Peace to you,
I apologize for not continuing. I did not wish to 'argue' or offend, and I was no sure how (or if) to respond. But perhaps I should (though it is not my intent to offend.)
historia wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2026 11:06 am
tam wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 6:45 pm
So even though the word 'eternal' isn't in the creed - these lines are supposed to
mean 'eternally begotten'.
Yes, and this isn't a terribly controversial point, I think. You see it throughout the Early Church Fathers.
It is not a matter of controversy (or not.) I was pretty sure the line meant more than what it said, which is why I delved into it more deeply.
I am the person who reads the fine print. This creed doesn't have fine print to go with it, but I knew from other doctrines, creeds, conversations that it means more than what it says. The problem with things that are meant (but not said), is that they are often untrue, and people don't know what they're agreeing with. Even if something may not be controversial (simply means that most accept it) - that doesn't mean that it is
true.
I do not listen to the people being called "Early Church Fathers." Even the term itself is wrong (Matthew 23:9). I don't know if that term came from those men (in which case, why are they ignoring Matt 23:9?) or from others (same question.) Regardless, even the writings of these men have been handed down and translated over time, and would contain errors.
I will continue to listen to and remain in my Lord, as He has taught me to do. Why go to people who are dead for answers instead of to the One who is alive?
Irenaus writing in the 2nd Century, for example, already can say in
Against Heresies:
Irenaeus wrote:
But there is only one God, the Creator . . . He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yeah, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to angels, archangels, powers, virtues, and all to whom he wills that God should be revealed.
It is interesting to me that he writes that the One God - the Creator - is the
Father of Christ.
This is true. (it does, however, contradict the term 'mother of God' on your Mary thread. Because she is not the mother of the Creator, the Father of Christ.)
Iranaeous also writes that Christ reveals the Father to whomever he chooses. That is ALSO true.
However, if the term 'eternally co-existing' contradicts what is true of my Lord (who is Wisdom) in Proverbs 8, then that term 'eternally co-existing' cannot be true. Because my Lord was born, brought forth.
The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,[c][d]
before his deeds of old;
23
I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
24
When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25
before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26
before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth.
27
I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28
when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29
when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30
Then I was constantly[e] at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31
rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.
Or, consider Origen, writing in the early 3rd Century, in
De Principiis:
Origin wrote:
[W]hat belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the Son.
As the Father is eternal, so is the Son.
Are you sure that is what he meant?
Some food for thought perhaps: We can receive the gift eternal life. It does not mean that we had no beginning. The word 'eternal' does not necessarily mean "no beginning."
Regardless, see above (re: Proverbs 8)
tam wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 6:45 pm
And then - what does
that mean? How can one be "eternally begotten" (in the 'begotten, not made' sense)?
Think about the analogy of the Sun I mentioned above. The rays emit from the orb, so are 'begotten' from it. If the Sun was eternal -- if it always existed -- then both the orb and its rays would be eternal as well, the latter being eternally 'begotten' from the orb.
The Sun is not eternal, so it does not really compare, although I understand what you are trying to say. But then the word '
begotten' doesn't really fit, since that word carries a meaning of having been brought forth, being born.
Even 'monogenes' (translated only begotten son, referring to Christ) carries the meaning of being born, brought forth.
Monogenes (look also at the root words):
μονογενής monogenḗs, mon-og-en-ace'; from G3441 and G1096; only-born, i.e. sole:—only (begotten, child).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
So it does not make sense to put the word eternal (if one intends that to mean 'no beginning') alongside the word 'begotten' which carries the meaning of having been born.
(Not 'created' - as some erroneously teach - but BORN.)
tam wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 6:45 pm
historia wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 2:52 pm
Also, as I mentioned above, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, in addition to the added lines on the Holy Spirit, made some other changes to the Creed of Nicaea. Line 6 was changed to
ton ek tou Patros gennethenta pro panton ton aionon, "begotten of the Father before all ages," which makes that a bit more explicit.
So even this seems vague. Would 'before all ages' mean that something or someone had no beginning?
It just means that, if you go back to the first moment of time (before all the subsequent ages of the cosmos), the Son is there, already existing. Or, to put that another way, in the beginning was the Word.
Does your understanding of what you just wrote contradict the statement that Christ was given birth, brought forth?
Peace again to you!
