Twice in the Creed the word begotten is used.

'the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father''

"begotten, not made'

What does begotten mean, as it is used in reference to Jesus Christ?

I understand that the point is that Jesus was not created as Arius taught.

But the word begotten, as commonly used, still carries the idea of a coming into existence.

So, to you theologians, can you explain it to this simple minded person?

Peace

Jeffrey

looked up the word in dictionary here is what I found

Sep 29, 2010 -- 2:13PM, BDboy wrote:

This word is only important if you feel Jesus was "God in flesh" or "literally" Son of God. Otherwise all of us have "Spirit of God" within us and we appeared with permission and plan from God.

Bible talks about son of God in other places but "begotten" son of God is a different game altogether.

And that is exactly the intent of that phrase in the Creed. It was intentionally phrased that way in order to deny what the Arians were claiming about the nature of the Christ.

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten not made, of one being*with the Father, by whom all things were made."

Athanasius, one of the chief composers of the Creed, was adamant about this point, and in his own notes, said that he wanted there to be absolutely no doubt about what is meant by it.

*homoousios = of the same being/nature/substance. Whatever God the Father is, that is what the Son is.  This is explicitly in contrast to homoiousias = of similar or like being. The Son is not like God, the Son IS God.

Blessings on you as well.

Yes, the history if the Church has had any number of detours. In the late Third/ early Fourth Centuries, there was a priest named Arius who started with one true doctrine, and blew it out of proportion with the rest of the teachings of the Church. That is how most heresies begin. Making one lesser true teaching the most important one at the expense of other true teachings.

Arius believed, as the Church believes, that God is One. This teaching is part of what the Apostles and Early Fathers of the Church had said. But then he denied other teachings of the Church about the nature of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  Up to this time, there had not been a clear declaration of what the consensus of the faithful was.

In order to clear up the confusion, in AD 325, the newly converted Emperor Constantine called for an Ecumenical Council to resolve the matter. Since the Council was made up only of Bishops, Arius (a lowly priest) could not attend. But there was several bishops who agreed with Arius, and who argued his case in the Council.

The Arians had been successful in sending out missionaries, and thay had established a number of churches, especially in the Caucasus region of modern Romania, and among the germanic tribes of northern Europe. They had also sent missionaries to the desart tribes of the Bedouins in what is now Arabia. It is very likely, in fact, that Mohammad met and talked with some of these Arian missionaries.

The Council finally concluded that Arius, while cleaver, had been wrong about the nature of God. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity was clearly declared to be the teaching of the Church. The Nicene Creed was composed to make the case against Arius airtight.

Is that what you are referring to?

Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

I am also interested to know about any modern movement on this topic. I heard some anglican, Mormon church followers do not accept the "begotten" part. Also few other movements. There are some sites on it.

www.truegospel.com/begottensonchrist.htm...

www.mmoutreachinc.com/mormons/denyjesus....

"unique son" of God but not the "only begotten son" of God

I checked these links. All I can say is that any fool with a computer can create a website. Those two are the creations of some rather fringe elements. Their purpose, it seems, is to refute other fringe elements who think differently from them. If you want to know what the mainstream of Christianity believes, read the Nicene Creed. That has not changed (with one exception*) since AD 325.

The second link seems to be specifically designed as a refutation of the Mormons, aka, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Mormons are an odd group. They have, over the years, claimed that they are not Christian, and at other times have insisted that they are Christian. I have studied some of their scriptures (the Book of Mormon, et alia) and I am of the opinion that they have some similarities to mainstream Christianity, but that they also believe some things which no one else would accept.

For example, they believe that once upon a time, millenia ago, God the Father of Jesus and Jesus's brother Satan (yes, they believe that!) was a human being on another world/planet. They believe that Jehovah (that is God's name, apparently) was such a good Mormon that he earned the status of god, and thus he was given his own world to rule, namely, Earth. They further believe that if they are good enough Mormons in this world, they will also be rewarded with their own worlds which they will then rule as gods.

If I know anything at all about Islam, then I feel safe in assuming that this is not in accordance with your fath? Because it certainly isn't in accordance with the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.

Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

The last link has a different explanation of the term "begotten" which is really close to Islamic point of view of Jesus. Muslims feel Jesus had no earthly father and he was a "Word of God" [ implying God ordered him to come into being and he was.....similar to how Adam was created].

  The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

[  Al Qur'an 003:059]

I had not heard that before. I must remember that next time I teach that course on Comparative World religions. It is interesting to me that the Qur'an uses the word "similitude". Is that an accurate translation of the Arabic? That is exactly the word which was debated at Nicea. It is part of the argument between óμοουσιος and óμοιουσιος. Yep, one tiny letter which made all the diference in the world to the Orthodox Christians and the Arians. The Arians said óμοιουσιος or of similar Being or Substance as the Father, while the Orthodox insisted that Jesus and the Father are óμοουσιος, or of the same/identical Being or Substance. Arius would have agreed with Mohammad in this passage.

Orthodox Christians have a somewhat different look on the term Word of God. The New Testament was written in Greek, and circulated originally within a Greek speaking world. In Greek thought and philosophy, the term Λογος was more than just the word of "word" (that would have been ρéμα). Logos is the Word or Reason, or Logic (our English word "Logic" derives from the Greek "Logos") John begins his Gospel speaking of the Logos made flesh. This the the Word by which God spoke, and the world came into being. It was through the Logos that all things were made. And now, John says, this same Logos has become flesh and dwelt among us. Is God's Word separate from God? The Church says no.

Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

It is interesting that the names "Jesus" and "Adam" were mentioned equal times in the Qur'an ( 25 times for both names). The name "Muhammad" occured 4 times only.

Anyway, I was interested to know a bit more about that movement. I know about those who follow the "begotten son" theory already.

May you have a blessed day!

I hope I haven't overwhelmed you with words here. I hope this helps with mutual understanding.

*that exception being the infamous filioque clause. which has been a thorn in the relations between the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Catholic/Protestant churches for over 1,000 years.