From: Christian Moulton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 09 1998 - 11:17:17 EST
Forgive this simple, short question from a poor subscriber who doesn't
have nearly the education that y'all seem to have.
Why do y'all seem to be assuming that Paul says that Christ is part of
creation by calling Him "first-born"; to be begotten and to be created
are not the same thing. Arius sparked a very major debate over this
in the 4th century, and the resolution of the First Council of Nicea
states very clearly, "begotten, not made". I do not say this in any
way to try to plug my particular dogmas but only to point out that
there seems to be an assumption going on in our discussions that has
not always been held.
>From the earliest days of the Church, verbs not involving "creation"
were used to discribe the relationship the Father has with the Son and
the Holy Spirit. From the earliest days, it has been said of the Son
that He was "begotten," and of the Holy Spirit that He "proceeds."
Once again, I only mention these dogmatical points to demonstrate
that, from the beginning (33 AD), this assumption that beggetting/born
and creation have not been considered equivalent.
For what its worth, I offer this point for readers of this passage.
Yours in Christ,
"It was in Antioch that they were first called Christians"
Through the prayers of the holy Nektarios Kephalas of Aegina, Metropolitan of Pentapolis the great wonderworkder, O Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us!
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:06 EDT