The Eternal Son.

[HankD]

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

where is yours that it is the same?

 

[Yeshua1]

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".

begotten does not mean Jesus was a created being!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

He sounds like the father of the JW!

 

[HankD]

begotten does not mean Jesus was a created being!

I agree. In the Trinitarian sense (not the human) it describes the ETERNAL relationship between the Father and the Son (Logos) emanating from the bosom (kolpos) of the Father.

Some don't agree. Good for them.

 

[Origen]

NO, IMO, Constantinople leaned toward Arianism - toward Arius not ATHANASIUS and the Nicene Creed of AD325 (for the third time )

I made no claim about which Creed is considered more or less Arian than the other. I was only pointing it appeared to me the guys here were following the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. I said this because I saw the phrase "before all worlds" which is not in the Nicene Creed.

In fact Constantinople Arians murdered the Trinitarians did they not.

You would have to provide some primary historical source for that claim. As far as I know the answer is no.

if i remember correctly the Trinitarians used the Johannine Comma of the old itala to prove Christs deity.

Never happened

 

[Origen]

He sounds like the father of the JW!

Very, very similar

 

[Origen]

where is yours that it is the same?

It is not hard to find.

You could simply check the Eyclopedia Britannica.

Koine | ancient Greek language

Or you could check out:

Hellenistic Koine

Or this site from Ohio State University department of linguistics:

GREEK, Ancient

Or you could read: Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers by Geoffrey Horrocks

 

[Yeshua1]

I made no claim about which Creed is considered more or less Arian than the other. I was only pointing it appeared to me the guys here were following the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381. I said this because I saw the phrase "before all worlds" which is not in the Nicene Creed.

You would have to provide some primary historical source for that claim. As far as I know the answer is no.

Never happened

Thought that the consensus is that the passage there in 1 John 5:7 was a result of a scribe margin note being eventually included into the main text itself?

 

[agedman]

begotten does not mean Jesus was a created being!

Begotten means one is sired, one is "generated by procreation."

In the case of Christ, the trinity overshadowed Marry as the messenger of God stated, and that which was born from that was holy - THE Son of God.

Now, that in no manner excludes the Christ from being eternal.

What it does do is allow for the statements of Paul and that found already shared in the thread to be held as valid.

John Murray writes, “The doctrine of the incarnation is vitiated if it is conceived of as the beginning to be of the person of Christ. The incarnation means that he who never began to be in his specific identity as Son of God, began to be what he eternally was not” (quoted in John Frame, Systematic Theology, 883).

"6 ... who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,2 emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, 3 being born in the likeness of men. becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
​

The blood of Christ cannot have been but that which was born holy and remained pure even at the point of and throughout the shedding and crucifixion and taking upon all sin of the Kosmos. Anything less would never have been sufficient to appease God. That blood not from Adam but from the eternal trinity was undefilable and incorruptible. That believers also not appear in heaven in flesh and blood, but are given a new creation created in the likeness of Christ - holy.

 

[Origen]

Thought that the consensus is that the passage there in 1 John 5:7 was a result of a scribe margin note being eventually included into the main text itself?

It is.

 

[agedman]

Thought that the consensus is that the passage there in 1 John 5:7 was a result of a scribe margin note being eventually included into the main text itself?

Again, I don't know that it matters considering 1 John 5:7 is validated in other Scriptures.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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.

Exactly. This is an English translation of the Greek, which substitutes the word “begotten” instead of conveying your intended meaning “emanates from” thus introducing confusion, if the latter is truly meant.

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly. This is an English translation of the Greek, which substitutes the word “begotten” instead of conveying your intended meaning “emanates from” thus introducing confusion, if the latter is truly meant.

In the context , eternally begotten would be a clear intention of ascribing full Deity to Jesus....

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

In the context , eternally begotten would be a clear intention of ascribing full Deity to Jesus....

Actually, eternal does not necessarily mean “having no beginning,” but only “having no end.” Thus, when we speak of those born again as receiving eternal life, it does not make them God. In any case, “begotten” does not mean “emanates from,” no matter how much one wishes otherwise.

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, eternal does not necessarily mean “having no beginning,” but only “having no end.” Thus, when we speak of those born again as receiving eternal life, it does not make them God. In any case, “begotten” does not mean “emanates from,” no matter how much one wishes otherwise.

Is it not simple saying to us the origin/source of Jesus is the Father?
Same thing expressed to us in the prologue of John?

 

[agedman]

Is it not simple saying to us the origin/source of Jesus is the Father?
Same thing expressed to us in the prologue of John?

NO!!!!

The Christ is eternal - the I AM. The creator and sustainer of all things.

The trinity overshadowed Marry and that which was conceived the Scriptures called "holy - the Son of God."

That Son was 100% eternal God, and 100% human born of a virgin.

That Son was conceived, sired, begotten by the trinity and at the appointed time birthed and laid in a manger.

 

[37818]

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!

Jesus for one thing was the incarnation of the second Preson of the Trinity. And if His preincarnate state was the visible "unique God" for the invisible God the Father, He did not become the Son until His incarnation.

 

[37818]

Is it not simple saying to us the origin/source of Jesus is the Father?
Same thing expressed to us in the prologue of John?

See my post #177.

 

[37818]

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

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".

You are playing word games.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus for one thing was the incarnation of the second Preson of the Trinity. And if His preincarnate state was the visible "unique God" for the invisible God the Father, He did not become the Son until His incarnation.

He was God the Son before He incarnated!