The Word as a person of the trinity

[darinhouston]

Something else to consider is that God "so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son". True forgiveness, I believe, always comes at a cost to the one forgiving. And what an inconceivable cost! Could you conceive and intend the agonizing, most horrible death of one of your children to reconcile with people who hate you? Who in many cases, if not most, will spurn your offering of reconciliation, and with your forknowledge of that fact? What an amazing love!

Absolutely -- I rest my case!

[Homer]

Darrin,

You wrote:

Who says He was a mere man?! He had the fullness of the Spirit in Him, and He was God's own (and only) son. The fact that He WAS a man, though, is what makes it so incredible. To the extent we are filled with and draw on the Spirit, we are not "mere" men, either. That's the power of the Spirit (and the cross).

We seem to be misunderstanding each other. My point was that Jesus was not a "mere man", but God with us in human form, though emptied of His God attributes temporarily.

[darinhouston]

Darrin,

You wrote:

Who says He was a mere man?! He had the fullness of the Spirit in Him, and He was God's own (and only) son. The fact that He WAS a man, though, is what makes it so incredible. To the extent we are filled with and draw on the Spirit, we are not "mere" men, either. That's the power of the Spirit (and the cross).

We seem to be misunderstanding each other. My point was that Jesus was not a "mere man", but God with us in human form, though emptied of His God attributes temporarily.

I know, but you suggest my position is that He was a mere man. I don't think He was.

[Homer]

Darrin,

I know, but you suggest my position is that He was a mere man. I don't think He was.

Sorry, I never meant to suggest that. I thought you were suggesting that God could have accomplished the same with any sinless man being the atoning sacrifice.

[jriccitelli]

Darin said; I know, but you suggest my position is that He was a mere man. I don't think He was.

So then you agree Jesus was God in human flesh.
Yet 'we' are now, and forever only ‘mere’ created beings that are 'indwelt' by His Spirit, and so we will forever only be created beings and He will always be the Only uncreated. Big difference, right?

Precedent 1: There are only two types of things in the universe; Created and uncreated.
Only God is uncreated and ‘everything’ else is created.
So which category does Jesus fall into?
There is only One God, is Jesus in the God category or not?

If Jesus is not in the One God, then He is not God, and thus he would be of the other category; a created thing and thus not perfect, not Holy, not worthy, for Only God is perfect and Holy.

Boy Paidion you sound almost orthodox (in a general sense) in your reply.
Most theologians would consider ‘begotten’ (when referring to Gods Son) as an anthropomorphic term to help us understand a Spiritual relationship existing within God (within the Godhead), so I would think you do ‘not’ think the Father actually begot or produced Jesus and some point in time, right?

[Homer]

Precedent 1: There are only two types of things in the universe; Created and uncreated.
Only God is uncreated and ‘everything’ else is created.
So which category does Jesus fall into?
There is only One God, is Jesus in the God category or not?

Very good!

Jesus only "begottenness" occured when the Holy Spirit "came upon Mary".

[darinhouston]

So then you agree Jesus was God in human flesh.

I didn't say that.

Yet 'we' are now, and forever only ‘mere’ created beings that are 'indwelt' by His Spirit, and so we will forever only be created beings and He will always be the Only uncreated. Big difference, right?

There is, indeed, a big difference -- and I agree with your description of "us," but the corollary isn't necessary the case -- that's the very debate we're having.

Precedent 1: There are only two types of things in the universe; Created and uncreated.

In general, yes. A complex being might be conceived to test this but safe point.

Only God is uncreated and ‘everything’ else is created.

Essentially, this is probably safe, but presuppositions creeping in here. The complex being scenario is creeping its head.

So which category does Jesus fall into?

There is only One God, is Jesus in the God category or not?

Now, we're in uncharted territory and our revelation is a bit ambiguous -- this is why we have the inquiry we are addressing.

If Jesus is not in the One God, then He is not God, and thus he would be of the other category; a created thing and thus not perfect, not Holy, not worthy, for Only God is perfect and Holy.

Perhaps this is the excluded middle you have ignored -- clearly, Jesus is sui generis. Again, we don't know this for sure -- hence the debate.

Most theologians would consider ‘begotten’ (when referring to Gods Son) as an anthropomorphic term to help us understand a Spiritual relationship existing within God (within the Godhead), so I would think you do ‘not’ think the Father actually begot or produced Jesus and some point in time, right?

Hmmm -- I think the burden's on you to show "most theologians" would think this -- I don't think that's the case, though the term is of some controversy. As to the burden of proof, I believe the starting point is that it means what it most usually means -- created in a progenous manner (in some sense).

[darinhouston]

Darrin,

I know, but you suggest my position is that He was a mere man. I don't think He was.

Sorry, I never meant to suggest that. I thought you were suggesting that God could have accomplished the same with any sinless man being the atoning sacrifice.

I don't think so since we are incapable with the taint towards sin which we inherited (and which Jesus didn't since He was begotten in a unique manner without the tendency towards sin).

[Paidion]

Boy Paidion you sound almost orthodox (in a general sense) in your reply.
Most theologians would consider ‘begotten’ (when referring to Gods Son) as an anthropomorphic term to help us understand a Spiritual relationship existing within God (within the Godhead), so I would think you do ‘not’ think the Father actually begot or produced Jesus and some point in time, right?

Right! And wrong!

Right—I do not think the Father begat or produced Jesus at some point in time.
Wrong—the early Christians taught, and I believe, that the Father actually did beget or produce Jesus as a single act. My belief is that that event marked the beginning of time. Therefore there was never a time at which the Son did not exist.

I used to assume that there is an infinite regression of time into the past. Somehow I absorbed this idea from my elementary and high school education. But I found that it didn't make sense to me. For what was God doing during that infinite amount of time before creation? Was He doing nothing at all? Then I thought, "Perhaps He was planning the creation." But would that take an infinite amount of time? Wouldn't a million years be long enough for God to plan the creation? If not then how about a billion years? Or a trillion? No matter how much time we suppose it may have taken, there would still be an infinite amount of time BEFORE that! And what was God doing THEN? Nothing?

Then one day, it occurred to me that perhaps "In the beginning" (Genesis 1:1, John 1:1) meant "In the beginning of time." Without exception ALL of the early Christians (not the gnostics, of course) affirmed that the Son of God was begotten "before all ages." Even the orginal Nicene Creed states that He was begotten "before all ages." I have never read from any early Christian writer that the Son's "begotteness" was limited to his conception in the womb of Mary. Later Trinitarians realized that the idea of the Son being "begotten before all ages" didn't fit Trinitarianism, and so they changed the Nicence creed to read "eternally begotten." The idea was that the Son was begotten, is being begotten, and always will be in a process of "begotteness." Thus the Son was thought of as a beam projecting from the Father. So even the late Trinitarians of the fifth and sixth centuries, when they spoke of the "begotteness" of the Son, they didn't have in mind His conception in the womb of Mary. If it was the case that "the only begotten Son" refers only to His conception, then He wasn't the Son of God prior to His conception (which is exactly the position of Modalism). However, the Trinitarians whom I know, say that He was "the eternal Son of God." In other words they believe He always was the Son of God and always will be.

The early Christians referred to the begetting of the Son as "the first of God's acts." I think God then immediately created all things through the Son whom He begat. For the heavens and earth are said to have been created "in the beginning" (Gen. 1:1)

There is a distinct difference beween "creating" and "begetting". We create paintings. Paintings are distinct from ourselves. But we beget children. Our children our human beings like ourselves. It can also be said that we "produce" children, or that we "generate" children. Thus we have "generations" of children. It is also correct to say that that the Father "produced" or "generated" the Son. His Son was divine like Himself.

As for sounding orthodox, ... well, the word "orthodox" ("true") is applied to those who hold the majority opinion in a particular society and/or age. Had I lived in the first or second century, I would have been one of the "orthodox". But beginning in the third century and even more so in the fourth, the church gradually changed in both its theology and practice. Eventually it became the Catholic (Universal) Church, and various understandings of the Deity and Christology arose among the leaders. They frequently excommunicated each other on the basis of theology (the early church excommunicated only on the basis of persisting in living sinful lives or ignoring the teachings of Christ concerning how to live righteously). So the "orthodox" of the first two centuries became the "heretics" of the fourth and therafter. The Protestant Revolution only brought more shades of opinion, and it resulted in the hundreds of "denominations" we have today, many of them thinking that only their particular sect is fully "orthodox".

[steve7150]

Right—I do not think the Father begat or produced Jesus at some point in time.
Wrong—the early Christians taught, and I believe, that the Father actually did beget or produce Jesus as a single act. My belief is that that event marked the beginning of time. Therefore there was never a time at which the Son did not exist.






Why wouldn't Jesus being begotten simply refer to his birth as the Son of God. He existed prior to that birth as the Word of God which to me is akin to an extension of God in a certain way.