[jo kus]

I'm interpreting this to mean you agree with the latter statement of my above. Is that correct? I would respectfully disagree about "begotten" because I see it as referring to the "man" Jesus, who was obviously "begotten". I would say that "The Son" was in full existence well before He was "begotten".

No, begotten refers to the Logos before He became flesh. Begotten has nothing to do with the Incarnation of our Lord, but tries to explain how Wisdom came from the Father before time began.. There never was a time where the Fathere existed but the Son did not. To say otherwise would be to stray into Arianism.

Regards

[Forest Keeper]

No, begotten refers to the Logos before He became flesh. Begotten has nothing to do with the Incarnation of our Lord, but tries to explain how Wisdom came from the Father before time began.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. What would you say about John 3:16 and the two versions I'm familiar with? One says "only begotten son" and the other says "one and only son". I've always thought of those as referring to the Incarnation. I don't understand how this relates to wisdom.

There never was a time where the Father existed but the Son did not. To say otherwise would be to stray into Arianism.

I'm glad to hear that! :)