The Nicene Creed

[jocor]

I just read that verse in 21 bibles and
Ages
Universe
world
worlds
no where is "all worlds"

I was not quoting a verse. I was quoting the Nicene Creed of 325. My contention is that the phrase "before all worlds" makes the creed unscriptural. Not only is that phrase not in scripture, but scripture says the Son was begotten after all worlds were created.

 

[smaller]

I am doing no such thing. I am simply trying to get someone to define when Yeshua was "begotten".

Acts 3:
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

In Acts 7, Stephen's Holy Spirit discourse also includes the interesting detail, here:

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

We also know from 1 Peter 1:10-11 that it was the Spirit of Christ who spoke through the Prophets. And from Hebrews 1:1-3, that it was God speaking by His Son.

Hebrews 1:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

We also know that The Word of God was made flesh.

John 1:
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Once that is determined, we will know if it was before or after "all worlds".

You are still trying to play it both ways, as noted prior, acknowledging the eternal existence of the Son, yet also trying to pin this to the Son only being "made" at a point in time, and at that time, then "begotten." I've pointed to the distinction of the HUMAN BODY of Christ on this count. But that doesn't appear to be good enough for you and you have some other slant to resolve your attempt at double dealing the subject matter of the Son eternally existing, yet "begotten" or "made" at a point in time.

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.

How is that any different than what was said before. YES, a human body was "made" for the Son. This by no means makes the Son "made." It means there was a BODY MADE and a BODY BEGOTTEN.

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.

There is no error. You're grasping at a straw man.

 

[smaller]

IF we pay attention to Israel, their 'human' lineage, the Gospel writers, inspired as they were, paid a great deal of attention to the 'human lineage' of Jesus.

What this means is the the human genome or what would become, eventually, the BODY of Jesus was in fact also "carried" from the beginning of man, Adam, through the flesh lineage of Israel.

The Word by both human precursor and The Spirit was carried in the people of Israel.

Acts 7:38
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Romans 3:2
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

 

[smaller]

I was not quoting a verse. I was quoting the Nicene Creed of 325. My contention is that the phrase "before all worlds" makes the creed unscriptural. Not only is that phrase not in scripture, but scripture says the Son was begotten after all worlds were created.

The Nicene Creed is specific on this count. You are again "cherry picking" out of context:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ , the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,"

 

[By Grace]

Well, that is one problem we are having. The OP is dealing with the creed of 325 and you are referring to the creed of 381.

yeah, after posting that date, I realized too late that I goofed on the date. The CORRECT date is 325, and the Creed of Constantinople is 381. my bad

 

[By Grace]

Precisely which statement are you referring to?

This one:

jocor said: ↑
You are all derailing this thread by turning it into a discussion about the deity or eternal existence of the Son. I presented my view in post #2 that the Son was begotten after the world was created. That is what you are supposed to be either accepting or rejecting. If you reject it, then show me where in Scripture the Son was "begotten" "before all worlds".

My point here is since you are the one who is attempting to make the case for the "errors in the Nicene C\reed as translated into English", you have the forensic (debating) burden to support your case by providing evidence for what you state first.

Are you then in the Messianic Judaism camp of theology?

 

[brother Paul]

The word used for “begotten” in this sense, is not fabricated and being added to the Bible’s concept. The word “monogenes” is used in the sense of being unique or one of a kind son within a specific relationship and is not being used in the sense of “coming after”. The same word is used in Hebrews 11 when speaking of Isaac. Calling Isaac Abraham’s only begotten son but we know that Isaac was NOT Abraham’s only son but rather his unique one of a kind son, i.e., the son of promise.

In the Bible this relationship is described and played out on many passages, He is the Word (look up “The Memra”) or Son who is none other than God in the flesh. When Jesus says no man has ever seen the Father, the only begotten son has declared Him, this means that He has made Him manifest. So though we cannot see the Father, when we see and hear the Son we are seeing and hearing GOD who we think of as “the Father”.

God has the intention of having many sons of whom the man Christ Jesus is the model, the source, and the means. It is only by and through the Son that we may know the Father. IN HIM we are a new creation, not merely of the old Adam, but born from above after the order of the last Adam (Christ) having both a temporal existence and eternal life. We are then said to be in the world but not of it.

The Word, or Son, is the perfect reflection of the Father, otherwise God is totally transcendent (beyond comprehension) and unknowable personally. All through the Old Covenant writings (in many forms), as well as in the New (while in the flesh), it has always been the Son, or Word, that revealed, or unfolded, or made manifest, the Father, His words, and His works to mankind.

John the Baptist bears witness to this understanding in John 1:18 (read this). YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the one who revealed Himself to them and so many others in so many different ways (Genesis 18-19; Exodus 3; Joshua 5:13-15; Judges 13, etc.,), became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us (John 1:14). One could almost say YHVH the Son is YHVH the Father’s “image” of Himself, although that would fall short as well. Why? Because the One and Only (Yachid, or unique, one of a kind) God is also “one” in a different sense (He is echad or Unity). This is what is meant when in Deuteronomy 6:4 Moses declares the axiom of our monotheism, “Hear o’Israel, the Lord our God (Yachid is here implied), the Lord is one” (the word echad or Unity is used). Parenthesis mine. See also John 17.

As God is only one (yachid) in essence, substance, and nature, the three eternally distinct persons of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are also the one (echad) God, thus all (echad) are the eternal (yachid), without beginning or end. Thus the name “He who is”, or as we translate it “I AM”, to imply the uncreated One who is continuous existence. Theologically, it has been said in our inadequate human terms, that the Son eternally proceeds from the Father (kind of like the glow of the flame), where the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (like the effectualness of the light and heat thereof).

Forgive us Lord for our finite ineptitude to fully articulate your majesty.

Thus it is said of the Son in Hebrews 1 as well as in John 1, that He is “the brightness of His (the Father’s) Glory, the express image of His person” (lit. substance). Parenthesis mine. And incarnate as Y’shua/Jesus he is the perfect “image of the invisible God” (John 14:7; Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 3:18). In character, word, and deed, He is the heart of God toward man. (parenthesis mine)

The phrase ONLY BEGOTTEN is merely the English translation, through the German, through the Latin, from the Greek. When you get that there is only one God and as persons understand that the SON is the brightness (see-able experience-able perfect reflection) of His substance (translated "person"), that "the Son" is also the visible image of the invisible God (that aspect of God that can be known to His creation), then it makes perfect sense.

As long as the limited human language hooks SOME into only understanding "begotten" as something being "born" after something that came first, one has the conflict....God IS...in the eternal there never was a "time" when the Father has not always "generated" or been present with the Son/Word....it has always been the nature of God to make Himself knowable...and some aspect of God's nature IS knowable (but it is puny and finitely grasped by the most knowledgeable intimately related mere human)...but thanks be to God that is as it is as limited as that is....

Again....(forgive me Lord for our linguistic limitations)...Augustine made (forgive us Lord) comparison to the Sun....

There is only one SUN...the essence of the Sun can only be conjectured and speculated on (like the Father) but then because we can see the sun by its flaming (the Son or Word by which/whom God communicates Himself TO His creation) and the heat and light which is effectual in and for us (the Holy Spirit)....

The moment there is "SUN" there is its essence, flame, and effect....there is NEVER a time when the one is not all three nor when all three are not one....that which can be manifest is always being generated...it is one nature to be all three which are not only corporately one but in fact also numerically one....

THEREFORE....in one sense the Son/Word IS the eternal begotten-ness and IS so before all ages

in another sense He is "begotten" or born in time after the worlds were made

 

[brother Paul]

Paul, a Pharisee since birth, well acquainted with the acceptable understandings of his day, draws attention to the special nature of the birth of Y’shua in his writings as well. In instances of normal human births, Paul uses the Greek verb “gennao“ meaning born or begotten. However, with deeper reflection we find that this verb implies the necessity of a human father! But when referring to Messiah, Paul only uses “ginomai“ which means ‘comes to be’ or ‘came to exist’. So when we read in Romans 1:3 that he “came of the seed of David according to the flesh“, we see that Paul avoids ‘gennao’ even though referring to His earthly birth, thereby revealing Him as “the coming one” that previous generations had anticipated which I believe was inspired from the prophecy of Daniel’s weeks of years.


In Philippians 2:7 where Messiah “came to be in the likeness of men“, Paul is revealing to us that this is no mere human male born by natural means, and again makes the point most clearly in Galatians 4:4, where he tells us that the Son of God came into existence by the woman (of a specific woman, and outside of the natural order of things). Yet in the same context, where he speaks of Isaac and Ishmael, they are both born after the natural order. This contrasting distinction throughout the writings of Paul between Messiah’s birth and normal human births is a point often missed by most when reading only in the English, or in some other second or third generation translations.


Sadly, knowing that most are ignorant of this fact, many apostates of the critical school declare that Paul never mentions the virgin birth, as if the doctrine was not a significant 1rst century Christian doctrine. This is obviously faulty logic.

 

[WIP]

I want to take a moment to let you all know that we appreciate how cordial this discussion has been. The OP is presenting a view counter to Orthodox Christianity and my first reaction was to lock the thread. As it turned out, by the time I found this discussion there were over four pages of text. Being this is the Apologetics forum and considering how civil the discussion has remained I have decided to allow this discussion to continue for the time being. Be advised that I intend to keep an eye on things and expect the polite demeanor to continue.

Thank you,
WIP

 

[brother Paul]

Careful fam...we do not want to get WIP-ed (LOL)...

 

[Malachi]

The word used for “begotten” in this sense, is not fabricated and being added to the Bible’s concept. The word “monogenes” is used in the sense of being unique or one of a kind son within a specific relationship and is not being used in the sense of “coming after”.

This is the proper way to understand "only begotten" which could also be translated as "uniquely begotten". In what sense is the Word (who is also the Creator) and who was always with God the Father "uniquely begotten"? Certainly it cannot be comparable to a human begetting (which always involves a mother). And it cannot be a reference to the incarnation, since Christ is the eternal Son of God. Therefore the only biblical way to understand this, is that within the Godhead there was always a unique Father-Son relationship between the Father and the Word. Only the cults consider Christ to be a creature rather than the Creator-God.

 

[jocor]

Which creed does the majority of Christianity hold to? The original made in 325 or the revised one made in 381?

 

[brother Paul]

The majority of Western Christians believe and only know of the 381 edition with the addition of the filloque which was added later by some and officiated in the 11th century.

 

[th1b.taylor]

The word used for “begotten” in this sense, is not fabricated and being added to the Bible’s concept. The word “monogenes” is used in the sense of being unique or one of a kind son within a specific relationship and is not being used in the sense of “coming after”. The same word is used in Hebrews 11 when speaking of Isaac. Calling Isaac Abraham’s only begotten son but we know that Isaac was NOT Abraham’s only son but rather his unique one of a kind son, i.e., the son of promise.

In the Bible this relationship is described and played out on many passages, He is the Word (look up “The Memra”) or Son who is none other than God in the flesh. When Jesus says no man has ever seen the Father, the only begotten son has declared Him, this means that He has made Him manifest. So though we cannot see the Father, when we see and hear the Son we are seeing and hearing GOD who we think of as “the Father”.

God has the intention of having many sons of whom the man Christ Jesus is the model, the source, and the means. It is only by and through the Son that we may know the Father. IN HIM we are a new creation, not merely of the old Adam, but born from above after the order of the last Adam (Christ) having both a temporal existence and eternal life. We are then said to be in the world but not of it.

The Word, or Son, is the perfect reflection of the Father, otherwise God is totally transcendent (beyond comprehension) and unknowable personally. All through the Old Covenant writings (in many forms), as well as in the New (while in the flesh), it has always been the Son, or Word, that revealed, or unfolded, or made manifest, the Father, His words, and His works to mankind.

John the Baptist bears witness to this understanding in John 1:18 (read this). YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the one who revealed Himself to them and so many others in so many different ways (Genesis 18-19; Exodus 3; Joshua 5:13-15; Judges 13, etc.,), became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us (John 1:14). One could almost say YHVH the Son is YHVH the Father’s “image” of Himself, although that would fall short as well. Why? Because the One and Only (Yachid, or unique, one of a kind) God is also “one” in a different sense (He is echad or Unity). This is what is meant when in Deuteronomy 6:4 Moses declares the axiom of our monotheism, “Hear o’Israel, the Lord our God (Yachid is here implied), the Lord is one” (the word echad or Unity is used). Parenthesis mine. See also John 17.

As God is only one (yachid) in essence, substance, and nature, the three eternally distinct persons of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are also the one (echad) God, thus all (echad) are the eternal (yachid), without beginning or end. Thus the name “He who is”, or as we translate it “I AM”, to imply the uncreated One who is continuous existence. Theologically, it has been said in our inadequate human terms, that the Son eternally proceeds from the Father (kind of like the glow of the flame), where the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (like the effectualness of the light and heat thereof).

Forgive us Lord for our finite ineptitude to fully articulate your majesty.

Thus it is said of the Son in Hebrews 1 as well as in John 1, that He is “the brightness of His (the Father’s) Glory, the express image of His person” (lit. substance). Parenthesis mine. And incarnate as Y’shua/Jesus he is the perfect “image of the invisible God” (John 14:7; Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 3:18). In character, word, and deed, He is the heart of God toward man. (parenthesis mine)

The phrase ONLY BEGOTTEN is merely the English translation, through the German, through the Latin, from the Greek. When you get that there is only one God and as persons understand that the SON is the brightness (see-able experience-able perfect reflection) of His substance (translated "person"), that "the Son" is also the visible image of the invisible God (that aspect of God that can be known to His creation), then it makes perfect sense.

As long as the limited human language hooks SOME into only understanding "begotten" as something being "born" after something that came first, one has the conflict....God IS...in the eternal there never was a "time" when the Father has not always "generated" or been present with the Son/Word....it has always been the nature of God to make Himself knowable...and some aspect of God's nature IS knowable (but it is puny and finitely grasped by the most knowledgeable intimately related mere human)...but thanks be to God that is as it is as limited as that is....

Again....(forgive me Lord for our linguistic limitations)...Augustine made (forgive us Lord) comparison to the Sun....

There is only one SUN...the essence of the Sun can only be conjectured and speculated on (like the Father) but then because we can see the sun by its flaming (the Son or Word by which/whom God communicates Himself TO His creation) and the heat and light which is effectual in and for us (the Holy Spirit)....

The moment there is "SUN" there is its essence, flame, and effect....there is NEVER a time when the one is not all three nor when all three are not one....that which can be manifest is always being generated...it is one nature to be all three which are not only corporately one but in fact also numerically one....

THEREFORE....in one sense the Son/Word IS the eternal begotten-ness and IS so before all ages

in another sense He is "begotten" or born in time after the worlds were made

I've never seen this used to explain the Trinity and like all other examples, it falls, some, short ut having said all of that, what a splendid metaphor.

 

[jocor]

yeah, after posting that date, I realized too late that I goofed on the date. The CORRECT date is 325, and the Creed of Constantinople is 381. my bad

Well, it seems I goofed as well. The source of the creed I posted in post #1 (the Christian Classics Ethereal Library) said it was the "Nicene Creed". I therefore assumed it was the 325 creed. Now that I examined the two side by side, the one I posted was really the 381 "Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed". 2

 

[jocor]

Acts 3:
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

This supports my view that the Son was "begotten" after the creation of the worlds.

In Acts 7, Stephen's Holy Spirit discourse also includes the interesting detail, here:

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

The correct reading is "with Joshua", not "with Jesus". They were both called "Iesous" in Greek. The translators put the wrong name there. They made the same mistake in Hebrews 4:8.

You are still trying to play it both ways, as noted prior, acknowledging the eternal existence of the Son, yet also trying to pin this to the Son only being "made" at a point in time, and at that time, then "begotten." I've pointed to the distinction of the HUMAN BODY of Christ on this count. But that doesn't appear to be good enough for you and you have some other slant to resolve your attempt at double dealing the subject matter of the Son eternally existing, yet "begotten" or "made" at a point in time.

I never acknowledged the "eternal existence of the Son". I said, "I am not contending against the Son's eternal existence in this thread." I am not trying to do anything in this thread so far except to determine if the Son was begotten before or after all worlds.

How is that any different than what was said before. YES, a human body was "made" for the Son. This by no means makes the Son "made." It means there was a BODY MADE and a BODY BEGOTTEN.

That is not what Scripture says.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (The "Son" was "begotten", not just his body. You cannot separate the Son from his body. He was begotten with a body).

​

​

 

[jocor]

Acts 7:38
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

"He" and "him" refer to Moses, not Yeshua.

 

[jocor]

Are you then in the Messianic Judaism camp of theology?

I am not a Messianic Jew. Why must you label me and put me in one of your boxes?

 

[smaller]

"He" and "him" refer to Moses, not Yeshua.

The Spirit of Christ spoke through Moses. So, yes Jesus was in the wilderness church.

 

[smaller]

I am not a Messianic Jew. Why must you label me and put me in one of your boxes?

Slant on term? Messianic christian more accurate?