Featured The Eternal Son.

Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός - The preposition is ἐκ.

The next phrase is Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ = "true God from true God."

 

OK apo might have been better but there are 3 centuries of grammar removed from the Koine of the Scriptures.
Still its a shared attribute unless you are willing to say there is darkness in the Father.

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.

 

Eternally begotten was what Micah taught concerning the Messiah though!

 

Begotten was their way to state that Jesus was NOT a created being, and that He was "very God of very God"

 

What is important here is to go with what the framers of the Creed sought to preserve with begotten , and that was the Deity of Jesus!

 

The period of Koine Greek is usually dated from 300 B.C. to around the mid 350s A.D. Of course the uses of Koine did not just abruptly end all at once in the mid 4th century. It lived on after that. Anyway, since the creed is dated to ca. A.D. 325 it is within the Koine time period.

 

Huh?

Begotten means sired. The act of impregnating by procreation.

The trinity sired the Son through Marry.

When?

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.​

Not has eternally been called!

The Christ took upon the human. At THAT point He was to “be called holy - the Son go God”.

Not before.

Never in the OT was the Lord referred to as the Son.

Rather, the Son was prophesied and given the names.

Did not the writer of Hebrews state;

9But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

10For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source.b That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,

...

14Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.​

There would be no need for such language had the Son been the Son previous to the conception in Marry.

 

Begotten meant not caused, always existing, and Jesus also framed Himself always as being the Son who came down from the father, and who would go back to be with Him in heaven!

 

First note that the creed you guys are addressing is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. It is the revamped version of the Nicene Creed of 325. Second just with any document the literary and historical context are extremely important. Third, each line of the creed build up the previous line, adding to it, given a fuller picture.

 

Great points, as we need to place into how those framers of the Creed actually were answering the questions concerning the person of Jesus Christ.

 

No, “begotten” does not nor can it be taken as “always experience sting.”

From the time Adam “knew” Eve and fathered Cain, the thread of begotten was begun for humans. “Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob ...”.


Obviously you disagree with the statements of the Scripture including those by the messenger sent to Mary and the writer of Hebrews shared in the previous post.

 

now that is an opinion with which i disagree.also, there is of course the interaction of the Latin Church and the Latin versions of the several Creeds (Nicaea I, II, Constantinople, Apostle's Creed,,,).

My choice which i reiterate: the Athanasius Nicene Creed AD325.

 

Jesus always referred to God His father, and that He had that relationship with Him in the past, as he was going to be reinstated in His fully glory in the High priestly prayer of his in John!

 

Micah 5:2 tells us the Messiah originated from old, everlasting, from eternity itself....

 

The next question is to know what they reacting against. We have a letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia. In this letter is Arius is clear about what he objects.

"Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethren for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches, namely, God always, the Son always; as the Father so the Son; the Son co-exists unbegotten with God; He is everlasting; neither by thought nor by any interval does God precede the Son; always God, always Son; he is begotten of the unbegotten; the Son is of God Himself. Eusebius, your brother bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of His Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions. Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that He is a production, others that He is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning. This is the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say that He is of the non-existent. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any essential being. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. I bid thee farewell in the Lord, remembering our afflictions, my fellow-Lucianist, and true Eusebius."

Arius did not believe that the Son was unbegotten. Nor did he believe the Son was always the Son.

Now the Creed was written in part as a rebuke of Arius views. Given the historical context, it does not make any sense for some to claim the Creed supports Arius views.

 

NO, IMO, Constantinople leaned toward Arianism - toward Arius not ATHANASIUS and the Nicene Creed of AD325 (for the third time )..In fact Constantinople Arians murdered the Trinitarians did they not. if i remember correctly the Trinitarians used the Johannine Comma of the old itala to prove Christs deity.

 

What is your evidence that Koine Greek cease to be used before the mid 350s? When did it end?

 

the correct Trinitarian terminology is "distinct" persons not "different" persons.
Actually you do yet understand how we differ since there is no agreement of the meaning of "begotten".