Crises In Christology

[Daniel Martinovich]

How can Jesus be eternal and begotten at the same time?
1st John 5:1 Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loves him that begat loves him also that is begotten of him.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

John 1:........and the Word was God.....14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,.....
Isaiah 43:6 Thus saith the Jehovah the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Jehovah of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Revelation 1:
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:

 

[FireDragon76]

The term "begotten" is only analogous to human birth, when referring to the eternal begottennes of Jesus Christ.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The term "begotten" is only analogous to human birth, when referring to the eternal begottennes of Jesus Christ.

So your saying Jehovah the Word was not begotten until he became a man and was raised as a man by a heavenly Father? If so I wonder why so many people on this board cannot grasp that as the most common sense possibility; as far as doctrine is concerned? If this were the case then the term Son of God would apply in the same way?

 

[Tigger45]

The Son is eternally begotten in relation to the Father as the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding.

 

[Monk Brendan]

The Son is eternally begotten in relation to the Father as the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding.

Remember that "eternal" means "outside of time," which is itself a creation of God.

Read DE INCARNATIONE by St. Athanasius, available in English as ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD OF GOD from St. Vladimir's Press. It might even be available to read on line.

 

[Doug Melven]

Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Acts 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.


Jesus being begotten was a reference to His resurrection, not His birth as recorded in Matthew 1.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The Son is eternally begotten in relation to the Father as the Holy Spirit is eternally proceeding.

I don’t understand.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Remember that "eternal" means "outside of time," which is itself a creation of God.

Read DE INCARNATIONE by St. Athanasius, available in English as ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD OF GOD from St. Vladimir's Press. It might even be available to read on line.

I think for this discussion we should just stick to the idea of not having a beginning.

 

[Mantishand]

------

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Acts 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.


Jesus being begotten was a reference to His resurrection, not His birth as recorded in Matthew 1.

That seems like a bit of a stretch.
“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.”
‭‭

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Me thinks he was the "Angel of the Lord" before he was "begotten" in a human body.

John 1:........and the Word was God.....14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,.....
Isaiah 43:6 Thus saith the Jehovah the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Jehovah of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Revelation 1:
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
I think you would be shocked at how many scriptures there are like these.

 

[Dave-W]

Jesus being begotten was a reference to His resurrection, not His birth as recorded in Matthew 1.

No... It refers to something that happened in eternity past, way “before” creation.

 

[Dave-W]

Me thinks he was the "Angel of the Lord" before he was "begotten" in a human body.

Except His “human body” was the image the Godhead made man in:

“Let us make man in OUR IMAGE..”

That means He had a body BEFORE creation.

 

[TuxAme]

When we say that Jesus is begotten by the Father, we are saying that Jesus is of the same nature as Him. Consider what follows this phrase in the Nicene Creed:

born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

When we say that Jesus is begotten by the Father, we are saying that Jesus is of the same nature as Him. Consider what follows this phrase in the Nicene Creed:

born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.

Okay, I see that in the creed but don't necessarily see anything like that in the scripture. I don't disagree that Jesus is the "same nature" or substance. Nor do I disagree in any way shape or form that Jesus is Jehovah the Word, one with Jehovah the Almighty and Jehovah the Spirit. Further that these three titles are sometimes used interchangeably to describe three different persons as one God. I just don't see any declarations about Jehovah the "Father" begetting Jehovah the Word at some point in the eternal past in the sense of Jesus having a beginning. The only beginning I see is when Jehovah the Word became a man.

 

[truefiction1]

Okay, I see that in the creed but don't necessarily see anything like that in the scripture. I don't disagree that Jesus is the "same nature" or substance. Nor do I disagree in any way shape or form that Jesus is Jehovah the Word, one with Jehovah the Almighty and Jehovah the Spirit. Further that these three titles are sometimes used interchangeably to describe three different persons as one God. I just don't see any declarations about Jehovah the "Father" begetting Jehovah the Word at some point in the eternal past in the sense of Jesus having a beginning. The only beginning I see is when Jehovah the Word became a man.

The Eternal (as in without beginning) Word of God "became flesh". This means that He received a human nature in addition to His Divine nature. This happened at the moment (in history, or "in time") of His seedless conception inside of the ever-virgin Mary.

 

[truefiction1]

I just don't see any declarations about Jehovah the "Father" begetting Jehovah the Word at some point in the eternal past in the sense of Jesus having a beginning. The only beginning I see is when Jehovah the Word became a man.

"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)

This Scripture is understood to mean that the "Word", Who is also the "Son", is begotten of the Father, from eternity (without beginning).

 

[FireDragon76]

So your saying Jehovah the Word was not begotten until he became a man and was raised as a man by a heavenly Father? If so I wonder why so many people on this board cannot grasp that as the most common sense possibility; as far as doctrine is concerned? If this were the case then the term Son of God would apply in the same way?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying human language about God is only analogous to the reality of God. Analogies are not perfect, one-to-one relationships to what they describe.

We should not think of the Son being begotten of the Father being identical to human generation, especially in terms of some kind of beginning in time.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying human language about God is only analogous to the reality of God. Analogies are not perfect, one-to-one relationships to what they describe.

We should not think of the Son being begotten of the Father being identical to human generation, especially in terms of some kind of chronology or ordering in time.

Well I would agree with that in the sense of the question: “ Where did God come from.” However;
wouldnt that mean as far as this subject is concerned. It’s not comprehensible to human beings? Why are so many people so strident on their comprehension of it then.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well I would agree with that in the sense of the question: “ Where did God come from.” However;
wouldnt that mean as far as this subject is concerned. It’s not comprehensible to human beings? Why are so many people so strident on their comprehension of it then.

It's not fully comprehensible. It's considered a sacred mystery.

People are strident about it because they believe it is divinely revealed.