- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei have given my reasons as to why, sound and scripturally based, why the immaculate conception runs contrary to the word of God, there is NO scriptural reason to assume that Mary was conceived immaculately, if there is, then lets see it. As to your assertions that she is the women in revelation, i doubt very much whether you shall be able to substantiate that either, but hey, if one can justify a non scriptural dogma like the trinity, anything is possible.
my statement was in response to the assertion that Christ, did or did not a beginning and thus was or was not a created entity, not the immaculate conception, i though that was obvious given the previous posting, please forgive me for thinking that there may be some degree of continuity to this discussion.
i have given my reasons as to why, sound oddess and how these may have a bearing on the development of Mary worship within Catholicism.
Firstly, I do not think the Trinity is non scriptural -- you are deliberately baiting me. If anything is blatantly non scriptural, it is the idea that Jesus is an archangel which is something St Paul explicitly condemns (again, Hebrews 1). Secondly, it is wrong to say that the Immaculate Conception has no Scriptural basis. The angel Gabriel calls her 'full of grace' (lit. 'having been filled with grace'😉 pointing to her redemption already (original sin, in short, is the loss of grace while the redemption is the restoration of it) and Elizabeth says she is 'blessed among women' (which, in fact, would include Eve who had been immaculate before the fall.) This points to the Immaculate Conception. As I explained before however, the strength of this dogma derives not from Scripture but from its development in tradition.
Of great interest is the pre Christian pagan deities, of Mother and child, particularly Isis and her son Horus and many other archetypical representations of the 'great mother', goddess and how these may have a bearing on the development of Mary worship within Catholicism.
Firstly, all cultures have this. The special relationship between mother and her child is universal. More than pagan, it is probably Freudian. Hence, it is natural that Christians would depict Mary holding her child, as she probably did. Not only is it archetypal but fundamentally human. Secondly, Mary is not a goddess and no one worships her. This is just plain baiting.
lol, sussed again!
i would be interested in hearing your spiritual gymnastics and linguistic contortions on this phrase, 'only begotten'. here is our understanding.
The Greek word monogenes is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.
The Scriptures speak of “the only-begotten son” of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus “only-begotten daughter,” and of a man’s “only-begotten” son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Lu 7:11, 12; 8:41, 42; 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses monogenes when speaking of Jephthahs daughter, concerning whom it is written: “Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.”—Jg 11:34.
The apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Logos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”—1Jo 4:9.
He is described as having “a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father,” the one residing “in the bosom position with the Father.” (Joh 1:14, 18) It is hard to think of a closer, more confidential, or more loving and tender relationship between a father and his son than this.
The angels of heaven are sons of God even as Adam was a “son of God.” (Ge 6:2; Job 1:6; 38:7; Lu 3:38) But the Logos, later called Jesus, is “the only-begotten Son of God.” (Joh 3:18) He is the only one of his kind, the only one whom God himself created directly without the agency or cooperation of any creature. He is the only one whom God his Father used in bringing into existence all other creatures. He is the firstborn and chief one among all other angels (Col 1:15, 16; Heb 1:5, 6), which angels the Scriptures call “godlike ones” or “gods.” (Ps 8:4, 5) Therefore, according to some of the oldest and best manuscripts, the Lord Jesus Christ is properly described as “the only-begotten god [Gr., monogenes theos].”—Joh 1:18, NW, Ro, Sp.
A few translations, in support of the Trinitarian “God the Son” concept, would invert the phrase monogenes theos and render it as “God only begotten.” But W. J. Hickie in his Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (1956, p. 123) says it is hard to see why these translators render monogenes huios as “the only begotten Son,” but at the same time translate monogenes theos as “God only begotten,” instead of “the only begotten God.”
Paul referred to Isaac as Abrahams “only-begotten son” (Heb 11:17), even though Abraham also fathered Ishmael by Hagar as well as several sons by Keturah. (Ge 16:15; 25:1, 2; 1Ch 1:28, 32) Gods covenant, however, was established only through Isaac, Abraham’s only son by God’s promise, as well as the only son of Sarah. (Ge 17:16-19) Furthermore, at the time Abraham offered up Isaac, he was the only son in his father’s household. No sons had yet been born to Keturah, and Ishmael had been gone for some 20 years, no doubt was married and head of his own household, Ge 22:2.
So from several viewpoints in regard to the promise and the covenant, the things about which Paul was writing to the Hebrews, Isaac was Abraham’s only-begotten son. Hence, Paul parallels “the promises” and the “only-begotten son” with “‘your seed’ . . . through Isaac.” (Heb 11:17, 18) Whether Josephus had a similar viewpoint or not, he too spoke of Isaac as Abraham’s “only son.”, Jewish Antiquities, I, 222 (xiii, 1).
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't get what your point is.
lol, sussed again!
i would be interested in hearing your spiritual gymnastics and linguistic contortions on this phrase, 'only begotten'. here is our understanding.
The Greek word monogenes is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 18 ...[text shortened]... or not, he too spoke of Isaac as Abraham’s “only son.”, Jewish Antiquities, I, 222 (xiii, 1).
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, there is no dispute about the Son as the 'only-begotten'. This term 'only-begotten' was used in the Nicene creed itself in contradistinction to 'created'. So you haven't really proved anything that was in dispute.
the point being that the term, only begotten, is, by its nature, indicative that Christ was begotten, or created. 🙂
Originally posted by Conrau Kok, so they thought to dismiss its value on the basis of an interpretation of the word. only begotten and created, same thing i reckon, for how a distinction can be made from scripture, i do not know.
Robbie, there is no dispute about the Son as the 'only-begotten'. This term 'only-begotten' was used in the Nicene creed itself in contradistinction to 'created'. So you haven't really proved anything that was in dispute.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is no difference between creation and begetting?
ok, so they thought to dismiss its value on the basis of an interpretation of the word. only begotten and created, same thing i reckon, for how a distinction can be made from scripture, i do not know.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChrist was begotten. No where does Scripture speak of the Son as created. In fact, it repeatedly says that the Son was not created but that through him everything was created. He is separate from and eminent above creation.
so Christ was created or begotten?
Originally posted by Conrau Khow can Christ be begotten but at the same time not have been created? not only that, the definition that i gave, clearly states that he is one of a kind, the only begotten, how shall you explain this, if he has always existed? for the very term, begotten, would suggest a beginning, would it not? nor is Christ ever referred to as a creator, never! it is a term exclusively reserved for God, like the Almighty, and the 'hearer of prayer'.
Christ was begotten. No where does Scripture speak of the Son as created. In fact, it repeatedly says that the Son was not created but that through him everything was created. He is separate from and eminent above creation.
Christ himself credited God with the creation,
(Matthew 19:4-6) . . .In reply he said: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehow can Christ be begotten but at the same time not have been created? not only that, the definition that i gave, clearly states that he is one of a kind, the only begotten, how shall you explain this, if he has always existed? for the very term, begotten, would suggest a beginning, would it not?
how can Christ be begotten but at the same time not have been created? not only that, the definition that i gave, clearly states that he is one of a kind, the only begotten, how shall you explain this, if he has always existed? for the very term, begotten, would suggest a beginning, would it not? nor is Christ ever referred to as a creator, never! ...[text shortened]... re no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.”
Firstly, Christ existing before creation (and you yourself have acknowledge this) existed before time. So we cannot talk about a time when the Father was and the Son was not. Time is a property of creation. Secondly, I don't see the point in discussing the difference between 'begotten' and 'created' because you have rejected the validity of any metaphysical notions. Suffice it to say, the authors of the Nicene creed intended a difference between the two which is consonant with Scripture (the Son is never called a created being, only ever a begotten being.)
nor is Christ ever referred to as a creator, never! it is a term exclusively reserved for God, like the Almighty, and the 'hearer of prayer'.Christ himself credited God with the creation,
I never referred to Christ as the creator. I merely alluded to the Gospel of John and 1 Corinthians which both says that everything was created through the Son. Everything.
Originally posted by Conrau Kno, as far as i am aware, i have not acknowledged it. all i have stated is that Christ existed before the physical creation, nothing more. Yes all things were created through the Christ, however, he is not supposed that he is to be ascribed the designation of co-creator, for clearly there is not one biblical reference which terms him as such. Thus we are right to conclude that it was Gods power through Christ which established the creation, however, it also states that he was the first-born, the first entity directly created by God, otherwise how can he be termed the only begotten? Anything else is simply inconsistent and unsubstantiated, at least in scripture. Thus Conrau, i put it to you, only begotten is indicative that he was created.
[b]how can Christ be begotten but at the same time not have been created? not only that, the definition that i gave, clearly states that he is one of a kind, the only begotten, how shall you explain this, if he has always existed? for the very term, begotten, would suggest a beginning, would it not?
Firstly, Christ existing before creation (and yo nd 1 Corinthians which both says that everything was created through the Son. Everything.[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI never referred to Jesus as creator or co-creator. What I did was quote the scripture which says 'All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be' (John 1:3) and 'all things were created through him and for him' (Col 1:16). Jesus may not be creator but certainly he enjoys an eminent position over creation.
no, as far as i am aware, i have not acknowledged it. all i have stated is that Christ existed before the physical creation, nothing more. Yes all things were created through the Christ, however, he is not supposed that he is to be ascribed the designation of co-creator, for clearly there is not one biblical reference which terms him as such. Thus ...[text shortened]... st in scripture. Thus Conrau, i put it to you, only begotten is indicative that he was created.
it also states that he was the first-born, the first entity directly created by God, otherwise how can he be termed the only begotten?
Because 'begetting' and 'creating' are different actions. You will have to produce some argument why you consider them the same. The Nicene fathers clearly did not and when they wrote the creed, they clearly intended them to be distinguished, as it says 'begotten, not made, of one being with the Father.'
Anything else is simply inconsistent and unsubstantiated, at least in scripture. Thus Conrau, i put it to you, only begotten is indicative that he was created.
Yet you will never find a verse that says the Son was created. It isn't there. This is a case in point that philosophy is needed when reading the bible. The Scriptures only say 'begotten' and it requires a lot of inferential activity to come to the conclusion that this means 'created'. Reading the Bible is not just a prayerful exercise, nor can it even be a linguistic or historical investigation. You bring philosophical and cultural presuppositions that need to be critically evaluated before even beginning to read the Bible.
yes he enjoys an eminent position, but that does not make him God Almighty now, does it? therefore lets not be silly, consider this,
The Bible calls Jesus the “only-begotten Son” of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) Trinitarians say that since God is eternal, so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father?
Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is “to procreate as the father.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) They say that in Jesus case it means “the sense of unoriginated relationship,” a sort of only son relationship without the begetting. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him?
Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abrahams “only-begotten son.” There can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father.
The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is monogenes, from monos, meaning “only,” and ginomai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Hence, monogenes is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: “[Monogenes] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.” This book also states that at John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9, “the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.”
So Jesus, the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son. (Hebrews 11:17) Hence, when the Bible speaks of God as the “Father” of Jesus, it means what it says—that they are two separate individuals. God is the senior. Jesus is the junior—in time, position, power, and knowledge.
When one considers that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven, it becomes evident why the term “only-begotten Son” was used in his case. Countless other created spirit beings, angels, are also called “sons of God,” in the same sense that Adam was, because their life-force originated with Jehovah God, the Fountain, or Source, of life. (Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:38) But these were all created through the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten by God.—Colossians 1:15-17.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
yes he enjoys an eminent position, but that does not make him God Almighty now, does it? therefore lets not be silly, consider this,yes he enjoys an eminent position, but that does not make him God Almighty now, does it? therefore lets not be silly, consider this,
The Bible calls Jesus the “only-begotten Son” of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) Trinitarians say that since God is eternal, so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father?
Trinitarians claim that ...[text shortened]... through the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten by God.—Colossians 1:15-17.
We generally do not refer to the Son as 'God Almighty' which is a title generally applied to the Father.
The Bible calls Jesus the “only-begotten Son” of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) Trinitarians say that since God is eternal, so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father?
Because time is a property of a created universe, not of God. In God, there is no such thing as time. So when the Father begets the Son, he begets the Son eternally. Trinitarians would say that the Father is the first person and ontically prior since he gives existence to the Son but there is no moment when the Father is and the Son is not. Similarly, we can say that the premises of a valid argument precede the conclusion but there can be no moment when the premises are true and the conclusion false, since the whole argument is valid.
Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is “to procreate as the father.” (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) They say that in Jesus case it means “the sense of unoriginated relationship,” a sort of only son relationship without the begetting. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Does that sound logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him?
Trinitarians do not claim that. The Nicene creed which is the foundation for Trinitarian theology, and which I have quoted to you several times, describes the Son as 'begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God.'
Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten” (as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abrahams “only-begotten son.” There can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father.
Human relationships are analogous but not identical. The Son is begotten of the Father in a way analogous to Isaac and Abraham but obviously there are necessary differences. The Father is not biological being; he does not have gender, nor does he enter puberty in order to become fertile. The Nicene creed instead used the analogy of light. A beam of light begets another beam of light. There is only one light but two beams of light. They share in the same substance (light) but differ in relation (one produces the other.)