Worshipping the MAN Christ Jesus?

[Guest]

After Arianism took this truth too far, the Catholic authorities of the day, in their reaction, concocted "eternal generation" to explain the generation of the Son. But this was so far out and meaningless, that it has been virtually forgotten, except in Catholic and Orthodox circles.

But don't you propose a similarly meaningless thing when you say:

It was not “an eternal begetting” as was formulated in the fourth century. It was a single act in the beginning of time. If the begetting of His Son, was God’s first act, then it must have occurred at the beginning of time, (in the sense that “time” is merely a measurement of the passing of events).

Thus Arius was mistaken in saying, “There was a time at which the Son did not exist.” Untrue, since there was no “time” before the beginning of time.

Did the Son literally exist before "the beginning of time" or not?

[Guest]

Did the Son literally exist before "the beginning of time" or not?

I know that it is difficult to conceive of the fact that time actually had a beginning. But when one really comprhends that, he will not ask the question you asked ---- the reason being that he will recognize the question as being meaningless. For the word "before" is a word that speaks of the temporal, and there was no time "before" the beginning of time ---- namely, because there was no before!!

If there had been a time before "the beginning of time", then "the beginning of time" was not really the beginning of time. The real beginning of time would have been some time before.

It is difficult for us in our culture to conceive of an actual beginning of time. The reason is that we have been taught from childhood, implicitly if not explicitly, to believe in an infinite regression of time into the past.
It is hard to let go of that concept because it is so ingrained into our thinking.

[Guest]

But your idea ends up looking very similar if not identical to the idea of eternal begetting - neither makes any sense to me.

btw, have you always had that beard, it's very impressive!

[Guest]

But your idea ends up looking very similar if not identical to the idea of eternal begetting - neither makes any sense to me.

Here are the major differences.

Eternal begetting: An eternal process. The begetting of the Son is still taking place.

Biblical begetting: God's first act; a single completed event; God has begotten His Son. He is not begetting Him now.

Eternal begetting: The Son has always existed and God has been begetting Him for an infinite amount of time into the past.

Biblical begetting: The Son has always existed. That is God's single act of begetting Him was the first event. There were no events "before" that, because there was no TIME before the begetting of the Son.

btw, have you always had that beard, it's very impressive!

No. I didn't have it when I was two years old.

I think I was in my late twenties when this photo was taken. It's great to be getting younger. Next time, I will be 22. You can check for a beard when I post that one.

[_Rick_C]

These things have been discussed and debated before. For the "original" (or very early, earliest) and detailed account, try reading this -- if you have some spare time -- that would be!

DE SYNODIS
("The Councils" (of Ariminium and Seluecia)
by Hilary of Poiters (300?-367?AD)

De Synodis was written in 358.

Here's a more reader-friendly link:
De Synodis

De Synodis is attributed to both Athanatius and Hilary. If I'm not mistaken, Hilary took Athanatius's writings and "compiled" them in De Synodis.

[_Rick_C]

15. Arius and those with him thought and professed thus: 'God made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son; The Word of God is one of the creatures;' and 'Once He was not;' and `He is alterable; capable, when it is His Will, of altering.' Accordingly they were expelled from the Church by the blessed Alexander.

That phrase 'Once he was not' sums up the Arians V. Athanasians (Arius V. Athanasius) debate.

As it has been commented on in the thread; "before time" is a "time" "when" there wasn't any time yet! So, this being the case, I think both Arius and Athanasius were pretty far off track!

Eternal begetting: An eternal process. The begetting of the Son is still taking place.

Biblical begetting: God's first act; a single completed event; God has begotten His Son. He is not begetting Him now.

Eternal begetting: The Son has always existed and God has been begetting Him for an infinite amount of time into the past.

Biblical begetting: The Son has always existed. That is God's single act of begetting Him was the first event. There were no events "before" that, because there was no TIME before the begetting of the Son.

Ancient religions believed that before Creation the gods did things, like have offspring (where "beget" means "become a dad"). The High God El had sons through various wives (or consorts). One of El's wives/consorts was Asherah who was worshipped by some of the Jews just prior to the Babylonian Exile....

Of course, the Hebrew Bible (our OT) says nothing directly about God ever having a wife! But it's proven that El, the Canaanite Most High God (Who could be the same El of the Bible???) had wives. Also, archaelogists have found inscriptions that speak of "Yahweh and his Asherah (wife/consort)" and pictures (drawings) of them walking together....

In the Bible "beget" means: "to become a father". The Arian and Athanasian formulas are 2 versions of: "Theological begetting" (POST-biblical stuff).

Not to go off into ANE all that far...but think about it.

[_Rick_C]

P.S. Paidion

I know you read the Early Fathers to try to come up with the most primitive (closest to the NT) views. This is a passage I've wanted to discuss with you for some time now.

Biblical begetting: The Son has always existed. That is God's single act of begetting Him was the first event. There were no events "before" that, because there was no TIME before the begetting of the Son.

. . . Christ, who WAS begotten by the Father BEFORE all ages, but was AFTERWARDS born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. . . . To those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father . . .

According to Ignatius, Christ WAS begotten (was fathered, born) twice:
1) BEFORE time and ALSO, 2) "afterwards" LATER (fathered in time though Mary). Ignatius here shows compatibility with ancient beliefs; that gods (divinities) "had children" before time (and/or Creation) -- and also -- that divinities could be born as humans later! I see two clear "begettings" here, Paidion! A divine birth and, later, an incarnational birth (as a human).

Re: The Arian and Athanasian Error, (both were wrong) imo:
The Athanasians said there WASN'T a "time" when He (Christ) was not; the Arians said there WAS such a "time", lol. Do you see the common mistake of the Arians and Athanasians? In "eternity past" or "before all ages" as Ignatius put it; before the Creation of time and space: It wasn't "when" yet! ROFL! Yet in ancient beliefs, the gods did things before anyWHEN and anyTHING (existed).

Comments?
Btw, I know how traditional trinitarians interpet this. It is also interesting how Ignatius offers nothing on how the first begetting happened (no mention of God ever having a wife...the same "silence" we see in the OT)....

Ignatius could be wrong about the polytheism here, imo (but that's an aside. I believe the first Christians most likely believed in two divinities: El and Yahweh).

[Guest]

. . . Christ, who WAS begotten by the Father BEFORE all ages, but was AFTERWARDS born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. . . . To those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father . . .

Though the writings of Ignatius may have been altered... tampered with... later on, this quote may well have been his genuine writing. I am fully in agreement with the quote above.

Re: The Arian and Athanasian Error, (both were wrong) imo:
The Athanasians said there WASN'T a "time" when He (Christ) was not; the Arians said there WAS such a "time", lol. Do you see the common mistake of the Arians and Athanasians?

The "common mistake" that I see is the concept of an infinite regression of time into the past. Most people still hold to that concept today.

In "eternity past" or "before all ages" as Ignatius put it;

I don't think "eternity past" is tantamount to "before all ages". It seems that time existed "before all ages"

... whom he established heir of all things, though whom also he made the ages... Hebrews 1:2

This passage seems to say that through the Son, the Father made (or created) the ages. I'm not sure how an "age" is created, or what an "age" actually means here. But clearly there had to be a time before the ages in order that the ages could be created through the Son.

However, that in no way implies "eternity past" or an infinite regression of time into the past. I believe in a true beginning to time, and that there was no "before" in relation to that beginning. Time did not have to be created. The Father's begetting of His Son marked the beginning of time. The creation of the ages (whatever that means) took place later.

[_Rick_C]

Hello Paidion,

Quote:
. . . Christ, who WAS begotten by the Father BEFORE all ages, but was AFTERWARDS born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. . . . To those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father . . .

To this you wrote: Though the writings of Ignatius may have been altered... tampered with... later on, this quote may well have been his genuine writing. I am fully in agreement with the quote above.

I don't disagree with Ignatius either (on the first half of the quotation). But do you see two begettings as I do?

Quote:
Re: The Arian and Athanasian Error, (both were wrong) imo:
The Athanasians said there WASN'T a "time" when He (Christ) was not; the Arians said there WAS such a "time", lol. Do you see the common mistake of the Arians and Athanasians?

You replied: The "common mistake" that I see is the concept of an infinite regression of time into the past. Most people still hold to that concept today.

This gets to be a "semantical" problem, lol.

The belief in the "eternality of space and time" is an idea from Greek philosophy; a belief that is not expressly stated in the Bible, that I know of. The Arians and Athanasians, being "Greek" in their (philosophical) orientation, were debating about "time" when there wasn't chronological time as it is known since Creation. Both camps were Greek in that they believed in something that "was" before chronological time. I thought they called it "eternity", though I know they spoke of "aeons" also.

So, I would agree with you that there was a "pre-time non-time" (what do we call it? lol) "during which" God existed and did things, if this is what you are saying.

Quote:
In "eternity past" or "before all ages" as Ignatius put it;

Your reply: I don't think "eternity past" is tantamount to "before all ages". It seems that time existed "before all ages"

What "aeons" is is debated (I know there are different views). If it means "an age" or "ages" then it means some type of chronological time that has duration: a beginning and an ending.

Questions:
1) If you think time could have "existed before the ages": When was this?
2) It would be "before" other, normal time (as we know it): Correct?
3) When do you think (regular ol') chronological time began? At Creation?
4) How do you distinguish between the two? ("eternity past" seems the most accurate way to describe the "time before Creation").

.. whom he established heir of all things, though whom also he made the ages... Hebrews 1:2

This passage seems to say that through the Son, the Father made (or created) the ages. I'm not sure how an "age" is created, or what an "age" actually means here. But clearly there had to be a time before the ages in order that the ages could be created through the Son.

Once again, that there had to be a "time before time" is a Greek idea. I'm not saying it is un-biblical. But I can't say it is biblical either....I've proposed a "non-time" when the gods (or God, in our Christian case) both existed and "did stuff".

But to comment on the text (above): Yes, the Son is depicted as the agency through Whom God (the Father) created "the ages", whatever these ages are (?). I tend to think the writer of Hebrews saw it as simply being the ages of time: human history. Yet, were there aeons (ages) before Creation? ...seems to be the question. If so, what do we call those? lol.

Going back to Ignatius and ancient beliefs; I still think the gods (God, for us) could exist and do things before anything or anywhen "was" from our perspective. "Non-time Divine events" (like the first begetting of the Son "before" the second Incarnational begetting) is about the best I can come up with.

Whew!

[Guest]

So, I would agree with you that there was a "pre-time non-time" (what do we call it? lol) "during which" God existed and did things, if this is what you are saying.

No, that is not what I'm saying. The idea that God exists "outside of time" is meaningless to me.

1) If you think time could have "existed before the ages": When was this?

Your "when" question can be answered only in relation to other events. The only other events of which I am aware that took place "before the ages" is the begetting of the Son, the first of God's acts at the beginning of time, and the creation of the Universe, which may have taken place shortly afterwards. I think "in the beginning" mentioned in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 refers to the beginning of time.

2) It would be "before" other, normal time (as we know it): Correct?

No, not as I see it. I don't believe in any time except "normal time". I think "normal time" had a beginning, and that there was no "before" in reference to that beginning.

3) When do you think (regular ol') chronological time began? At Creation?

Again, I believe that's the only time there is, and that time began with the begetting of the Son, the first event that ever happened.

4) How do you distinguish between the two? ("eternity past" seems the most accurate way to describe the "time before Creation")....bbl

By now, you will have realized that I believe in only one kind of time. I do not believe in "eternity past".