Immaculate Conception

Originally posted by Conrau K
These were very intelligent men versed in multiple languages. They clearly made a distinction between creation and begetting, a distinction which is apparent in Scripture since the Son is never called a created entity. You are imposing your own notional prejudices on the bible.

ok, so they are infallible now, is that what you are saying? were there not equally learned men of the time, who did not share their beliefs, were there not? you need to get with the times my friend, our understanding has come a long way in just over a hundred years and you are yet stuck in the fourth century!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, so they are infallible now, is that what you are saying? were there not equally learned men of the time, who did not share their beliefs, were there not? you need to get with the times my friend, our understanding has come a long way in just over a hundred years and you are yet stuck in the fourth century!

Actually, yes, I do believe that they are infallible, although that is another issue. The point is that the Nicene fathers followed Scripture in declaring that the Son was begotten. They distinguished this from creation saying 'begotten not made'. So if you disagree with this statement, the onus is on you to define what begetting and creation mean and why you think that they are the same.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Actually, yes, I do believe that they are infallible, although that is another issue. The point is that the Nicene fathers followed Scripture in declaring that the Son was begotten. They distinguished this from creation saying 'begotten not made'. So if you disagree with this statement, the onus is on you to define what begetting and creation mean and why you think that they are the same.

i did, i shall not do so again! yes they may have declared that Christ was begotten, but their explanation of its meaning betrays a retrospective analysis, made on the basis of their desire to advocate the trinity.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i did, i shall not do so again! yes they may have declared that Christ was begotten, but their explanation of its meaning betrays a retrospective analysis, made on the basis of their desire to advocate the trinity.

Sorry, it must have slipped by. I never noticed you putting forward an definition of what 'begotten' and 'created' mean. And since you claim to be so knowledgeable of what the Nicene thought and argued, and what their motivations were, could you summarise for me to clarify the discussion?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Sorry, it must have slipped by. I never noticed you putting forward an definition of what 'begotten' and 'created' mean. And since you claim to be so knowledgeable of what the Nicene thought and argued, and what their motivations were, could you summarise for me to clarify the discussion?

i posted a definition of begotten, and yes it must have slipped by, who knows, everything else has, and no, i am not going to look up the creed of the Nicene fathers, its your belief, do it yourself, i have enough trouble with my own.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The discussion at hand is whether Christ is a created entity. Now, no where in the Scripture is the Son ever called a 'created entity'. He is called the only begotten, the knowledge of God, the image and word of the Father, the logos, the footprint of God and the beginning of creation. These titles clearly distinguish the Son from creation. Knowledge is not ...[text shortened]... t day, he refuses to admit error. This is what makes him intellectually dishonest.

It is probably not the case that he refuses to admit error, despite the fact that this is a staple of messageboards.

What you have done here is re-present your (admittedly erudite) argument. That's fine, but it doesn't engage with the point I'm making.

I'm not implying you have any obligation to engage of course.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i posted a definition of begotten, and yes it must have slipped by, who knows, everything else has, and no, i am not going to look up the creed of the Nicene fathers, its your belief, do it yourself, i have enough trouble with my own.

Then re-post. If it has been posted, you should remember where it is and it should not be difficult to re-post it. I see a huge difference between begotten and created. I can beget a son but not create a son; I can create an artwork but not beget an artwork. These words are not interchangeable and so I wonder how you can apply both to Christ.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Then re-post. If it has been posted, you should remember where it is and it should not be difficult to re-post it. I see a huge difference between begotten and created. I can beget a son but not create a son; I can create an artwork but not beget an artwork. These words are not interchangeable and so I wonder how you can apply both to Christ.

its not surprising you wish to see a huge difference, for it does not coincide with your beliefs, does it? nor of the official line of the catholic church. I have posted it once, i will not do so again.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
It is probably not the case that he refuses to admit error, despite the fact that this is a staple of messageboards.

What you have done here is re-present your (admittedly erudite) argument. That's fine, but it doesn't engage with the point I'm making.

I'm not implying you have any obligation to engage of course.

there is nothing to admit error for, Christ is begotten, but our friend here would like to state that in begetting, there is the sense of an unoriginated relationship. Every other sense of the word is with regard to progeny, oh but no, not in the case of Christ, for we have a doctrine we wish to try to establish, therefore it must mean something else, pathetic, in the original sense of the word!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not surprising you wish to see a huge difference, for it does not coincide with your beliefs, does it? nor of the official line of the catholic church. I have posted it once, i will not do so again.

How convenient that you won't post it again. Then don't. But could you please explain the difference between begetting a son and creating an artwork? Why aren't the two words interchangeable?

Originally posted by Conrau K
How convenient that you won't post it again. Then don't. But could you please explain the difference between begetting a son and creating an artwork? Why aren't the two words interchangeable?

its not convenient at all, it never made any impact on you the first time, I have no reason to believe that it will do so again. One creates an artwork, the painter gives it life, one begets a son, as was pointed out to you, the very same word was used with regard to the fathering of a human son and god giving life to, or begetting the Christ! but no, that was not good enough, you whinged, 'god does not have relationships like humans', well hey, i never, of course he doesn't, that does not mean that he is not a life giver, does it? that does not mean he cannot create, does it? that does not mean that he did not beget or originate or give life to the Christ, no no, its an unoriginated relationship? pathetic attempt to circumvent a clear and unambiguous fact with a trinitarian appeal to duplicity of words!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is nothing to admit error for, Christ is begotten, but our friend here would like to state that in begetting, there is the sense of an unoriginated relationship. Every other sense of the word is with regard to progeny, oh but no, not in the case of Christ, for we have a doctrine we wish to try to establish, therefore it must mean something else, pathetic, in the original sense of the word!

...and now you've done the same thing. You have put your case to me. And again, it doesn't really engage with my point. You have responded to a meta-argument with a restatement of your argument.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its not convenient at all, it never made any impact on you the first time, I have no reason to believe that it will do so again. One creates an artwork, the painter gives it life, one begets a son, as was pointed out to you, the very same word was used with regard to the fathering of a human son and god giving life to, or begetting the Christ! but ...[text shortened]... t to circumvent a clear and unambiguous fact with a trinitarian appeal to duplicity of words!

Robbie, I have said three times now that I do not accept the idea of an 'unoriginated relationship'. This is terminology I am not familiar with and have explicitly rejected. Likewise, I have not called Christ co-creator, yet you constantly attribute those words to me. The obvious fact is that you make no attempt to read let alone understand what I post.

Yes, the Son is 'begotten' and that word is used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Isaac. Obviously however the word 'begotten' for the Son is only analogous (the Father, unlike Abraham, is not biological, did not need to copulate). I agree that the Father gives life to the Son. What I dispute is that this is not an act of creation. The Father gives us life too but we are not sons in the same way as Jesus Christ (St. Paul says we hope to become sons by adoption.)

Your view is completely unscriptural. It rests on a flimsy notion that creation and begetting are the same. This is not true of real life nor true of Scripture in which it says 'through him ALL things were made'. You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to read it any other way. The Son is not another being like angels and humans, but is the logos, the reason and principle behind creation. He is not a 'thing' as you seem to think. Your exegesis misses out on the radical nature of Christ. I pity you.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
...and now you've done the same thing. You have put your case to me. And again, it doesn't really engage with my point. You have responded to a meta-argument with a restatement of your argument.

well what do you expect, im a noob!

Originally posted by Conrau K
Robbie, I have said three times now that I do not accept the idea of an 'unoriginated relationship'. This is terminology I am not familiar with and have explicitly rejected. Likewise, I have not called Christ co-creator, yet you constantly attribute those words to me. The obvious fact is that you make no attempt to read let alone understand what I post.

u seem to think. Your exegesis misses out on the radical nature of Christ. I pity you.

look this can wait till tommorow, for whether you accept it or not, are familiar with it or not, in essence that is what you are saying, whether you know it or not. i do read your posts, my goodness man how else can i hope to refute them and establish the truth if i do not read them 😛 anyhow, its late here, my mind has reached meltdown stage and i wish you all a very good night, until we meet again, pistols at dawn, for the honour!