"begotten, not made"

Schuhart

This is just an honest question - I don't mean to start a debate on the validity of the Trinity, just to understand an aspect of the concept.

Looking at the Nicene Creed I think I'm right in saying the 'eternally begotten of the Father' statement is meant to communicate the belief that the Trinity was always a feature of God - i.e. before there was a creation, there was a Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Incidently, was that Son always Jesus, or is Jesus just a name to denote the post-incarnation Son?).

The phrase I know I don't get the point of is "begotten, not made". What is this communicating?

Barnabas

Schuart,

If I'm not mistaken the distinction between begotten not made in the creed is made to refute the Arian claim that 'there was a time when the Son was not' - i.e. there was a time when the Son did not exist. But the Council affirmed that the Son always existed in the Trinity because if he came into existence then he wouldn't be eternal and so he wouldn't be divine and therefore there wouldn't be a Trinity.
The begotten bit could be translated as generated. Unfortunately this might give the impression that this happened in time but we are forced to use human language to express it. the generation is not an event but an eternal reality. and so begotten not made means that the Son is the Father's Son for all eternity. A good way to look at it is as follows.: The Father is God. Now the word 'Father' implies the Son and vice versa. So if the Arians were right then if there was a time when the Son was not then there was a time when the Father was not and so there was a time when God was not. So the Council sought to affirm that the Son was equally God with the Father, i.e 'homousious', 'Consubstantial' or 'one in being' with the Father (the Clarification about the Holy Spirit would be finally worked out at the Council of Constnatinople in 381.

You are right to say that Jesus - The God Man - came into being at the Incarnation. The human nature which the Word assumed at the Incarnation is created. But the Son, (the Word) pre-exists the Incarnation. There's alot of philosophical notions involved here but basically the Person of the Word took a human nature for himself. He remains fully Divine and is also fully human. So Jesus is a Divine Person with a human nature and strictly speaking in a philosophical but real sense Jesus is not a human person but is a human being. Ask who Jesus is: the Word Incarnate, ask what Jesus is: Divine and human.

Don't know if that helps.

Barnabas

kelly1

Schuhart wrote:

This is just an honest question - I don't mean to start a debate on the validity of the Trinity, just to understand an aspect of the concept.

Looking at the Nicene Creed I think I'm right in saying the 'eternally begotten of the Father' statement is meant to communicate the belief that the Trinity was always a feature of God - i.e. before there was a creation, there was a Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Incidently, was that Son always Jesus, or is Jesus just a name to denote the post-incarnation Son?).

The phrase I know I don't get the point of is "begotten, not made". What is this communicating?

Hello Schuhart, if you're interested in understanding the nature of the Holy Trinity, I'd recommend an excellent book called "Theology for Beginners" by F.J. Sheed.

http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Beginners-Francis-Joseph-Sheed/dp/0892831243/sr=1-1/qid=1170155252/ref=sr_1_1/104-5804311-0727119?ie=UTF8&s=books

Regards,
Noel.

robindch

> Looking at the Nicene Creed I think I'm right in saying the 'eternally
> begotten of the Father' statement is meant to communicate the belief
> that the Trinity was always a feature of God - i.e. before there was a
> creation, there was a Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Yes, as Barnabas points out, the Nicene creed was developed at Nicaea to counter the Arian heresy and the creed contains a few buried nuggets whose meaning is less clear today than they were 1700 years ago. The Arian Heresy basically said that (a) Jesus and god were different beings and that (b) Jesus had been created by god at some point, and by implication, there was a time when Jesus didn't exist, and that Jesus was therefore in some sense inferior or subservient to god.

The Nicene Creed rejected these heretical beliefs by asserting (wrt 'a' above) that Jesus was "of one being" with god and (wrt 'b') was "eternally begotten" (ie, always existed) and was "begotten, not made" (ie, was the fruit of god's loins and was therefore equal to god).

In theological terms, the Nicene creed asserted "homoousion" (Jesus and god are made from the same substance), while the Arians asserted "homoiousion" (Jesus and god are made from similar substances). The extra 'i' is very important

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> Looking at the Nicene Creed I think I'm right in saying the 'eternally
> begotten of the Father' statement is meant to communicate the belief
> that the Trinity was always a feature of God - i.e. before there was a
> creation, there was a Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Yes, as Barnabas points out, the Nicene creed was developed at Nicaea to counter the Arian heresy and the creed contains a few buried nuggets whose meaning is less clear today than they were 1700 years ago. The Arian Heresy basically said that (a) Jesus and god were different beings and that (b) Jesus had been created by god at some point, and by implication, there was a time when Jesus didn't exist, and that Jesus was therefore in some sense inferior or subservient to god.

The Nicene Creed rejected these heretical beliefs by asserting (wrt 'a' above) that Jesus was "of one being" with god and (wrt 'b') was "eternally begotten" (ie, always existed) and was "begotten, not made" (ie, was the fruit of god's loins and was therefore equal to god).

In theological terms, the Nicene creed asserted "homoousion" (Jesus and god are made from the same substance), while the Arians asserted "homoiousion" (Jesus and god are made from similar substances). The extra 'i' is very important

Plus, the first version had an anathema at the end:

"[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

I think that’s clearer - thanks for all the replies. I take it that, put simply, the phrase is meant to emphasize that idea that no ‘one’ of the three is (I’m trying to think of a commonsense word other than ‘essentially’ and failing) either separate to the others or made of different stuff.

The concept is vaguely reminiscent of Hegel (not that I’m pretending to know much about Hegel). But it does call to mind that kind of dialectical thinking – i.e. a concept of nothing suggests a concept of something, and the existence of two concepts allows an idea of synthesis. That’s not necessarily Father, Son and Holy Spirit – but its how I’m visualising this idea.

Barnabas

Schuart,

You're at the limits of imagination and linguistics when you try to define who or what the Trinity is. but the good news is that you are in good compnay. As St. Augustine famously said about knowledge of God: Sit comprehendis non est Deus! If you understand it then it isn't God! (excuse my Latin - may not be exactly up to scratch) But the fun is in the grappling with it!

Barnabas

JimiTime

Indoctrination! Don't you just love it. Add some catchy quote about how 'if you understand it its not God', and you got yourself a following.:(

robindch

Can somebody explain, please, what exactly's the point in believing (or having to believe) something that you don't understand? It seems a bit pointless to me.

JimiTime

Schuhart wrote:

The phrase I know I don't get the point of is "begotten, not made". What is this communicating?

They are trying to peddle the idea of a 'tri-god', so they have to explain why The Son is 'begotten' but at the same time existed as the same being eternally. But no matter how many ways they put it, begotten means: To Father or sire, Or, 'to procreate or generate'. Now they can't remove from scripture the fact that the Son is Beggoten of The father, so they make a hall of mirrors to distract. But we are all sons of the father no? Yes, but we are not begotten! The only thing Begotten is his Son Jesus. Jesus came directly from Our Father, before the creation of the earth and heavens. All creation then was performed through The Son as stated in John chapter 1. This quite simply explains how Jesus is Gods 'only begotten son'. Of course trinitarians will argue this tooth and nail. Bring on the mirrors.:)

Barnabas

Jimi,
If the Son is not eternal then the Father is not eternal or to put it another way the Father became a Father and so God has potentiality, i.e. can be better than he already is. I think God by definition means perfect being which can't be improved upon.
Is your version of things that God (the Father - only he is not yet a father) one day deciding to beget a Son? If this is so then being Father is something accidental to him and not essential. For those of us who believe in a trinity of persons (not tri-god as you misrepresent it) the Fatherhood of the Father is something essential to him. If he wer not Father he would not be.

If it appears to you that we are trying to indoctrinate anyone into believing the Trinity then the same criticism could be levelled at you. for as much as we affirm the Trinitarian nature of God - you affirm the opposite.

How does a monadic God love us? St. John's affirmation that God is love seems to make no sense if there is no Trinity since God as a solitary monad would need to create something to love (since love of himself for all eternity would be rather narcissistic and not anything that we would call love). Therefore you end up saying that love is something accidental to God also. But if he is a Trinity that is united in love from all eternity then the love which he pours out on us is not something new but the outpouring of that love, which passes between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit eternally, on us his creatures or to put it another way, the allowing of us creatures to share in that exchange of love.

As for the fact of understanding it. While it is true that the mystery of the Trinity is a mystery - mystery does not mean that we can say nothing about it. there's quite a lot that has been said about God down through the centuries. What Augustine was saying was not: you can't understand it so don't try. he is stating the obvious fact that since God exists at a level beyond our experience and is so beyond any concepts we can form then there will come a time when our minds will just have to admit that they can go no further.
Very often the word reason or rational is used in discussions about God.. The problem with this terminology brings about alot of misunderstandings. I can't speak for the other denominations in Christianity but when the Catholic Church uses the word reasonable or rational it doesn't mean that something can be taken apart scientifically and examined, conquered by the human mind in a sense, which is what a scientist would probably intend when he speaks of something being reasonable. The same word has two different meanings. When the Church uses these words it means that it does not run contrary to reason.
When it says that God's existence is reasonable, or that the Trinity is reasonable it does not mean that it can be understood, put under the microscope, taken apart and examined. It means that it is consonant with reason. Because though Science might reason away the necessity of having God as part of the equation of the how and why things work. it can't assert from this that therefore God doesn't exist. Or at least I can't see how it could make that leap. I may not need God in my theory of how things work but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. So it is not contrary to reason to believe that God exists.

But I think I'm off the topic quite a bit with this.

Barnabas

JimiTime

Barnabas wrote:

Jimi,
If the Son is not eternal then the Father is not eternal or to put it another way the Father became a Father and so God has potentiality, i.e. can be better than he already is. I think God by definition means perfect being which can't be improved upon.

God is eternal. When the Son came he became The Father, so before The Son he was still God. I am a man, I have the potential of being a father, but have not yet become one. I am still a man however. We refer to God as the Father, as he is the father of creation. Before creation he was still God.

Is your version of things that God (the Father - only he is not yet a father) one day deciding to beget a Son? If this is so then being Father is something accidental to him and not essential. For those of us who believe in a trinity of persons (not tri-god as you misrepresent it) the Fatherhood of the Father is something essential to him. If he wer not Father he would not be.

First of all, whatever spin you put on it you do believe in a tri-god. You believe that The Father, Son and holy spirit are seperate entities with the same authority, that means you give all equal worship. Call it a Godhead or whatever, its still 3 different persons worshipped as one tri-god. As for Fatherhood being essential to God. Why is it? Where do you get this notion?

If it appears to you that we are trying to indoctrinate anyone into believing the Trinity then the same criticism could be levelled at you. for as much as we affirm the Trinitarian nature of God - you affirm the opposite.

I implied that many have been indoctrinated. To the the degree that I've been accused of not being a 'real' christian by trinitarians because I have not accepted the doctrine of the trinity. As far as I can tell, I drew my conclusions from the scriptures, not from the council of Nicea.

How does a monadic God love us? St. John's affirmation that God is love seems to make no sense if there is no Trinity since God as a solitary monad would need to create something to love (since love of himself for all eternity would be rather narcissistic and not anything that we would call love).

What a ridiculous point! First of all, you must love yourself. Love is not narcissistic. If you believe that to love oneself is, then you need to find out what Love is.

Therefore you end up saying that love is something accidental to God also. But if he is a Trinity that is united in love from all eternity then the love which he pours out on us is not something new but the outpouring of that love, which passes between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit eternally, on us his creatures or to put it another way, the allowing of us creatures to share in that exchange of love.

So once again a non-point. You base Love on other people, thats reciprical love. Love is not exclusive to 'loving others'.

As for the fact of understanding it. While it is true that the mystery of the Trinity is a mystery - mystery does not mean that we can say nothing about it. there's quite a lot that has been said about God down through the centuries. What Augustine was saying was not: you can't understand it so don't try. he is stating the obvious fact that since God exists at a level beyond our experience and is so beyond any concepts we can form then there will come a time when our minds will just have to admit that they can go no further.

In fairness, your original quote stated, 'if you understand it, its not God'. Now I really don't care about what Augustine or any of those type of men say, the scriptures are enough to reason with, so I wont comment any further on him.

All and all we can disect and argue, but its still all smoke and mirrors. You are locked into the catholic faith, you accept them as the yielders of the truth. I don't, so I read scripture and pray with fewer pre conceptions, on what I 'must' believe. To go back to an earler point, that is why I would say that you are indoctrinated, and I am not. I may have understandings that are wrong, but its not because I have been told to believe them.

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

They are trying to peddle the idea of a 'tri-god', so they have to explain why The Son is 'begotten' but at the same time existed as the same being eternally. But no matter how many ways they put it, begotten means: To Father or sire, Or, 'to procreate or generate'. Now they can't remove from scripture the fact that the Son is Beggoten of The father, so they make a hall of mirrors to distract. But we are all sons of the father no? Yes, but we are not begotten! The only thing Begotten is his Son Jesus. Jesus came directly from Our Father, before the creation of the earth and heavens. All creation then was performed through The Son as stated in John chapter 1. This quite simply explains how Jesus is Gods 'only begotten son'. Of course trinitarians will argue this tooth and nail. Bring on the mirrors.:)

jimi: Jesus is both God and man. We have shown you umpteen references to Jesus' deity. There is no smoke and mirrors. Jesus' humanity was begotten by the Father.

No Christian will argue that Jesus was a man. Bu at the same time He is God. His humanity began at conception and was finished at the crucifixion, His deity always has been and always will be.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

jimi: Jesus is both God and man. We have shown you umpteen references to Jesus' deity. There is no smoke and mirrors. Jesus' humanity was begotten by the Father.

You've shown me squat! The stupidity and lack of thought in a comment like, 'Jesus' humanity was begotten by the Father.' Think! There is smoke and mirrors, any lie needs more lies to back it up. Thus The Catholic church, 'added' a scripture in John to prove the trinity. They took it out when it was obvious that it shouldn't be there. Doesn't that tell you something about the trinity 'Lie'. You 'are' indoctrinated and programmed. Part of the problem in being programmed is that you don't realise it, but you certainly are!

No Christian will argue that Jesus was a man. Bu at the same time He is God. His humanity began at conception and was finished at the crucifixion, His deity always has been and always will be.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! Jesus came from The Father, The Father is God, The Son is not the Father of Creation, The Father is. The Son is his only begotten son, what does 'only' begotten mean. Its as plain as the nose on your face! No wonder people find 'christianity' so easy to pick apart, its full of this type of rubbish. I find myself on a daily basis having to repair the damage that this drivel does to Christs reputation. You accept the trinity because, you are told its part of the package. No Other Reason. Give me any line you like about, 'I've met him' etc, and I'll call you decieved, or a liar. Wake up! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

< Scream edited by Asiaprod>

Scofflaw

@JimiTime

Could we have a slightly shorter scream, please?


cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

You've shown me squat! The stupidity and lack of thought in a comment like, 'Jesus' humanity was begotten by the Father.'

Careful here.

JimiTime wrote:

Thus The Catholic church, 'added' a scripture in John to prove the trinity. They took it out when it was obvious that it shouldn't be there.

Huh, backup info on this comment.

JimiTime wrote:

Doesn't that tell you something about the trinity 'Lie'. You 'are' indoctrinated and programmed. Part of the problem in being programmed is that you don't realise it, but you certainly are!

You know Jimi, I have had discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses many times in the past. The programming there is complete, theyare not allowed to read other commentaries other than their own churches. My church nor AFAIK the Catholic church places such a prohibition on the examination of scripture and commentaries.


Jesus was a man. You have absolutely no argument from me or anyone else on that fact.
You stated: You accept the trinity because, you are told its part of the package. No Other Reason.
But, I accept the trinity because of the following:

John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.


John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" -- which means, "God with us."

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope -- the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Philippians 2:5-6 [5] Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: [6] Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 19:7 The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

I can go on, if you'd like? Barnabas, can you add to this?

Barnabas

Jimi,
Point taken about love. It wasn't very well made.
In doing so I was trying to use natural reason to reach something which as I have said in other posts cannot be attained by natural reason. The knowledge that God is a Trinity can only be reached through faith, i.e. because it is revealed. (Of course I realise that you don't think it is part of what is revealed.)
So well done in picking up my mistake.

As regards other things though....

The Council of Nicaea is swept quickly aside by you as of little or no imprtance. But to hold that the bible is enough for you means subscribing to early Church Fathers, Synods and Councils which decided (not without much heated debate) what the Bible in fact was, i.e. what books were or were not to be used.

The link below gives a brief history of the formation of the Bible. I think the site is a little too harsh on Protestantism, so apologies beforehand, but the historical details do tell how the Bible we have and use today came about.

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

Like Brian I would like to ask what you meant by the Catholic Church adding/subtracting from the Bible so as to back up the case for the Trinity.

Also what do you mean by the 'Catholic Church' since the only Church that existed for the first millenium was the 'Catholic' Church (meaning universal and in communion). The Division between Catholic, Orthodox and the various Protestant Churches and denominations is a product of the second millenium. Before that there was by and large one Catholic Church. The Catholic church today sees itself as in continuity with that Church, as does the Orthodox Church and presumably the mainstream Protestant Churches would make the same claim. Since if they can prove that then they would be able to prove that they were the Church intended by Christ.

Don't mean to be polemic in all this but I would just like clarity on what you are saying.

Barnabas

P.S. Christianity does not hold that Jesus' humanity was begotten by the Father. We hold that his Divinity is begotten of the Father. His Divinity is why we worship him, not his humanity. I would presume that the reason some Christians have accused you of not being Christian is precisely because you do not worship Christ.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

Careful here.

The lack of thought in a comment like, 'Jesus' humanity was begotten'. Is that better?

Huh, backup info on this comment.

Look up anything on the Johannine Comma. I did say it was added by the CC in my earlier post, but on inspection it did not come from the CC hierarchy, but from certain spurious translations of the scriptures in the middle ages.

Thats not important anyway. The fact that someone found the need to do it suggests smoke and mirrors, and calls into question why someone felt they had to do such a thing to defend the trinity lie.

You know Jimi, I have had discussions with Jehovah's Witnesses many times in the past. The programming there is complete, theyare not allowed to read other commentaries other than their own churches. My church nor AFAIK the Catholic church places such a prohibition on the examination of scripture and commentaries.

Who cares about jehovahs witnesses, what have they got to do with anything

Jesus was a man. You have absolutely no argument from me or anyone else on that fact.

Jesus was Gods 'only begotten' son. He is the only being directly from gods loins so to speak. he existed before the creation of the heavens and earth, but keeping with the meaning of 'begotten' and the fact that he is 'son' of God, he is not God himself. 'You will hear the truth been spoked through the mouths of babes'. thats how simple it is.

Daddy to his 8 year old: Begotten means, to generate, or to father or sire. Jesus is begotten of God, what does that mean.
8 year old: Jesus came from God.
Daddy: No, it means Jesus is God.
8 year old:

Doesn't sound like the trinity could ever come from a babe.

You stated: You accept the trinity because, you are told its part of the package. No Other Reason.
But, I accept the trinity because of the following:

John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.


John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Matthew 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" -- which means, "God with us."

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope -- the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Philippians 2:5-6 [5] Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: [6] Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

John 19:7 The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped

Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

I can go on, if you'd like? Barnabas, can you add to this?

No, you believe the trinity, because you have been told to, and the scriptures above have been mis-used to show why you should believe it. Take the whole book in context, actually don't even take the book. Just common sense. Father - Son. Word was with God. the Father is greater than I. The Father is God and Christ is his only begotten son. Why confuse and complicate it. Its that simple!

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

@JimiTime

Could we have a slightly shorter scream, please?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh get a life. moderater wannabe:p

JimiTime

Barnabas wrote:

The knowledge that God is a Trinity can only be reached through faith, i.e. because it is revealed. (Of course I realise that you don't think it is part of what is revealed.)

Faith in what, or who?

The Council of Nicaea is swept quickly aside by you as of little or no imprtance. But to hold that the bible is enough for you means subscribing to early Church Fathers, Synods and Councils which decided (not without much heated debate) what the Bible in fact was, i.e. what books were or were not to be used.

Actually, that has little bearing. Christs message is clear, it would not have taken a genius to know that certain writings would have been against his message. God would have made sure the important message was preserved with or without the council. Jews would have kept the hebrews scriptures, and Christs message was aurally passed by the apostles and disciples. I'm sure this is why there was such a hoo haa about the trinity. Some believed it was not in line with Christs teachings but the lie won. the great thing was that even though the lie won out, the scriptures were preserved for people to dicern for themselves. Most accept what their religious order tell them and so go into a state of spiritual sleep, getting medicated on their religions doctrine.

The Division between Catholic, Orthodox and the various Protestant Churches and denominations is a product of the second millenium. Before that there was by and large one Catholic Church. The Catholic church today sees itself as in continuity with that Church, as does the Orthodox Church and presumably the mainstream Protestant Churches would make the same claim. Since if they can prove that then they would be able to prove that they were the Church intended by Christ.

You really think Christ cares about the continuity of a religious order? A tree will be known by its fruit. the fruits of the church through the years have been nothing short of rotten. Crusades, corruption, indulgences, nepetism, idolotry etc. Christ wants people to love each other and to have faith in him as our saviour and his Fathers sovreignty, not belong to a religious order.

P.S. Christianity does not hold that Jesus' humanity was begotten by the Father. We hold that his Divinity is begotten of the Father.

The Father begetting anything to the Son implies that The Father is greater than the son.

His Divinity is why we worship him, not his humanity. I would presume that the reason some Christians have accused you of not being Christian is precisely because you do not worship Christ.

I am a Christian because i try to 'follow' Christ. I worship as he did, his Father, God almighty. Yehowah, let his name be sanctified. To call worshipping Jesus, 'christianity', is another piece of rotten fruit!

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

The lack of thought in a comment like, 'Jesus' humanity was begotten'. Is that better? !

The careful here comment relates to the following:
The stupidity and lack of thought in a comment like

JimiTime wrote:

Look up anything on the Johannine Comma. I did say it was added by the CC in my earlier post, but on inspection it did not come from the CC hierarchy, but from certain spurious translations of the scriptures in the middle ages.!

You're not giving much backup to the claim of it being an addition.

JimiTime wrote:

Thats not important anyway. The fact that someone found the need to do it suggests smoke and mirrors, and calls into question why someone felt they had to do such a thing to defend the trinity lie..!

The need to do what. You're being very vague.

JimiTime wrote:

Who cares about jehovahs witnesses, what have they got to do with anything..!

Jehovah's Witnesses make the exact same claims that you do. I care about JW's as I care about all people. They also use the same arguments that you are using. Except the johannine comma bit.

JimiTime wrote:

Jesus was Gods 'only begotten' son. He is the only being directly from gods loins so to speak. he existed before the creation of the heavens and earth, but keeping with the meaning of 'begotten' and the fact that he is 'son' of God, he is not God himself. 'You will hear the truth been spoked through the mouths of babes'. thats how simple it is.

Daddy to his 8 year old: Begotten means, to generate, or to father or sire. Jesus is begotten of God, what does that mean.
8 year old: Jesus came from God.
Daddy: No, it means Jesus is God.
8 year old:

Doesn't sound like the trinity could ever come from a babe.:..!

No it didn't; came from God.

JimiTime wrote:

No, you believe the trinity, because you have been told to, and the scriptures above have been mis-used to show why you should believe it. Take the whole book in context, actually don't even take the book. Just common sense. Father - Son. Word was with God. the Father is greater than I. The Father is God and Christ is his only begotten son. Why confuse and complicate it. Its that simple!

No I understand God to be Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit because scripture says so, based on all the verses quoted above. I understand Jesus to be deity because He claimed to be deity.
I was not raised Catholic so what the Catholic church says has never had a direct influence on my scriptural interpretations. I was raised Anglican, I reject what they have to say about sexuality, because it disagrees with what the Bible says.

All of my theology comes direct from the Bible. Jesus is God, because He said He is. The apostles recognized Him as such.

JimiTime

You know what, if you want the truth you'll find it. The trinity does not need scriptures etc to disprove it. All it needs is honesty of heart and common sense. Much like creation, In fact i find it very similar. Common sense and natural logic suggests we were created. This debate is much like arguing with atheist evolutionists. There's lots of 'evidence' and theory, but its very foundation is completely illogical.

And a point of note, I don't know if you were just trying to be difficult, but my point about the trinity coming from babes, meant that it doesn't sound like it could be spoken of by babes or understood, as a babe would see things plainly.

Jehovah's Witnesses make the exact same claims that you do. I care about JW's as I care about all people. They also use the same arguments that you are using. Except the johannine comma bit.

They also believe they are Gods witnesses on earth, and I resent your associating me with them.

robindch

> Common sense and natural logic suggests we were created. This debate is much like arguing with atheist evolutionists.
> There's lots of 'evidence' and theory, but its very foundation is completely illogical.

And common sense and natural logic, as you use them, suggest that the earth is flat

Never ceases to amaze me that the less people know about evolution, the more they get over-excited about it!

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

They also believe they are Gods witnesses on earth, and I resent your associating me with them.

With regard to JW's, you are using the exact same arguments that they use to defend the theology regarding Christ's no-deity status. You may resent me associating you with them, but you are bringing yourself in line with their theology.

As a Christian, we are all to be a witness to Him on earth.

Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

There's lots of 'evidence' and theory, but its very foundation is completely illogical.

Yeah, scientists and their evidence, they need to get a life. I mean what kind of sad git backs up his claims with evidence, instead of self-affirming natural logic?

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote:

This debate is much like arguing with atheist evolutionists. There's lots of 'evidence' and theory, but its very foundation is completely illogical.

Many things about faith are completely illogical :rolleyes:

Yeah, evidence is totally illogical :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Thank you Brian.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

With regard to JW's, you are using the exact same arguments that they use to defend the theology regarding Christ's no-deity status. You may resent me associating you with them, but you are bringing yourself in line with their theology.

I do not bring myself in-line with 'their' theology. I bring myself in-line with what I see. If that happens to be similar to another group, so be it. I may have views that are agreeable with many sects, but it doesn't mean I should be associated with them. I may be agreeable on many levels with JW's. I may be agreeable on many levels with you, but thats totally irrelavent.

As a Christian, we are all to be a witness to Him on earth.

I wholeheartedly agree. The point about the JW's is that they believe its exclusive to them. Now can we stop the JW comparrisons as they are completely irrelavent.

micfur

Barnabas wrote:

Jimi,

The Council of Nicaea is swept quickly aside by you as of little or no imprtance. But to hold that the bible is enough for you means subscribing to early Church Fathers, Synods and Councils which decided (not without much heated debate) what the Bible in fact was, i.e. what books were or were not to be used.

The link below gives a brief history of the formation of the Bible. I think the site is a little too harsh on Protestantism, so apologies beforehand, but the historical details do tell how the Bible we have and use today came about.

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

Like Brian I would like to ask what you meant by the Catholic Church adding/subtracting from the Bible so as to back up the case for the Trinity.

Also what do you mean by the 'Catholic Church' since the only Church that existed for the first millenium was the 'Catholic' Church (meaning universal and in communion). The Division between Catholic, Orthodox and the various Protestant Churches and denominations is a product of the second millenium. Before that there was by and large one Catholic Church. The Catholic church today sees itself as in continuity with that Church, as does the Orthodox Church and presumably the mainstream Protestant Churches would make the same claim. Since if they can prove that then they would be able to prove that they were the Church intended by Christ.

Don't mean to be polemic in all this but I would just like clarity on what you are saying.

Barnabas

P.S. Christianity does not hold that Jesus' humanity was begotten by the Father. We hold that his Divinity is begotten of the Father. His Divinity is why we worship him, not his humanity. I would presume that the reason some Christians have accused you of not being Christian is precisely because you do not worship Christ.

Splitting religions by splitting hairs.