. für Assyr." 1902, p. 149

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=245&letter=D

This is something which grows out of Judaisms contact with Zoroastrianism which occurred during the Hellenistic period.

Evidence? Zilch! Documentation? Zero! Substantiation? Zilch!

It is no accident that Magi (Zoroastrian priests, not kings) were said to have visited the Christ child.
Begging the question, and NO, NONE, ZERO evidence.

[37818]

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Psa 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

This use of the term "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection not his pre-existence.

As is the use of the term "firstborn" refers to His resurrection not His pre-existence as the Creator:

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
. . .
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body.
. . .

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. ++

Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Jesus' incarnation and resurrection is the beginning of what is to come the new heaven and earth after the judgment.

[barnasha]

Act 13:33 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Act+13%3A33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

This use of the term "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection not his pre-existence.


who told you that? never read about it in the bible or in the scripture jesus read from.

i can use the bible to disprove the same stuff you use it to prove. better to just stick to the facts and not defend any superscriptual dogma.

[Heterodoxus]

Provoker wrote:
The Nicean Creed is the product of a democratic vote between bishops of several opposing factions of Christianity. Since only one faction could be true Christianity, the false factions must have come about by pagan influences. Since the one doctrine which was common to virtually all the pagan religions of that time, and 1000 years before, was "the virgin born, dying rising, god man, saviour", it is only natural that the universal church which was spawned by the Nicean council would have that as it's key doctrine.
Other views are welcome:-)
I concur and add that, in the minds of the like-minded leaders and members in the Church that oversaw its development, approved, and propagate it, the Nicene Creed isn't heretical. It does, however, seem to be misconstrued and, consequently, misstated.

(My corrected version of the Nicene and Apostle's creeds, and an alternative "creed" for followers of Jesus' sayings and teachings, are available, free and upon request, by private e-mail.)

[barnasha]

Provoker wrote: I concur and add that, in the minds of the like-minded leaders and members in the Church that oversaw its development, approved, and propagate it, the Nicene Creed isn't heretical. It does, however, seem to be misconstrued and, consequently, misstated.

(My corrected version of the Nicene and Apostle's creeds, and an alternative "creed" for followers of Jesus' sayings and teachings, are available, free and upon request, by private e-mail.)

Remember, something is made heresy merely by having less votes than the alternative.

It would be heresy to have cried out to stop the crucifixion of Jesus, or to live in Salem 300 years ago and be against burning people at the stake.....

The nicene creed isn't heretical to the voice of the people, since it was basically voted on by a show of hands.

However, it is heretical to the theological principles of Jesus or Paul of Tarsus......

[smaneck]

Jewish thought about the Memra of God in the targums and wisdom doctrine have nothing to do with the erroneous idea of God’s wisdom or Logos subsisting from eternity[

So was the Qur'an created in time as the Mutazalite's assert?

[smaneck]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]You have yet to provide any evidence that Psalm 45 ever referred to David or any other ancient Israelite king.


[INDENT]Jewish Encycloepdia - Demons in the Bible.

The demons mentioned in the Bible are of two classes, the "se'irim" and the "shedim." The se'irim ("hairy beings"), to which the Israelites sacrificed in the open fields (Lev. xvii. 7; A. V. "devils"; R. V., incorrectly, "he-goats")

I don't think so. Devils doesn't fit the context in which the sacrificed he-goats appear in the Bible. How would the israelites go around catching them anyhow?


Evidence? Zilch! Documentation? Zero! Substantiation? Zilch!

Read the book of Tobias which names Zoroastrian demons.

[smaneck]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]You have yet to provide any evidence that Psalm 45 ever referred to David or any other ancient Israelite king.

I did some checking on this. It refers to Solomon, not David and was sung at one of his weddings.

[OldShepherd]

I did some checking on this. It refers to Solomon, not David and was sung at one of his weddings.

I guess I'm just supposed to roll belly up like a dead guppy and take your word for it?

[OldShepherd]

I don't think so. Devils doesn't fit the context in which the sacrificed he-goats appear in the Bible. How would the israelites go around catching them anyhow?

Read the Jewish source I quoted, then produce some credible, verifiable, historical evidence?

Read the book of Tobias which names Zoroastrian demons.

What is the book of Tobias and what makes you think it is credible, verifiable, historical evidence?

[Heterodoxus]

The Nicene Creed came as a responce to Arius ....I'd like to expand that thought to say that the Nicene Creed, as written, is largely a misstatement. But, hey, so is the Apostle's Creed.

Somewhere in my old research notes is a rewrite of these two popular creeds that easily yet clearly points out what these two popular creeds, IMO, should and should not say. If anyone's interested, shoot me a PM or e-mail. I'll dig it out, type it up, and send you a copy.

If you'd like me to print and fax it to you, sorry--my printer is broken, and I can't afford a new printer now.

[smaneck]

Read the Jewish source I quoted, then produce some credible, verifiable, historical evidence?

Read the entire passage. You can tell from the context.

[What is the book of Tobias and what makes you think it is credible, verifiable, historical evidence?

Tobias is one of the Apocrypha books of the Bible. As such it tells us a good deal about the beliefs of Jews during the Hellenistic period.

[Heterodoxus]

The nicene creed isn't heretical to the voice of the people, since it was basically voted on by a show of hands.

However, it is heretical to the theological principles of Jesus or Paul of Tarsus......To the theological principles of Jesus, agreed! To Saul/Paul, not so much.

[OldShepherd]

Read the entire passage. You can tell from the context.

IOW you cannot support the assertion you made in the previous post?

Tobias is one of the Apocrypha books of the Bible. As such it tells us a good deal about the beliefs of Jews during the Hellenistic period.

Quote me some? And OBTW I can't find it listed in any canon of the O.T.

[smaneck]

IOW you cannot support the assertion you made in the previous post?

Apparently you are not listening. The larger passage itself provides support for my assertion. I can't help it if you close your eyes and say, "You haven't proven anything."

[Quote me some? And OBTW I can't find it listed in any canon of the O.T.

No, that's because Protestants removed books from the Bible in the 16th century. But you will find it in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. But since you raise the issue, what gave Protestants the authority to remove books from the Bible?

But here is the reference to a Zoroastrian demon in Tobias:

"Because that she had been married to seven husbands, whom
Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed, before they had lain with
her."

(Deuterocanonical Apocrypha, Tobias)

Asmodeus is a corruption of the Avesta aēšma-daēva, the demon of wrath.