" ... eternally begotten of the Father ... "

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir_Knight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sir_Knight

Guest
:confused: “Begotten” implies that Jesus had a beginning. :confused: “Eternally” implies that He didn’t. :confused:

Anybody want to talk about this?
 
No contradiction. Picture the Father. He is eternal, yes? Now picture that, throughout all this eternal-ness, from its ‘start’ if you will, Jesus is begotten. Right from the beginning such that the Father’s ‘eternal-ness’ was NEVER without the begetting of Jesus (and, of course, that this ‘expression’ of divine Love was the Holy Spirit).

The Trinity, together, eternal, “from the start”, forever.
 
Sir_Knight said:
:confused: “Begotten” implies that Jesus had a beginning. :confused: “Eternally” implies that He didn’t. :confused:

Anybody want to talk about this?
Click to expand...
I never got the meaning of that rendering either. The original wording, ‘Born of the Father (et ex Patre natum/ton ek tou Patros gennithenta) before all ages/worlds’ might hold the key, perhaps?

EDIT: Tantum ergo has given a very good answer. 👍
 
I don’t understand Tantum ergo’s answer :confused: God has no beginning but before that “no beginning” Jesus was born of the Father … :confused:
 
I’ll try again.

The Father has no beginning and no end. Right?
Now, your question seems to be that you think that because Jesus is “begotten” that somehow means that the Father existed at some point before the Son, and THEN ‘begot’ Him, therefore there was Father, THEN Jesus (in time) with the begetting.

But that isn’t so. The Father NEVER existed without the Son or the Spirit. There was no Father, alone, then Son and Spirit.

There was never a time that Jesus was NOT ‘begotten’ of the Father.

Does that clear it up a bit?

Being begotten does not mean that the Son had a beginning with the begetting. In that begetting it does not mean that the Son’s existence is not as ‘eternal’ as the Father’s. The Son is not the Father, but He is as much “God” as the Father, or the Spirit.

You’re putting a ‘time’ concept because to us, a father always exists before his child. But that isn’t the case with God. He could, and did, beget the Son ‘outside of’ time, without ever being alone or separate from the Son or the Spirit. It’s a mystery but the whole Trinity is a mystery.
 
An example from the Church Fathers helped me to grasp this mystery. It was something like this,

Say that you have fire, and that fire produces light, and as long as that fire exists then the light also exists. Then compare God the Father as the fire (Hebrews 12:28-29), who has always existed, He puts forth Light, Jesus Christ (see John 1:4-5), and since that Fire (God the Father) has eternally existed then the Light shining forth has always existed
 
John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The “Word” is referring to Jesus. This demonstrates that there was never a time where Jesus did not exist. He was simply not incarnate yet on Earth until his birth. This is the way I’ve always understood it.
 
The Son is eternally begotten because He is the Word of God.
 
=Sir Knight;5351848]:confused: “Begotten” implies that Jesus had a beginning. :confused: “Eternally” implies that He didn’t. :confused:
Click to expand...
Anybody want to talk about this?
Click to expand...
All this is saying is that Jesus and for that matter aew a part of the same God that was, is and ever shall be.
 
The Father never had a beginning.
The Son is consubstantial with the Father (of the same essence).
Therefore the Son never had a beginning.

Why?
Because under this argument, since the Son is of the same essence as the Father (which is present in Scripture such as John 1 & 14, sidenote: the Gospel of John is probably the most “Theological” out of the Four) then that essence could not have been created, because it existed from all time.

Laus Deo
 
Rolltide said:
John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The “Word” is referring to Jesus. This demonstrates that there was never a time where Jesus did not exist. He was simply not incarnate yet on Earth until his birth. This is the way I’ve always understood it.
Click to expand...
Just wanted to put in a sidenote. The original Greek is “logos” which has a meaning beyond the Word. It can also be translated as wisdom or reason. Gordon Clark (a Calvinist) actually translated this as “Logic”. The “logos” was a concept in Greek Philosophy, the reason, the revealer of knowledge. Christ is the Logos because he is reason, the revealer of God to all the nations. Et Verbum Caro Factum Est :signofcross: and the word was made flesh, the eternal Logos became Man so that we could comprehend him.

This concept of the Logos was one of the driving forces of early Christianity, which was described as a religion based on reason. Philosophy and Christianity go like Spaghetti and Meatballs :bounce:.

Laus Deo
 
COPLAND_3 said:
An example from the Church Fathers helped me to grasp this mystery. It was something like this,

Say that you have fire, and that fire produces light, and as long as that fire exists then the light also exists. Then compare God the Father as the fire (Hebrews 12:28-29), who has always existed, He puts forth Light, Jesus Christ (see John 1:4-5), and since that Fire (God the Father) has eternally existed then the Light shining forth has always existed
Click to expand...
Thank you. That really helped a lot 👍 Now, how would you factor the Holy Spirit into this since He “proceeded from the Father and the Son”?
 
The Holy Spirit is the love that has always existed between the Father and the Son, and which is so strong and divine that He actually is a Person. (Which I know sounds like something from the Sixties, but is actually very hardcore theology from the Fathers. St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius talk a lot about this.)

I believe I’m also right in saying that the Holy Spirit is what’s described in the Old Testament as the Shekinah glory of the Lord, and goes around overshadowing the Holy of Holies (and Mary). Which makes sense, because the love between the Father and the Son would be pretty darned glorious.

You can also get into the Son being the Father’s Word and the Spirit being the Father’s Breath used to say the Word, or there’s a further version of the fire metaphor with smoke or something. But I’m not really the person to talk about these deep theological matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top