The Nicene Creed

[historia]

Here is the Creed that was affirmed at the Council of Nicaea, broken down into separate lines:

1. We believe in one God,
2. the Father almighty,
3. maker of all things visible and invisible;
4. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
5. the Son of God,
6. begotten from the Father uniquely --
7. that is, from the essence of the Father,
8. God from God,
9. Light from Light,
10. true God from true God,
11. begotten, not made,
12. of the same essence as the Father --
13. through whom all things came to be,
14. both the things in heaven and the things on earth,
15. who for us human beings and for our salvation
16. came down,
17. and was made flesh,
18. and became human,
19. and suffered,
20. and rose on the third day,
21. and ascended into the heavens,
22. and is coming to judge the living and the dead;
23. And in the Holy Spirit.

Question for debate:

Which lines, if any -- you can just refer to them by number -- do you disagree with? And why?

[tam]

Peace to you Bruce.

[Replying to tam in post #110]

@tam, the wisdom in Proverbs does not refer to the Person of God who becomes Jesus by taking on a human nature. Look at the previous verses, especially verse 1, and you will see that, in the context, "Wisdom" or understanding is a poetic personification compared with a woman in the Hebrew of the divine quality of God: Pro 8:1 Does not wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice? Thus, the rest of the verses that you quote are her "words." 

"She", dear Bruce, is Christ.

Don't get hung up on male - female. God has both male and female in Him; Adam - made in the image of God - originally had both male and female in him (until God removed the female and made Eve.)

Listen more to what is being said. Ask for ears to hear - if you wish - to hear the One speaking in this chapter.

Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
2
At the highest point along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
3
beside the gate leading into the city, - the holy city, the city of New Jerusalem, the Bride
at the entrance, she cries aloud:
4
“To you, O people, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind.
5
You who are simple, gain prudence;
you who are foolish, set your hearts on it.
6
Listen, for I have trustworthy things to say;
I open my lips to speak what is right.
7
My mouth speaks what is true,
for my lips detest wickedness.
8
All the words of my mouth are just;
none of them is crooked or perverse.
9
To the discerning all of them are right;
they are upright to those who have found knowledge.
10
Choose my instruction instead of silver,
knowledge rather than choice gold,
11
for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.

12
“I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
I possess knowledge and discretion.
13
To fear [the LORD] is to hate evil;
I hate pride and arrogance,
evil behavior and perverse speech.
14
Counsel and sound judgment are mine;
I have insight, I have power.
15
By me kings reign
and rulers issue decrees that are just;
16
by me princes govern,
and nobles—all who rule on earth.
17
I love those who love me,
and those who seek me find me.
18
With me are riches and honor,
enduring wealth and prosperity.
19
My fruit is better than fine gold;
what I yield surpasses choice silver.
20
I walk in the way of righteousness,
along the paths of justice,
21
bestowing a rich inheritance on those who love me
and making their treasuries full.

22
“[The LORD] brought me forth as the first of his works,
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 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.

32
“Now then, my children, listen to me;
blessed are those who keep my ways.
33
Listen to my instruction and be wise;
do not disregard it.
34
Blessed are those who listen to me,
watching daily at my doors,
waiting at my doorway.
35
For those who find me find life
and receive favor from [the LORD.]
36
But those who fail to find me harm themselves;
all who hate me love death.”

Christ is the One who calls us (many are called.) He is the One by whom kings reign (Rev 3:21, 5:10, 20:4, Matt 19:28, 2Timothy 2:12.) If we find Him, we find life. Christ is the One whose mouth speaks what is true, trustworthy, right - He the One to whom we are supposed to be listening. He is our Teacher and His teaching IS better than gold. He bestows upon us a rich inheritance (not monetarily rich, but spiritual riches - treasure in heaven.) If we seek Him, we will find Him.


Peace again to you.

[historia]

Indeed, there is a fundamental question of authority underlying all of the conversations on this forum.

What I am noting in my reply above is that the approach you have advocated -- that everyone "go directly to the One" -- has produced wildly different beliefs. In that way, it has proven to be an unreliable way of approaching things.

By the same token, the folks on here saying that the Bible alone is sufficient for determining faith and practice also arrive at completely different beliefs. This, too, has proven to be an unreliable way of approaching things.

In practice, both approaches make the individual the final arbiter of Christian faith and practice, which is why they are unreliable.

You will need to add religion (the various sects and denominations) into that mix.

Sure. My comments above apply to both individuals and groups: Sects who claim to "go directly to the One" have wildly different beliefs, and, on top of that, tend to descend into abusive cults. The communities that claim to only follow the Bible have the most divergent beliefs of any strand of Christianity.

These have proven to be unreliable approaches.

But like you said, it is easy for people to delude themselves.

People on the other hand are unreliable and can/do make mistakes

You're a person, right?

These are things that Christ said in what is written.

The Gosepl of Thomas is part of "what is written" and claims to be "things that Christ said." Do you follow that?

what you posted of Irenaeus' definition of God contradicts the term 'mother of God' (if "God" is referring to Christ.) Irenaeus' definition stated, But there is only one God, the Creator . . . He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . .

You have to read more than one sentence of Irenaeus to understand what he is saying. In Against Heresies, for example, commenting on the Gospel of John, he writes:

For "the beginning" is in the Father, and of the Father, while "the Word" is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, "In the beginning was the Word," for He was in the Son; "and the Word was with God," for He was the beginning; and "the Word was God," of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.

Irenaeus, like John, can speak of the Son as 'God', just as the title theotokos does.

Suppose we go back to the first moment of time (t = 0) and we see the orb and rays of the Sun already there. Both would have no beginning -- there would have been no time when they did not exist, right? But the rays are being generated from the orb -- if the orb stopped generating the rays, then the rays would disappear, right?

Correct.

Good, in that case we would have to say that something being 'eternally begotten' is not illogical.

My point was that you have to assume a hypothetical even for this 'edge case.'

Keep in mind that this is just an analogy.

Moreover, God is radically different from anything we might experience in creation -- beyond any edge case. And yet we can, by analogy, at least imagine things that would be similar to what the Creed says about the relationship between the Father and the Son.

It contradicts what is written about my Lord (Wisdom) in Proverbs 8

Or rather, it contradicts your interpretation of Proverbs 8.

but even if it did not, the claim is still a hypothesis, an assumption. Is it not?

No, it's based on early Christian teachings. Let's go back to the Gospel of John:

Is the Gospel of John authoritative for you?

The one who wrote it was a direct witness to Christ. I think the testimony is accurate (possibly some scribal/translation errors.)

Okay, so John said (1:1): "In the beginning was the Word." If we go back to the beginning -- the first moment of time (t = 0), as we did in our analogy above -- the Word is already there, already existing.

If that is any way unclear, John clarifies (1:3): "All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being." The Son is not among the things that came into being.

So, based on this, we'd have to say that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, right?

Regardless, we can remove the word monogenes from our discussion.

I will point out the the people who wrote the nicene creed appear to be drawing a very clear distinction here: "begotten, not made." If begotten meant only 'one of a kind', then how would that direct comparison make sense?

You're a little confused here: gennethenta means 'begotten', while monogenes generally means 'unique' or 'one of a kind'.

Line 11 of the Creed reads: gennethenta ou poiethenta, "begotten not made"

Both words appear in line 6: gennethenta ek tou Patros monogene, "begotten of the Father uniquely."

[tam]

Peace to you,

Indeed, there is a fundamental question of authority underlying all of the conversations on this forum.

What I am noting in my reply above is that the approach you have advocated -- that everyone "go directly to the One" -- has produced wildly different beliefs. In that way, it has proven to be an unreliable way of approaching things.

By the same token, the folks on here saying that the Bible alone is sufficient for determining faith and practice also arrive at completely different beliefs. This, too, has proven to be an unreliable way of approaching things.

In practice, both approaches make the individual the final arbiter of Christian faith and practice, which is why they are unreliable.

You will need to add religion (the various sects and denominations) into that mix.

Sure. My comments above apply to both individuals and groups: Sects who claim to "go directly to the One" have wildly different beliefs, and, on top of that, tend to descend into abusive cults. The communities that claim to only follow the Bible have the most divergent beliefs of any strand of Christianity.

These have proven to be unreliable approaches.

I was referring also to the RCC. You can correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be excluding them (and perhaps also other religions that are not 'sola scriptura' - though I would be surprised if any religion that claims to be sola scriptura actually IS just that.)

The only one who is reliable, who is Truth, who is the living Word of God, who is the One to whom God said to listen - is His Son, Jaheshua, His Chosen One.

But like you said, it is easy for people to delude themselves.

People on the other hand are unreliable and can/do make mistakes

You're a person, right?

Indeed.

I do not tell people to listen to me, though. Listen to Christ.

(and the man who some people call 'pope' is also a person.)

These are things that Christ said in what is written.

The Gosepl of Thomas is part of "what is written" and claims to be "things that Christ said." Do you follow that?

Like I said. I follow Christ.

what you posted of Irenaeus' definition of God contradicts the term 'mother of God' (if "God" is referring to Christ.) Irenaeus' definition stated, But there is only one God, the Creator . . . He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ . . .

You have to read more than one sentence of Irenaeus to understand what he is saying.

I was just going by the words you posted.

Suppose we go back to the first moment of time (t = 0) and we see the orb and rays of the Sun already there. Both would have no beginning -- there would have been no time when they did not exist, right? But the rays are being generated from the orb -- if the orb stopped generating the rays, then the rays would disappear, right?

Correct.

Good, in that case we would have to say that something being 'eternally begotten' is not illogical.

That does not make it true.

What you have is more of an 'if, then' argument. But the 'if' is being assumed.

My point was that you have to assume a hypothetical even for this 'edge case.'

Keep in mind that this is just an analogy.

Moreover, God is radically different from anything we might experience in creation -- beyond any edge case. And yet we can, by analogy, at least imagine things that would be similar to what the Creed says about the relationship between the Father and the Son.

Just because we can imagine something that would be similar to what the creed states does not make it true.

To imagine it, we must ignore the fact that the generator comes before the generated. The sun existed long before it started producing sun rays.

As another example (and the Light here is not the sun):

"Let there be Light."

God spoke, and then came the Light.

It contradicts what is written about my Lord (Wisdom) in Proverbs 8

Or rather, it contradicts your interpretation of Proverbs 8.

Proverbs 8 is my Lord speaking. I hear Him in it. I know it is Him. I am not interpreting it, myself.

(I do not expect you to take my word for it. Rather, if a person wishes, they should go to the One who is the Truth (Christ) and ask Him for the truth of the matter.)

That being said, you did ask that we explain why we reject certain things in the creed.

but even if it did not, the claim is still a hypothesis, an assumption. Is it not?

No, it's based on early Christian teachings.

Early teachings - as in a century or more later?

That would be based on someone's interpretation of what is written, right?

Is the Gospel of John authoritative for you?

The one who wrote it was a direct witness to Christ. I think the testimony is accurate (possibly some scribal/translation errors.)

Okay, so John said (1:1): "In the beginning was the Word." If we go back to the beginning -- the first moment of time (t = 0), as we did in our analogy above -- the Word is already there, already existing.

It just means He is there in the beginning.

However, you seem to be equating 'beginning' with 'eternal'. Are you sure that makes sense? What about before that first moment of time?

If that is any way unclear, John clarifies (1:3): "All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being." The Son is not among the things that came into being.

It is more like when Paul states that all things come from the Father, through the Son. The Son is not one of "all things" that came from the Father through the Son. That would make no sense.

The Son - as stated - is unique. One of a kind.

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, [Jesus] Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist. 1 Corinth 8:6

Regardless, we can remove the word monogenes from our discussion.

I will point out the the people who wrote the nicene creed appear to be drawing a very clear distinction here: "begotten, not made." If begotten meant only 'one of a kind', then how would that direct comparison make sense?

You're a little confused here: gennethenta means 'begotten', while monogenes generally means 'unique' or 'one of a kind'.

Line 11 of the Creed reads: gennethenta ou poiethenta, "begotten not made"

Both words appear in line 6: gennethenta ek tou Patros monogene, "begotten of the Father uniquely."

I am pointing out that the authors made a distinction between being 'begotten' rather than being made.

However, we will have come back around full circle I think, where you will state that the authors meant not just begotten, but rather 'eternally begotten'.

To which I will state that this is the reason I cannot accept these lines in the creed.

Because 'begotten, not made' is true where 'begotten' means BORN (rather than made/created like the earth/angels/Adam et al.)

But you have said that creed does not mean born. It means more than what it actually states. Which I was pretty sure that it did mean more that what it stated. (hence all the clarifying questions)

Therefore, I cannot agree with those lines.



Peace again to you.

[historia]

Indeed, there is a fundamental question of authority underlying all of the conversations on this forum.

What I am noting in my reply above is that the approach you have advocated -- that everyone "go directly to the One" -- has produced wildly different beliefs. In that way, it has proven to be an unreliable way of approaching things.

By the same token, the folks on here saying that the Bible alone is sufficient for determining faith and practice also arrive at completely different beliefs. This, too, has proven to be an unreliable way of approaching things.

In practice, both approaches make the individual the final arbiter of Christian faith and practice, which is why they are unreliable.

You will need to add religion (the various sects and denominations) into that mix.

Sure. My comments above apply to both individuals and groups: Sects who claim to "go directly to the One" have wildly different beliefs, and, on top of that, tend to descend into abusive cults. The communities that claim to only follow the Bible have the most divergent beliefs of any strand of Christianity.

These have proven to be unreliable approaches.

I was referring also to the RCC. You can correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be excluding them

They don't follow these unreliable approaches.

and perhaps also other religions that are not 'sola scriptura'

You want me to comment on all the world's religions?

The only one who is reliable, who is Truth, who is the living Word of God, who is the One to whom God said to listen - is His Son, Jaheshua, His Chosen One.

And God's Chosen One said that we should listen to the apostles, right?

These are things that Christ said in what is written.

The Gospel of Thomas is part of "what is written" and claims to be "things that Christ said." Do you follow that?

Like I said. I follow Christ.

In that case, do you obey the words that Christ (purportedly) said in the Gospel of Thomas? If not, why not?

Suppose we go back to the first moment of time (t = 0) and we see the orb and rays of the Sun already there. Both would have no beginning -- there would have been no time when they did not exist, right? But the rays are being generated from the orb -- if the orb stopped generating the rays, then the rays would disappear, right?

Correct.

Good, in that case we would have to say that something being 'eternally begotten' is not illogical.

That does not make it true.

What you have is more of an 'if, then' argument. But the 'if' is being assumed.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. This is not an argument at all, it's an analogy.

You asked me what 'eternally begotten' meant, and I offered this analogy as a way to help explain it.

An actual argument for the Son being eternally begotten of the Father would entail us delving into Scripture and Tradition, which leads us ultimately to issues of authority, which is why I have been advancing that topic with you separately.

The sun existed long before it started producing sun rays.

Again, if it's helpful to imagine a different star at the first moment of time, just go with that.

Keep in mind, too, that all analogies are, by their nature, inexact. That is doubly true when considering an analogy about God, who is radically different from anything we encounter in the world.

It contradicts what is written about my Lord (Wisdom) in Proverbs 8

Or rather, it contradicts your interpretation of Proverbs 8.

Proverbs 8 is my Lord speaking. I hear Him in it. I know it is Him. I am not interpreting it, myself.

I'm afraid that is an untenable position.

All texts require interpretation. All communication of any kind -- written, oral, or visual -- requires interpretation. It doesn't matter who is speaking, the reader/listener has to interpret their words. That's simply how language works.

You are interpreting Proverbs 8.

No, it's based on early Christian teachings.

Early teachings - as in a century or more later?

The Gospel of John was likely written 60 years after Jesus' public ministry. While that might seem like a long time in our age of mass communication, in the ancient world that is hardly any time at all. It is definitely early Christian teaching.

That would be based on someone's interpretation of what is written, right?

All texts require interpretation.

Okay, so John said (1:1): "In the beginning was the Word." If we go back to the beginning -- the first moment of time (t = 0), as we did in our analogy above -- the Word is already there, already existing.

It just means He is there in the beginning.

Glad we agree.

What about before that first moment of time?

That doesn't make sense. If there was time before a particular moment, then that moment is not the first moment of time, obviously.

This is like asking about positive whole numbers that are less than zero. There is no such thing. Likewise, there is no time "before" the first moment of time (t = 0).

If that is any way unclear, John clarifies (1:3): "All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being." The Son is not among the things that came into being.

It is more like when Paul states that all things come from the Father, through the Son. The Son is not one of "all things" that came from the Father through the Son. That would make no sense.

Sure. John goes a little further than Paul, however, in telling us something about these "things" that have come through the Son. He says "apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being." These aren't just any "thing," they are the things that have come into being. The Son is not among those things. He did not come into being.

Because 'begotten, not made' is true where 'begotten' means BORN (rather than made/created like the earth/angels/Adam et al.)

But you have said that creed does not mean born.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'born'. The Greek term gennethenta, like the English 'begotten', doesn't really mean "born," as such, so it's a little odd to insist on that definition. They are both derived from verbs that describe the paternal role in procreation, and so are necessarily being used metaphorically in Christian usage.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to tam in post #121]

@tam, peace to you too. All your post proves is that Hebrew poetry is often figurative with Wisdom speaking as a personification.

On the other hand, she cannot be Jesus, because he claims to be God throughout the Gospel of John, and God does not have a beginning, as the poet's Wisdom does:

First, Jesus makes seven "I am" claims in the Gospel of John as metaphors comparing his divine nature with that same God's spiritual reality:

Jhn_6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Jhn_8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Jhn_8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Jhn_9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

Jhn_10:7 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Jhn_10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

Jhn_10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
Jhn_10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,

Jhn_11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

Jhn_14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

NOTE: When Jesus says, "I am (ego eimi) the good Shepherd," he claims that he is David's divine Shepherd (Psalm 23:1).

Jhn_15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
Jhn_15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

Second, now, what connects Jesus' claims with Exodus 3:14? In the Greek Old Testament, which is the Septuagint, God's word of "I AM" as his name is "ego eimi." The word "eimi" would be sufficient to be translated "I am," but God adds the word "ego," which is properly translated "I," for emphasis "I, I AM."

In New Testament Greek, Jesus does exactly the same thing by saying seven times, "ego eimi" to claim deity and divine actions and qualities. He uses the exact same words as the God of the burning bush does to name himself, as you rightly point out.

Third, therefore, Jesus claims to be that one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit seven times in the Gospel of John, thus revealing God to us.

Fourth, not only does Jesus claim to be God, but inspired John says that at the start of creation,

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
John 1:2  He was in the beginning with God. 
John 1:3  All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to tam in post #121]

Do you believe, @tam, that the Person who later became Jesus had a time when he came into being or not? If he did, he isn't God. If he didn't, he is God with the Father and the Spirit as our one God.

[tam]

Peace to you,

You will need to add religion (the various sects and denominations) into that mix.

Sure. My comments above apply to both individuals and groups: Sects who claim to "go directly to the One" have wildly different beliefs, and, on top of that, tend to descend into abusive cults. The communities that claim to only follow the Bible have the most divergent beliefs of any strand of Christianity.

These have proven to be unreliable approaches.

I was referring also to the RCC. You can correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be excluding them

They don't follow these unreliable approaches.

But they do follow other unreliable approaches. Including tradition (man's tradition, religious tradition), and interpretation (man's interpretation.)

and perhaps also other religions that are not 'sola scriptura'

You want me to comment on all the world's religions?

I was thinking of Greek Orthodox.

The only one who is reliable, who is Truth, who is the living Word of God, who is the One to whom God said to listen - is His Son, Jaheshua, His Chosen One.

And God's Chosen One said that we should listen to the apostles, right?

A - Can you show me where He said that to us?
B - Even if He had said that, are the apostles alive and speaking to us today - or do we instead have men who claim to have taken their place and sat themselves in their seat?

These are things that Christ said in what is written.

The Gospel of Thomas is part of "what is written" and claims to be "things that Christ said." Do you follow that?

Like I said. I follow Christ.

In that case, do you obey the words that Christ (purportedly) said in the Gospel of Thomas? If not, why not?

I don't remember the gospel of Thomas so I don't know what Christ purportedly said in it. Either way, I can ask Him - and in the meantime simply remain in Him, and what He has taught me.

Correct.

Good, in that case we would have to say that something being 'eternally begotten' is not illogical.

That does not make it true.

What you have is more of an 'if, then' argument. But the 'if' is being assumed.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. This is not an argument at all, it's an analogy.

You asked me what 'eternally begotten' meant, and I offered this analogy as a way to help explain it.

To help explain what you believe it means. I get that. I am pointing out that the analogy does not work, not without making an assumption first. Because the reality is that the generator exists before the generated. Even if just for a 'moment in time.'

An actual argument for the Son being eternally begotten of the Father would entail us delving into Scripture and Tradition, which leads us ultimately to issues of authority, which is why I have been advancing that topic with you separately.

Sure.

The sun existed long before it started producing sun rays.

Again, if it's helpful to imagine a different star at the first moment of time, just go with that.

Why would that change anything?

Keep in mind, too, that all analogies are, by their nature, inexact. That is doubly true when considering an analogy about God, who is radically different from anything we encounter in the world.

But we have actual descriptions about God. Even an image given to us, showing us the truth of God.

God is a Father and the Creator. He has a Son. He is love. He is eternal. He is the Most Holy One. God Most High.

There is no reason to consider those things to be inexact. We don't need to create an analogy to understand them.

God is not human. But He is still a Father, the Creator. He has a Son, He is love, He is the Most Holy One (His Son is the Chosen and Holy One of God.)

It contradicts what is written about my Lord (Wisdom) in Proverbs 8

Or rather, it contradicts your interpretation of Proverbs 8.

Proverbs 8 is my Lord speaking. I hear Him in it. I know it is Him. I am not interpreting it, myself.

I'm afraid that is an untenable position.

All texts require interpretation. All communication of any kind -- written, oral, or visual -- requires interpretation. It doesn't matter who is speaking, the reader/listener has to interpret their words. That's simply how language works.

You are interpreting Proverbs 8.

I feel like people lately are 'interpreting' the word 'interpret.'

What was the point of saying to me 'or rather, it contradicts your interpretation of Proverbs 8', if interpretation is simply how language works, and all communication requires it?

No, it's based on early Christian teachings.

Early teachings - as in a century or more later?

The Gospel of John was likely written 60 years after Jesus' public ministry. While that might seem like a long time in our age of mass communication, in the ancient world that is hardly any time at all. It is definitely early Christian teaching.

I am not talking about the gospel of John.

The author of the Gospel of John does not teach 'eternally begotten.'

That 'interpretation' came much later.

That would be based on someone's interpretation of what is written, right?

All texts require interpretation.

If the speaker told another person what a saying meant, would you still consider that to be interpretation?

Okay, so John said (1:1): "In the beginning was the Word." If we go back to the beginning -- the first moment of time (t = 0), as we did in our analogy above -- the Word is already there, already existing.

It just means He is there in the beginning.

Glad we agree.

Beginning is a 'time based' word.

God is eternal, no beginning. Therefore...

What about before that first moment of time?

That doesn't make sense. If there was time before a particular moment, then that moment is not the first moment of time, obviously.

This is like asking about positive whole numbers that are less than zero. There is no such thing. Likewise, there is no time "before" the first moment of time (t = 0).

I'm not sure this is an appropriate analogy. You are creating a limitation by including only 'positive whole numbers'. But there are indeed numbers that are less than zero. So even if 'beginning' meant "first moment of time" - God does not have a 'first moment in time' but is instead eternal. He would exist before (or outside) 'the first moment in time.' Correct?

Or are you equating 'beginning' with 'eternal'? If so, why?

If that is any way unclear, John clarifies (1:3): "All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being." The Son is not among the things that came into being.

It is more like when Paul states that all things come from the Father, through the Son. The Son is not one of "all things" that came from the Father through the Son. That would make no sense.

Sure. John goes a little further than Paul, however, in telling us something about these "things" that have come through the Son. He says "apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being." These aren't just any "thing," they are the things that have come into being. The Son is not among those things. He did not come into being.

He was not created (as in made) - that is correct.

He was born - generated - given birth. Straight from the Father.

He is unique (one and only Son.)

Because 'begotten, not made' is true where 'begotten' means BORN (rather than made/created like the earth/angels/Adam et al.)

But you have said that creed does not mean born.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'born'. The Greek term gennethenta, like the English 'begotten', doesn't really mean "born," as such, so it's a little odd to insist on that definition. They are both derived from verbs that describe the paternal role in procreation, and so are necessarily being used metaphorically in Christian usage.

[/quote]

Procreation includes birth.

You are claiming that it is metaphorical. But why assume that except to hold onto a particular doctrine?

Peace again to you.

[tam]

Peace to you Bruce,

[Replying to BruceLeiter in post #125]

Other people use the phrase 'ego eimi' in the NT. Were they also claiming to be God?

Saying 'I am (something)' is not a claim to be God (YHWH.)


**

If Christ had said "I am [YHWH]", then you would have an argument. But He does not once make that claim. Instead:

1 - He states that the Father is also His God (He states this both before and after His resurrection and ascension.) John 20:17, Rev 3:12
2 - He states clearly that He is the Son of God. John 10:35-36
3 - He states that His Father is the One whom the Jews claim as their God. John 8:54 (The Jews claimed [YHWH] as their God, did they not?)
4 - He cannot be [YHWH], because [YHWH] is the One speaking TO Christ at Psalm 110:1

The LORD (YHWH) says to my Lord (Christ), “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet.”


Christ is the Son of God. Just as He, Himself, said.


Peace again to you.

[historia]

My comments above apply to both individuals and groups: Sects who claim to "go directly to the One" have wildly different beliefs, and, on top of that, tend to descend into abusive cults. The communities that claim to only follow the Bible have the most divergent beliefs of any strand of Christianity.

These have proven to be unreliable approaches.

I was referring also to the RCC. You can correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be excluding them

They don't follow these unreliable approaches.

But they do follow other unreliable approaches.

Well, no: the Catholic approach does not produce wildly different beliefs, as the two approaches above do.

You might disagree with those beliefs, but that doesn't make the approach unreliable.

You want me to comment on all the world's religions?

I was thinking of Greek Orthodox.

I assume here you mean the Eastern Orthodox churches as a whole.

They are virtually identical to the Catholic Church in terms of beliefs. So much so, in fact, that in 1439 at the Council of Florence, they came back into full communion with the Pope. Unfortunately, that didn't last -- at least not for all of them. But many eastern churches are currently in full communion with the Pope, see: Eastern Catholic Churches.

This underscores the point I was making above: the Catholic approach does not produce wildly different beliefs.

The only one who is reliable, who is Truth, who is the living Word of God, who is the One to whom God said to listen - is His Son, Jaheshua, His Chosen One.

And God's Chosen One said that we should listen to the apostles, right?

A - Can you show me where He said that to us?

That depends. What do you consider to be the words of Christ? You haven't really explained that yet.

These are things that Christ said in what is written.

The Gospel of Thomas is part of "what is written" and claims to be "things that Christ said." Do you follow that?

Like I said. I follow Christ.

In that case, do you obey the words that Christ (purportedly) said in the Gospel of Thomas? If not, why not?

I don't remember the gospel of Thomas so I don't know what Christ purportedly said in it.

You can read it here: Gospel of Thomas

Either way, I can ask Him

Please do. I'll wait for your reply before continuing with my response to the rest of your post.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I was referring also to the RCC. You can correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be excluding them

They don't follow these unreliable approaches.

But they do follow other unreliable approaches.

Well, no: the Catholic approach does not produce wildly different beliefs, as the two approaches above do.

Not if you cut off those different beliefs as they arise (either by labeling them heresy, persecuting and/or excommunicating 'heretics', or simply executing people who threaten your "authority".)

You might disagree with those beliefs, but that doesn't make the approach unreliable.

I suppose that depends upon what you are relying on the RCC to do. Simply have a consistent approach? If that consistent approach does not lead a person to truth, to Christ, to God... then what good is it?

Reliability (from its definition) is associated with trustworthiness. I could never trust the RCC (or any religion/sect/denomination)... because they ALL lie. This isn't even counting its abominable history (holy wars, inquisitions, persecutions, forced conversions, sexual/physical/spiritual/emotional/mental abuses, residential school systems, corresponding cover-ups, hypocrisy.)

The only one who is reliable, who is Truth, who is the living Word of God, who is the One to whom God said to listen - is His Son, Jaheshua, His Chosen One.

And God's Chosen One said that we should listen to the apostles, right?

A - Can you show me where He said that to us?

That depends. What do you consider to be the words of Christ? You haven't really explained that yet.

It is your claim, Historia. Where did you get it from?


Peace again.