Reconciling "begotten" and "eternally"

[Martinius]

I was talking to Younglite.

Pardon me for contributing a post to MY OWN THREAD. I had not realized you had taken it over. I will try to do better in the future.

What is the demonstration for this?

Referring to the original conversation of four years ago, it has to do with the accepted meanings of the two words and the inability of anyone that I am aware of, including the Church's theologians and the Church's Catechism, to adequately explain how the two terms can be used together in describing the origins of The Son of God. After approximately 1700 years, one would think that a rational explanation would have been found...or the terminology changed to better reflect the theology.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Martinius:

I did just start a thread entitled "When was Jesus begotten?" in the Unorthodox Theology section of this forum. If you would like to read my comments and possibly participate in the thread, then you can do so here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7605535/#post58947139

Thanks.

This was actually a great thread GW posted four years ago

 

[younglite]

Pardon me for contributing a post to MY OWN THREAD

To be fair, Martinius, I think he wasn't telling you not to contribute, but that you thought he was talking to you in your previous response about controversial theology. He was addressing me.

You aren't allowed to speak about this outside of controversial theology (I guess that's the new name for unorthodox) because it contradicts the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

I would argue that it doesn't, but I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Martinius]

To be fair, Martinius, I think he wasn't telling you not to contribute, but that you thought he was talking to you in your previous response about controversial theology. He was addressing me.

I should have been more clear about why I was responding. My initial concern was that the thread would be closed due to the change in topic, or that it would be moved to "Unorthodox Theology", so was trying to get it back to the original question.

I had forgotten about it and the related thread until someone found it and brought it current.

 

[Cappadocious]

Pardon me for contributing a post to MY OWN THREAD. I had not realized you had taken it over. I will try to do better in the future.

As younglite pointed out I was just referring to the fact that I was responding to his post and not yours. Nor am I suggesting that your topic be moved to unorthodox theology; rather that theology which denies a tenet of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed (begotten of the Father before all ages...begotten, not created) be moved there, per the forum rules.

Referring to the original conversation of four years ago, it has to do with the accepted meanings of the two words and the inability of anyone that I am aware of, including the Church's theologians and the Church's Catechism, to adequately explain how the two terms can be used together

Causation and/or explanation without temporal precedence seems absolutely fine to me and to a lot of other folks, no gymnastics required. Perhaps if you could explain why you feel this is not possible, then we could make headway. As it stands, no demonstration has been presented for why causation and/or explanation requires temporal precedence.