The Nicene Creed

[brother Paul]

None of this addresses the issue at hand. Was the Son "begotten of the Father before all worlds"? You said he was "begotten" at his "incarnation". That would be his conception, correct? Yes. I agree that begotten refers to his conception although I disagree with the term "incarnation". However, "incarnation" is irrelevant since it happened at conception and not "before all worlds". Can you pinpoint a time where Yeshua was "begotten ... before all worlds"? If not, then my view that "before all worlds" is unscriptural has been proven true.

Oh I see...maybe a look at how scholars have understood these terms through time may help....see

http://www.theopedia.com/eternal-generation-of-the-son#note-

YHVH unmanifest and transcendent is the Father

YHVH manifest and knowable is called the Word/Son

YHVH unmanifest but knowable and transformative is the Holy Spirit

The Father is God apart from His creation

The Son is God with His creation

The Spirit is God IN His creation

YHVH the Son is YHVH the Father's self revelation to His creatures being ever generated...their is only one YHVH...the Son is NOT a god or God who has come after at any time. For YHVH tells us He alone is YHVH and He has created no other before or after Him...neither is there or has there been any God before or after Him...He is God....He IS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[smaller]

The "seed" of Jesus' flesh body was planted, specifically with Eve. The INNER MAN who was taken OUT of the natural man, Adam. And specifically noted as "HER SEED."

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[smaller]

This is also 'partly' why the Church is noted as A WOMAN, to be WED.

We are taken OUT of the natural man, and it is our 'inner spirit' that is to be harvested from the natural planting.

 

[jocor]

No. See prior. God Himself participated in creation in a created made human body. This is the great mystery. That God Himself partook in His Own creation. God with us.

"No" meaning the "incarnation" did not take place/start at Yeshua's conception? Please explain.

 

[jocor]

Oh I see...maybe a look at how scholars have understood these terms through time may help....see

http://www.theopedia.com/eternal-generation-of-the-son#note-

YHVH unmanifest and transcendent is the Father

YHVH manifest and knowable is called the Word/Son

YHVH unmanifest but knowable and transformative is the Holy Spirit

The Father is God apart from His creation

The Son is God with His creation

The Spirit is God IN His creation

YHVH the Son is YHVH the Father's self revelation to His creatures being ever generated...their is only one YHVH...the Son is NOT a god or God who has come after at any time. For YHVH tells us He alone is YHVH and He has created no other before or after Him...neither is there or has there been any God before or after Him...He is God....He IS Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

You are trying to explain the trinity to me, but that is not what I asked. If you cannot answer my plain question, "Can you pinpoint a time where Yeshua was "begotten of the Father before all worlds"?", then just say so.

 

[smaller]

"No" meaning the "incarnation" did not take place/start at Yeshua's conception? Please explain.

The human body of Christ at a "point in time" did not alter the fact that The Son, The Image, The Expression, The Word of God Himself, existed without beginning or end.

 

[Malachi]

"Can you pinpoint a time where Yeshua was "begotten of the Father before all worlds"?"

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2).
Since Christ is "from everlasting" He was begotten of the Father before all worlds. You can believe it or disbelieve it, but that does not change the fact.

 

[jocor]

The human body of Christ at a "point in time" did not alter the fact that The Son, The Image, The Expression, The Word of God Himself, existed without beginning or end.

I am not contending against the Son's eternal existence in this thread. I am simply proving that it is unscriptural to say he was "begotten by the Father before all world's". You guys are doing a great job of avoiding the answer. "Begotten" refers to the Son's coming into existence as a man. That took place AFTER all world's were created, not before.

 

[jocor]

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2).
Since Christ is "from everlasting" He was begotten of the Father before all worlds. You can believe it or disbelieve it, but that does not change the fact.

You are also contending for the Son's eternal existence. I am not. The word "begotten" cannot possibly refer to an eternal being. The very word bears the meaning of coming into existence.

Also, the phrase "goings forth" refers to the ruler's ancestry. The ruler is Messiah. His Father is YHWH, an eternal being. Therefore, the Messiah's ancestry is from everlasting because his Father is from everlasting.

H4163
מוצאה
môtsâ'âh
mo-tsaw-aw'
Feminine of H4161; a family descent; also a sewer (compare H6675): - draught house; going forth.

 

[smaller]

I am not contending against the Son's eternal existence in this thread. I am simply proving that it is unscriptural to say he was "begotten by the Father before all world's". You guys are doing a great job of avoiding the answer. "Begotten" refers to the Son's coming into existence as a man. That took place AFTER all world's were created, not before.

I'd call that trying to play it both ways. What came into existence was a specific human body for specific Divine Purposes and Intents.

What I pointed to earlier was His body was in fact already existing in Eve in seed form.

Not much different than Levi paying tithes in the loins of Abraham to a greater priesthood. Heb. 7:9-10. This also shows the subservience of the Levitcal priesthood to the greater eternal priesthood.

 

[jocor]

What came into existence was a specific human body for specific Divine Purposes and Intents.

I totally agree.

What I pointed to earlier was His body was in fact already existing in Eve in seed form.

Not much different than Levi paying tithes in the loins of Abraham to a greater priesthood. Heb. 7:9-10. This also shows the subservience of the Levitcal priesthood to the greater eternal priesthood.

When did the begetting take place? When he came into existence in a human body? When he came to exist in Eve's body? Or some other time?

 

[smaller]

I totally agree.

When did the begetting take place? When he came into existence in a human body? When he came to exist in Eve's body? Or some other time?

The BODY came into existence. You keep trying to make The Son without the body, as non-existing.

That wasn't the case, ever.

 

[brother Paul]

You are trying to explain the trinity to me, but that is not what I asked. If you cannot answer my plain question, "Can you pinpoint a time where Yeshua was "begotten of the Father before all worlds"?", then just say so.

Actually no one can...at least not from the Bible. As I said in Hebrews 1 we hear of the Son who is the eternal Creator who angels worship and then in Hebrews 2 it says "Yeshua" was "MADE" (referring to being given materiality) "a litle lower than the angels. So no....the Bible does not say "JESUS" existed before the worlds were made but as YHVH (the Word/Son) He made the worlds (so obviously He pre-existed the worlds but He was not yet "Jesus")

 

[Roro1972]

Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion, and we just read yours.

HOWEVER, since your avatar states that you are NOT a Christian, do you not think that it is rather presumptuous for a non-Christian to tell Christians what they should and should not believe?

Beyond that obvious point, if you are wanting to make a case that the words you made red are "not Scriptural" then you have the FIRST burden of proof to demonstrate that that the words in red are not supported in Scripture.

Then you also have a SECOND burden of proof to explain to Christians exactly why you believe that your words are more Scripture-based than are the ones translated from the Latin, and is accepted as an accurate representation of the true Christian faith by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant churches, excluding the cults.

In your opposition to all those, you are opposing 1700 years of scholars, and the men who who had access to the Greek manuscripts that were closest to the original documents written by the Apostles, and the Gospel writers. Therefore, I respectfully ask why you, who is not a Christian, and who most likely has no knowledge of the transmission of the Scriptures. and who has no interest in what the NT says because you are not a Christian are making so much ado about something that is not important to you?

I get frustrated when today's scholars correct the past scholars as if they did not know what they were doing and I see it a lot today.
ps not a scholar.
just a Christian

 

[jocor]

The BODY came into existence. You keep trying to make The Son without the body, as non-existing.

That wasn't the case, ever.

I am doing no such thing. I am simply trying to get someone to define when Yeshua was "begotten". Once that is determined, we will know if it was before or after "all worlds". I already know the answer, but you guys seem to be fighting against that answer. Even if Yeshua pre-existed before the world was created, that doesn't change the FACT that he was "begotten" when he became flesh. So there is no problem for you guys to accept that fact unless you don't want to admit the creed is in error and unscriptural. Keep in mind that the creed is a man-made document that is not Holy Scripture. It is not God breathed as Scripture is. It can be and is in error on this point.

 

[jocor]

I get frustrated when today's scholars correct the past scholars as if they did not know what they were doing and I see it a lot today.
ps not a scholar.
just a Christian

I know what you mean. I get frustrated when "today's scholars" correctly correct past scholars, but even though the truth is made known, people will still hang onto error. Am I wrong to correct the KJV scholars who translated the Greek pascha (Passover -the day of Yeshua's death) as "Easter" (the supposed day of his resurrection)? Absolutely not. Yet, there are multitudes of ignorant people who will hold onto "Easter" in Acts 12:4 rather than embrace the truth.

 

[By Grace]

When I first registered on this forum, I was asked if I was a "Christian", yes or no. There was no button to click saying I was a Messianic Israelite or of the Way or a Nazarene ... Since I reject several key doctrines of post Apostolic Christianity and since Christians have told me I'm not a Christian because of those doctrinal differences, I thought it best to just say "no".

That is something that you need to take up with the Administrators here. But since you stated of your own free will "I reject several key doctrines of post Apostolic Christianity..."and have not elaborated, then it is safe to say that you are NOT a Christian. The parallel

to that is that you are doing exactly as the Mormons do when you make that qualification, and they say, "We are Christians too."

That is what I am doing. If I have not given enough proof that the phrase "begotten of the Father before all worlds" is unscriptural, then show me where I have erred.

Sorry, but the obligation to explain your position and reason for it is yours alone because you are the one attempting to change the Nicene Creed.

Your last sentence is based on your ignorance of me and what .

The totality of what I know about you is written in the OP and subsequent posts, I will readily admit that. HOWEVER If I have a false impression about you, then it is AGAIN your obligation to clarify. not mine to discern.

By Grace= The fact of the matter is that in your OP, all you gave as a reason was your mere opinion. You supplied no Scripture, in the original Greek nor did you supply the Latin Text of the original Creed.

[QUOTE ="jocor, post: 1168519, member: 7232"] I know. As for your first sentence, Yeshua opposed roughly 2,000 years of Hebrew scholars who had access to the Hebrew Scriptures. His Spirit lives in me. [/QUOTE]
The Old Testament has no bearing on your O P because the document was written in 381 AD. It used the Greek texts of the NT as its basis because the Apostles and Gospel writers ALL WROTE IN KOINE GREEK. In other words, you are grasping at irrelevant straws to make your case, and it will not hold up to scrutiny.

Therefore, it is important to me that Christians, my brothers and sisters in Messiah, understand what the Nicene Creed teaches and what they are affirming when they accept it. I would venture to say that the majority of Christians 1) do not know what it says and 2) do not understand why portions of it are unscriptural; thus, this thread

So far you have provided ZERO Scripture in English, the Latin of the original Nicene Creed, from the Kloine Greek of the New Testament, or from a recognized Bible Dictionary. Therefore, your assertion/promise to use Scripture to make your point.looks shaky at this point. and before I forget, you may supply one Greek word, but the analysis of merely one word without discussing the meaning in its context (the entire words from Scripture surrounding that word is simply being silly.

My second post was not opposing "the English translation of a Greek NT word". I was opposing the phrase "before all worlds" which is not found in Scripture (OT and NT). .

Neither is the term "Trinity" found in Scripture, but that does not deny that the Bible teaches that. It is simply a rhetorical point and is argumentative to boot.

We would make much better progress if you would not make assumptions about me and if you would read my posts more thoroughly

This is not a personal matter if you wish to make it so, then I will not respond. However you have not supplied anything excepting your say-so that the Nicene Creed is in error, and that is a very presumptuous statement IMHO.

 

[By Grace]

Perhaps the authors of the creed believe he was "made" a man, but was "begotten" eons before his birth. If that is so, consider this; since the word "begotten" (monogenes) means "uniquely came into being", then that shows there was a point in time that the Son came to be, came to exist. If that time was eons before his birth, then it conflicts with the trinitarian belief that the Son is co-eternal.

This is a major violation of logical discussion called "Begging the question", and when such a violation is used, it makes all subsequent discussion invalid.
The error here begins by creating a false premise: Perhaps the authors of the creed believe he was "made" a man, but was "begotten" eons before his birth. Since you have no way of knowing from the things that they wrote what exactly they wrote, you are offering mere speculation, or a stab in the dark that has no foundation whatsoever.

Then the error in logic continues when you are asking questions based upon that false assumption: If that is so,... then...then.

Since in this post, you are questioning the doctrine, and since you said previously of your own free will "I reject several key doctrines of post Apostolic Christianity..." I will ask you to declare if you are or are not a person who believes in Oneness. On other sites where I post, this is the same thing that they rail against, they use reasons similar to yours in saying as they do.

 

[dianegcook]

Jesus has always existed.
Before the ages, not worlds.
He was/is the "tree of life" in the garden.
He was Melchizedek.
God is Jesus, God begotten in the flesh was Jesus.
In Rev.1:7,8 states ,
Behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him....
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, Saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

 

[By Grace]

[QUOTE="jocor, post: 1168661, member: 7232"]You are also contending for the Son's eternal existence. I am not. The word "begotten" cannot possibly refer to an eternal being. The very word bears the meaning of coming into existence.

Also, the phrase "goings forth" refers to the ruler's ancestry. The ruler is Messiah. His Father is YHWH, an eternal being. Therefore, the Messiah's ancestry is from everlasting because his Father is from everlasting.

H4163
מוצאה
môtsâ'âh
mo-tsaw-aw'
Feminine of H4161; a family descent; also a sewer (compare H6675): - draught house; going forth.[/QUOTE]

NOW I an getting prickly because you are using an irrelevant word in a cut-and-paste from Strong's Concordance in an effort to describe a GREEK term. And OF COURSE what you posted is incorrect!

If you REALLY wanted to make a case for that Hebrew word, you should be able to do a word search in the Biblica Hebraica Westmensteris 4 for that word every time it was used in the text.

Then you would take a recognized major theological source such TWOT (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament or the BDB (Brown Driver and Briggs Lexicon of Biblical Hebrew) and make your case from that. I will not go there to demonstrate that, but I mention it to show that theology that you are stating, which according to your own words, "You are also contending for the Son's eternal existence. I am not. " is totally unsupportable from Scripture. What you are doing is attempting to is to describe things in the Bible using new Age terminology, and are through this ruse (sophistry, actually) attempting to sew discord and disharmony among the brothers and sisters here.,

However, I shall only give you 38 Scripture references in English to demonstrate that Jesus Christ always was, and remains God.
Hebrews 13: 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever

37 Proofs of the Deity of Christ

1. He was omnipotent over disease. Matt. 8:1–4; Luke 4:39
2. He was omnipotent over demons. Matt. 8:16–17, 28–32; Luke 4:35
3. He was omnipotent over men. Matt. 9:9; John 17:2
4. He was omnipotent over nature. Matt. 8:26
5. He was omnipotent over sin. Matt. 9:1–8
6. He was omnipotent over traditions. Matt. 9:10–17
7. He was omnipotent over death. Luke 7:14–15; 8:54–56; John 11:4
8. He was omniscient, knowing the whereabouts of Nathanael. John 1:48
9. He was omniscient, knowing the plot of Judas. John 6:70
10. He was omniscient, knowing the hearts of the Pharisees. Matt. 12:25; Luke 5:22; 6:8; 7:39–40
11. He knew the thoughts of the scribes. Matt. 9:3–4
12. He knew the sincerity of one scribe. Mark 12:34
13. He knew the history of the Samaritan woman. John 4:24
14. He knew the problems of his disciples. Luke 9:46–47
15. He was omnipresent. Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; 14:20
16. He was worshiped as God by the angels. Heb. 1:6
17. He was worshiped as God by the shepherds. Luke 2:15
18. He was worshiped as God by the wise men. Matt. 2:2, 11
19. He was worshiped as God by a leper. Matt. 8:2
20. He was worshiped as God by a ruler. Matt. 9:18
21. He was worshiped as God by a Canaanite woman. Matt. 15:25
22. He was worshiped as God by a mother. Matt. 20:20
23. He was worshiped as God by a maniac. Mark 5:6
24. He was worshiped as God by a man born blind. John 9:38
25. He was worshiped as God by Thomas. John 20:28
26. He was worshiped as God by some Greeks. John 12:20–21
27. He was worshiped as God by his apostles. Matt. 14:33; 28:9
28. He forgave sins. Mark 2:5, 10–11
29. He judges. John 5:22
30. He saves. Matt 18:11; John 10:28
31. Stephen called him God. Acts 7:59
32. The eunuch called him God. Acts 8:37
33. Paul called him God. Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:15–17; 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; Titus 2:13
34. Peter called him God. 1 Pet. 3:22; 2 Pet. 1:17
35. Jude called him God. Jude 25
36. James called him God. James 2:1
37. John called him God. 1 John 5:20; Rev. 1:18; 19:16​

Willmington, H. L. (1987). Willmington’s book of Bible lists (pp. 166–167). Wheaton, IL: Tyndale.

There is NOTHING in these Scripture verses that support your opinions, and it is precisely because I am a Christian that I go to Scripture to derive my theology. What I noticed here, and in my study of Oneness on another forum, is that Oneness theology is basically "neo Gnosticism" and it has no Scripture taken in its context to support their belief system. As it is, the Oneness theology is as stable as is a house built from a deck of playing cards