Nicene Creed, please clarify

[GeratTzedek]

genez, I just want to point out how you flipped the thread around. It began as, "I just want to have this explained to me." Now you are asking for arguments for it. Two very different things.

The phrase is a combination of many different parts of the Bible put together -- a way to synthesize these verses into one single phrase. The phrase itself is not there, just all the ideas behind it. For example, we know that G-d sent his only BEGOTTEN son. This gives us the concept of the RELATIONSHIP -- father to begotten son. In other places, we such as John 1, we find that this Son is both G-d and with G-d, from before creation. We know that if the Son existed in eternity, which is outside time, our concepts of before and after don't necessarily apply... so that His begotten sonship to the Father is no some past event, but a perpetual fact.

Do you see how this works? The creed isn't proof-texted. It's a conglomeration of the entire Bible.

The best way to understand the creed, if you want DEPTH, is to read the history behind it. It is a response to heresies. There are no shortcuts.

 

[GeratTzedek]

In the end, I don't believe the biblical position is that all three personas of the trinity are best described as I AM.

Marv

So if you don't accept Nicene theology, how can you comply with the forum rules? I don't see where you would be able to do much more here other than ask questions. You cannot advance your position here. Nor can you ask questions, then pretend not to hear the answers, and conclude by saying, Well I guess I'm right and you are wrong since you are unable to answer my questions.

Rules - Nicene Theology

The Nicene Theology forums are for discussion of orthodox Christian theology, as defined by the Nicene Creed. Topics which are ruled upon by the Creed (ie., the Trinitarian nature of God) are not up for discussion. While everyone is welcome to participate, and questions are fine, all debates should come from a Nicene perspective. There is to be no promotion of non-Nicene doctrines.

Christian doctrines which are do not adhere to the Nicene creed can be discussed in the Non-Nicene Theology forums.

 

[GenemZ]

genez, I just want to point out how you flipped the thread around. It began as, "I just want to have this explained to me." Now you are asking for arguments for it. Two very different things.

Is asking where it is found in Scripture asking for an argument? I just do not know where it is to be found in Scripture that Jesus was eternally begotten. I am sure it must be somewhere in Scripture. I just do not know where. I am not saying it does not exist in Scripture... That would be an argument.

The phrase is a combination of many different parts of the Bible put together -- a way to synthesize these verses into one single phrase. The phrase itself is not there, just all the ideas behind it.

I am well aware of that factor. For that is how we determine there is a Trinity.

For example, we know that G-d sent his only BEGOTTEN son. This gives us the concept of the RELATIONSHIP -- father to begotten son.

I understand that, and do not need additional Scripture to know where that is found in Scripture. Begotten, can also refer to being born in time to Mary. I am asking about being begotten eternally. Before the incarnation.

In other places, we such as John 1, we find that this Son is both G-d and with G-d, from before creation.

This is not to ask for an argument. It simply does not speak of being begotten eternally. It simply states the Word was existing Eternally.

We know that if the Son existed in eternity, which is outside time, our concepts of before and after don't necessarily apply... so that His begotten sonship to the Father is no some past event, but a perpetual fact.

Begotten usually implies coming into being. Yet? If if something is eternally existing? It had no beginning.

That is why I am confused over the wording, "eternally begotten." That is why I am also keeping an open mind to see what it is, that tells us he was eternally begotten. For my concept may not be a correct understanding of the word "eternally."

Do you see how this works? The creed isn't proof-texted. It's a conglomeration of the entire Bible.

Maybe someone else out there can show me the passages pertaining to being eternally begotten? I think you were covering something else, and just threw in begotten. Jesus was begotten in the flesh. The flesh was not eternally existing. Yet, his soul was eternally existing. The soul speaks of his humanity. For God is spirit, not soul.

I am not looking for an argument. But, it seems your approach could be leading to one. Simply because you are telling me what is an answer, is not answering my question.

I know the Son Eternally existed with the Father. Deity and Soul. He (The Lord) was Eternally existing with the Father.

I want to know where in Scripture it reveals being begotten eternally, before time. That's what I want to know. It must be in Scripture if the Church fathers concluded it is so. What did they use? That's what I am looking for.

The best way to understand the creed, if you want DEPTH, is to read the history behind it. It is a response to heresies. There are no shortcuts.

Now I will ask for a link, since no one here can answer my question. Any?

Thank you very much...

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[Oblio]

I am assuming that there is Scripture somewhere that implies the Son of God, who I know was eternally existing, was also begotten in eternity past.

It's in the Prologue of The Gospel according to St. John.

In the beginning was the Word ...

In Greek, this means that at the start of all time the Word already was there. This is testimony to His past eternity.

 

[Oblio]

And later John 3:16 states that the Father gave His only begotten Son. This is not talking about the Incarnation, but rather Him being begotten from the Divine fountainhead, that is, the Father.

 

[GenemZ]

It's in the Prologue of The Gospel according to St. John.

In the beginning was the Word ...

In Greek, this means that at the start of all time the Word already was there. This is testimony to His past eternity.

Does it say anything about being begotten?

You did not answer the question. You simply throw out a verse, and say "that does it" .. when it does nothing to clarify.

The early fathers must have had Scriptures pointing to the reality that the Son was actually begotten. No?

Christ is the Son of God eternally. It does not have to mean he has to be like a human son. Begotten - came into being at some point.

Being the Son may be descriptive of his function in the Trinity. As in, 'father to son.' Paul called himself Timothy's father. Yet, he was not his father. It was descriptive of order of authority.

That is what I want to find out. This is not to be argumentative. Its to find out what is meant so I can understand what the Creed is telling us to believe.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

And later John 3:16 states that the Father gave His only begotten Son. This is not talking about the Incarnation, but rather Him being begotten from the Divine fountainhead, that is, the Father.

Luke 3:38 (New American Standard Bible)
"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. "
​

​

Adam was created the son of God. Jesus (humanity) was not created, but begotten the Son of God.

I think something is confusing here...

In the OT, Christ was called the Lord.. Lord God ... before the incarnation.

Was he called the Son of God before, in the OT? If he was? Then that would answer the question. I have not been able to find it in the OR, except to "kiss the Son" which speaks prophetically of a yet to be future event. Not a past event.

Again... this is not to argue. I am simply not sure if you are giving me official Church doctrine, or what you think Scripture is saying. If what you said is true? It requires more information. Because the conclusion without more details is a leap as you presented it.

Many do not realize that the Bible says that Adam was the first(human) son of God. Angels were also called sons of God.

All were created sons of God.

Jesus is the uniquely begotten Son of God. The only one. No other. Not only begotten. But, uniquely begotten - God and woman.

Unless you tell me what you stated is official Church doctrine? I am assuming you are trying to supply me with an answer, but did not realize the other truths I just revealed to you.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[PaladinValer]

I am not looking to debate the Nicene Creed. Nor, do I want others to debate the Creed. I am looking for those who grew up in churches who follow the Creed to explain what certain parts mean.

Okay. Shoot!

Not only what they mean (which is usually stated in the Creed directly) - but to explain how those who wrote the Creed concluded what they did. What were the theological rationales used to declare the conclusions. That would give us all understanding, rather than simply repeating something by rote.

I can certainly do my best.

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)

How was he begotten? In what way? I know how Jesus was begotten in his humanity. But? What is that meaning? "Begotten before all ages."

To beget is to take upon the nature of the predecessor or of the parent. For example, I am begotten of John; I share in the nature of John as a human being.

Jesus the Christ is the Incarnation of God the Son, who is begotten of the Father. He is of the same nature of Father: God.

God the Son is eternally bogotten of the Father, which means He is always and at all times God. His begetting has always been, which would include before time and space.

Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)

What is that saying? Is it in reference to his birth in the manger? Or, is this about being begotten before all ages?

Jesus, who is the Incarnation of God the Son, while human, was not made at the moment of His Conception. He was Incarnated at that point as Jesus, but the Son has always been Divine, as thus so has Jesus, Who is the Son Incarnate.

 

[GenemZ]

To beget is to take upon the nature of the predecessor or of the parent. For example, I am begotten of John; I share in the nature of John as a human being.

Unless one is a clone one will also have a distinct nature of his own, as well. If that were not the case? There would be no distinction between the Father and the Son. Yet, as a human bing with your father? You share the distinction of being human. Just as the Lord was sharing in the nature of being God. (I refer to the preincarnate Christ as being called the Lord/Lord God in the OT).

Jesus the Christ is the Incarnation of God the Son, who is begotten of the Father. He is of the same nature of Father: God.

He also uniquely shares the nature of having humanity. For the Scriptures teach that only the Lord alone has a soul. Not the father. Not the Holy Spirit.

God the Son is eternally bogotten of the Father, which means He is always and at all times God. His begetting has always been, which would include before time and space.

If that's how the word is being used? Now I understand the sense in which it is being used.

Since Eternity is outside of the realms of time and space? A beginning would not be a beginning. Its like the Son always existed, but was simply out of sight. Then one day he showed up. Always was, but not revealed on the scene until he was - so to speak. Its not easy to translate Eternal qualities into the realm of time and space.

Jesus, who is the Incarnation of God the Son, while human, was not made at the moment of His Conception. He was Incarnated at that point as Jesus, but the Son has always been Divine, as thus so has Jesus, Who is the Son Incarnate.

Understanding that the Lord was both soul and Deity before the incarnation? Makes the incarnation very understandable. For a soul and body equals a man. Yet? Being also Deity? Made Jesus the unique God/Man. He could identify fully with both man and God simultaneously.

Thanks... that clears up some of the confusion the wording found in the Creed was causing.

Grace and peace, GeneZ​

 

[GeratTzedek]

genez,

My friend, you are going around in circles. Is or is not logos the Son of God? Is or is not logos G-d the Son? If this is the relationship, that of a son to a father, then begotten IS the appropriate word. And since G-d is unchanging, this begotten son-ship is not something that happened with the incarnation, but always was, is, will be.

And yes, you ARE arguing. Folks here are trying to offer you scriptures and reasonings and stuff, but you WILL NOT see it, because you decided in advance that we would not be able to show this to you. Your line of thought goes like this: if they haven't convinced me, then they aren't really answering my question. WRONGO BONGO. It happens all the time in life that people are answered, yet disagree with the answer.

If you disagree with the orthodox interpretation of "eternally begotten," that's your thing. But when you start insisting that we aren't answering your questions? That's when I roll my eyes and say, Fine, you don't WANT to have a dialogue, I won't force my conversation on you.

But lets not have any of this nonsense about you not arguing. Your questions are merely rhetorical.

I wish you well, may HaShem bless you with all grace and peace.

 

[GenemZ]

genez,

My friend, you are going around in circles. Is or is not logos the Son of God? Is or is not logos G-d the Son?

You are asking my opinion? Now, he is called the Son. I am speaking in reference to both OT and NT Scripture. In OT Scripture he is not referred to as the Son, other than prophetically. Christ is referred to in the OT as the Lord of Israel. Lord Jehovah. Or, "The Word of God."

Acts 13:32-33 (New International Version)​

"We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:​

" 'You are my Son;​

today I have become your Father. "​

​

After Jesus was raised up and was seated it was called "today." He became his son Before? I am not reading that. He was seen in OT Scripture as the Lord. He sometimes appeared as the Angel of Jehovah as a Christophony. But, in the last days as the Son!

Hebrews 1:1-3 (New International Version)​

"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, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.​

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."​

​

He is now called the Son of God.

In the 'last Days' he spoke to us by the Son. Not, before.

Some assume he was always called the Son of God. Yet, God always had a son. Calling the Lord "Son of God" does not appear in OT Scripture as far as I know.

If this is the relationship, that of a son to a father, then begotten IS the appropriate word. And since G-d is unchanging, this begotten son-ship is not something that happened with the incarnation, but always was, is, will be.

I agree. I think where we might disagree is the time line when the Lord became what is now called the Son.

This I learned only recently... The soul of Jesus pre-existed the incarnation.

Isaiah 1:14 (New International Version)​

"Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts​

my soul hates.​

They have become a burden to me;​

I am weary of bearing them."​

​

That was the Lord of Israel speaking.

As revealed, he was both Deity and Soul. That soul later became one with the body produced by Mary and the Holy Spirit to became as a man. That same Soul was eternally existing.



The humanity (soul) side of God existed eternally. But, not with a human body to become as the Son of God. Now he does.

And yes, you ARE arguing. Folks here are trying to offer you scriptures and reasonings and stuff, but you WILL NOT see it, because you decided in advance that we would not be able to show this to you.

They were not showing me the answer. The only one who did well was Paladin Valer. At least he explained how the word begotten was to be taken. The others were just quoting a verse and then telling me that answers my question. When it did not. For there was no correlation.

Your line of thought goes like this: if they haven't convinced me, then they aren't really answering my question. WRONGO BONGO. It happens all the time in life that people are answered, yet disagree with the answer.

Yes that does happen all the time. It just happened with me with someone else. But, in this case the passages they used did not even cover what they were trying to explain. It was not a true answer. It was ... "Here is this passsage covering one thing. Now, believe this about another thing."

TODAY he is called the Son of God! Yes?

YES!

Now he is. Yet, he was always God's son.

Was he called the Son of God in the OT? If he had been? Then he would have been eternally existing as the Son of God. BUT? The Lord God who was to become the Son of God was not eternally existing as the Son.... but as a son. There is a difference. One I am not sure you are seeing.

I learned the following some years back...

One did not become a son until he was adopted by his father. Yet, before he was? He was 'as a son.' Submitting to his father. That way was ancient thinking. Not what we have today.


The Sonship of Christ was based upon becoming the Son. Before then? He was as a son. The Father always being preeminent of the Godhead. Now? As the Son? He can act on behalf of the Father, as the Father. Right now the Father is on a Divine vacation of sorts. All Deity duties have been assigned presently to Christ in regards to running creation. Jesus no longer prays to the Father for answers. He is in charge as God over all creation. Because? He has been adopted by the Father as to be his only Son. That means his authority over all creation equals the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:23-25 (New International Version)​

"But each in his own turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."​

​

​

Read what that says,please.

Am I being argumentative because I am showing you an interesting aspect of God's plan the Scriptures are telling us?

The Father right now is on a Divine vacation and has delegated the position of what is the Father's to the Son. Why? The adoption had taken place! It says, "Today I have become your Father, and you my Son." Not before then. In ancient days that gave a son the right to run the estate as the father would.

If you disagree with the orthodox interpretation of "eternally begotten," that's your thing.

I have disagreed?

According to what Paladin Valer told me? I do agree. He explained what I asked for. The answers I was getting from others made me wonder if anyone knew if there was an answer.

But when you start insisting that we aren't answering your questions? That's when I roll my eyes and say, Fine, you don't WANT to have a dialogue, I won't force my conversation on you.

Several were answering my question in a manner that maybe you think was acceptable. But, I did not see them as answering my actual question.

Paladin Valer did answer my question.

The other ones had responses pertaining the Divine realties, but they not an answer to my question.

But lets not have any of this nonsense about you not arguing. Your questions are merely rhetorical.

What was I supposed to do?

I asked... " Will someone please explain this for me? "

When they gave responses that does not answer my question, and then declared they were the answer? And, they were not? Its being argumentative to inform them that it was not an answer for what I was asking? They were not answering my question.

Like I said, Paladin Valer did answer it.

Which goes to show. There was an answer.

An answer the others here were not giving.

Until he did?

Was I being argumentative because they were not giving the right answer? And. I would not settle for what they claimed was an answer? That's being argumentative? If it is? Then I was being argumentative. I had no idea it was.



Also.. if I can show something not seen before, which is to further clarify what the Creed states? Not to disprove these truths. But to clarifyin greater detail? That is being argumentative?



I was simply saying what I was getting was not an answer. When trying to show why it was not an answer? That is not disagreeing. Its just saying I was unable to accept what was offered because it did not answer the question.

In Christ, GeneZ​

 

[GeratTzedek]

There are things about G-d of which we are unaware or which we find incomprehensible. It doesn't make them untrue. That the Hebrew scriptures do not refer to Logos as "Son" doesn't mean this relationship did not exist.

The question becomes: did the nature of G-d change with the incarnation? If you are the sort to believe in a changing G-d, then you might be able to make an argument that "Son" happened at a point in time. However, if your the sort to believe in an eternal unchanging G-d, such a thing would go against His very nature; one would have to conclude in the eternal son-ship of Logos.

 

[GenemZ]

There are things about G-d of which we are unaware or which we find incomprehensible. It doesn't make them untrue. That the Hebrew scriptures do not refer to Logos as "Son" doesn't mean this relationship did not exist.

I am not saying it did not, either. I am just saying its assumed. What is assumed without Scripture can not be declared dogma. We do know Jesus is the Son of God by means of other Scriptures not found in the OT. With those we should not go beyond what is written, and only make dogma from what is declared.

The question becomes: did the nature of G-d change with the incarnation?

God's nature never changes. God's nature did not change when he spoke through the burning bush. God's means to express his nature did change. He was a column of smoke by day in the wilderness, and a column of fire by night in the camp. His nature did not change. Only the means for expressing himself to man has.

If you are the sort to believe in a changing G-d, then you might be able to make an argument that "Son" happened at a point in time.

The incarnation happened at a point of time. The one who entered the body to become as a man was eternally existing.

However, if your the sort to believe in an eternal unchanging G-d, such a thing would go against His very nature; one would have to conclude in the eternal son-ship of Logos.

I believe you are confusing his eternally existing Soul and Deity (Isaiah 1:14 + Psalm 11:5) with the means God made use of to express himself to man throughout time.

Hebrews 1:1-2
"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds/ages."
​

​

God's nature never changes.

But, his means to express his nature to men has changed.

It says the Son was an 'appointed' means for his expression. That means it was to happen at a point in time. The Son was God's means to express himself to us in a manner that reveals an exact representation of who and what God is. Expressed in a manner men can relate to. The one revealed through the Son is Eternally being. What the Son is expressing to us, God is.

Hebrews 1:3 (New International Version)
"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
​

It does not say that the Son is the radiance of his own glory.

"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being."
​

The Son is God's means of expressing himself to us! He is a representative. Yet?

All that emanates from the Son is God.

So?

When looking at the Son?

We are now looking at God!

Not simply a man. But, God expressing himself by means of a man who's volition is one with God's will. He has a will, for he is also fully man. Not a puppet.

The Son is God being expressed by means of the expression of his humanity. So, we who are human? Can relate to who and what God is in terms we can comprehend and grasp.

God does not require the means for expressing himself to men to be eternal.

The eternal God had been expressed by different means that did not have to be eternal in themselves. Was the burning bush eternal? Was the Temple where the Shekanah glory was manifested, eternal? Yet, God was Eternally being when he did express Himself through what was not eternal.

The burning bush was not Eternal. But, the words spoken through the bush were. The fact God chose to use a burning bush did not make God less Eternal in his expression of himself.



I hope that helps ...

In Christ, GeneZ
​

​

 

[Oblio]

The one who entered the body to become as a man was eternally existing.

Strictly speaking He did not enter a (the) body for there was no time that His flesh existed that was not homousios with His Divinity. At His conception He was fully man and fully God. This is critical to our salvation. Nor was He a Divine Spirit inhabiting a body. The body that wept, that laughed, that bled, that died, that Resurrected, that Ascended was fully God and fully man.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There are things about G-d of which we are unaware or which we find incomprehensible. It doesn't make them untrue. That the Hebrew scriptures do not refer to Logos as "Son" doesn't mean this relationship did not exist.

The question becomes: did the nature of G-d change with the incarnation? If you are the sort to believe in a changing G-d, then you might be able to make an argument that "Son" happened at a point in time. However, if your the sort to believe in an eternal unchanging G-d, such a thing would go against His very nature; one would have to conclude in the eternal son-ship of Logos.

Hi. Perhaps it is more comprensible to Judaism than it is to us poor confused "gentile Christ-ians" in YHWH's Christ.

Hebrews 8:13 in the to be saying `New/kainhn <2537>,' He hath made Old/pepalaiwken <3822> the former. The yet being aged/palaioumenon <3822> and being obsolete/ghraskon <1095> [is] nigh/egguV <1451> of disappearance/afanismou <854>

Revelation 1:3 Happy is he who is reading, and those hearing, the words of the prophecy, and keeping the things written in it--for the time [is] nigh/egguV <1451> !

Revelation 22:10 And he saith to me, `Thou mayest not seal the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time [is] nigh/egguV <1451> ;

 

[GeratTzedek]

Hi. Perhaps it is more comprensible to Judaism

Not at all. But Jews are much more comfortable with G-d being beyond our understanding than Western Culture. Jewish culture is more a culture of doing. There is knowing, but it comes from doing, not so much from the abstract reasoning of the Greeks.

I find that the Orthodox are more tolerant of mystery as well. I appreciate their reluctance to nail down things such as Real Presence into precise language.