The Eternal Son.

No, the Council of Nicea did not use the term “begotten,” as it is English, evidently from the 13th century. Consider M-W:

beget transitive verb
1 : to procreate as the father : sire He died without begetting an heir.
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth Violence only begets more violence.

 

What is uncaused is eternal. Begotten is a causation word. Giving a word an illogical usage is nonsense.

What has no beginning can never be begotten.

 

The very word used is γεννηθέντα.

 

you are quoting the Constantinople Creed not the Nicene Creed. True Trinitarianism is the Nicene Creed of 325AD Developed by Athanasius.

 

once again you are wrong, you don't now your history, you keep confounding the Apostle's Creed, the Creed of Constantinople and the Nicene Creed, they are close together in time and meaning but only the Nicene Creed which explains the biblical words "only begotten" refer to an eternal relationship with the Father is correct.

 

the council of Nicaea Creed explained the Greek of following passage: not your Greek word

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

mono-gennao huios the TRUE Nicene Creed did not say "BEFORE ALL AGES". Some folk claim it did and can go out to the web and find some one who is also confused to support them.

THERE ARE SEVERAL CREEDS out there in the cloud, you have yet to quote the correct one, the NICENE CREED of 325AD developed by Athanasius is correct because it declares that the monogennao of John 1:18 is ETERNAL.

or why don't you tell us what it means 37818.

it is used in the following as well

John 1:14 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 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

1 John 4:9 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.

Athanasius said the term - begotten - signifies an eternal relationship between the Father and the SON.

Arians deny this.

Believe what you will. CHRIST is the eternal Son of God.

 

My point is that it is incorrect to call the pre-Incarnate Word of God "begotten" of God. That is, the English "begotten" does not carry the meaning needed to convey the spiritual concept HD wants to express, namely "emanates from," which is why he has to go back to the Greek to get his meaning.

Continuing to use the term "begotten" only confuses the issue. A further problem is in citing 4th-century language meanings when the NT was written in the 1st-century. If 1st-century Greek did not carry the meaning "emanates from," then there is a disconnect undermining the argument.

 

ILL

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

 

Again, that is NOT THE ISSUE!

what Is the issue is whether the relationship “begotten” refers to the taking on of flesh!

That is, was the Christ eternally flesh, or was he begotten as in the only, uniquely formed by the creator setting aside for a short span of human time the eternal glory as equal with God, found in the form of human flesh, humbling Himself in subjection to the Father until again restored to the former glory.

To promote OT prophecy statements which are indicators of the subjection of Son to the will of the Father as if they also demonstrate that the relationship was always in that framework is reading into the texts.

Elohim is plural.
“Let US creat...”

Yet God is one.

No Father to Son relationship.

No, “sit here by my side while I ...” relationship.

The Christ was the creator and sustainer. He was God. He is God.

Yet we shall see Him and acknowledge Him as the Son in the future New heaven. A relationship in which started when the trinity overshadowed Mary.

 

I don’t.

The “eternally begotten of the Father” is either error, or may ONLY be taken as eternally prophesied as being begotten by the Father.

The Christ was not “begotten” before Mary, but was before Mary as Elohim.

 

You admit it was a riddle.

You would no doubt admit it was a prophecy to yet have been revealed.

Yet, you would attach it as already accomplished at the point of the original writing?

The creator and sustainer, the Scripture states, set aside His glory at a specific time in human history, and was uniquely begotten by the trinity.

 

What I quoted is what is commonly cited as from the Nicene creed.
The following is still false: "begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, . . ."
What is true is in the incarnate the Son was begotten from the Father, this being His bodily resurrection, Acts of the Apostles 13:33. That His resurrection from the substance of the Father is not Biblical. Also the claim "light from light" denies that the Son is the "true light." The eternal Son is not God from God but is God even as the Father is true God, the Son being the true light. John 17:3, John 1:9-10, Hebrews 1:2-3. The creed has a lower view of the Son as God with the Father than the Biblical truth.

 

That is your opinion. IMO you are confused. that is your right - to believe what you will.

 

My objection is to false teachings. And the antiBiblical practice of placing interpreetations above the written word of God, when the obvious error is explicit. The Nicene Creed is Roman Cathoiic. And the false teaching denying the Son of God is actually the one and the same self existent God as God the Father.

 

OK you have the right to believe what you will.

 

The real problem is not merely disagreement of interpretation. But where obvious points of disagreement are simply dismissed. "light from light" as opposed to "true light," John 1:9, Hebrews 1:3. This is a big deal.

 

the Father and the Son are one but they are not the same person.

 

Either a thing believed is true or not true. The elements or points of disagrement should not be conflated, but taken separately.

 

agreed

 

I'm not sure what the preposition "from" is here but "light" it is a shared attribute of the persons of the Trinity unless you are saying the Father is "darkness".

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

1 John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.