That which is created is a creature. That which is divine is uncreated. I am beginning to believe you are rather new at this, since you are not familiar with much of the standard theological vocabulary.
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"
If that is what you believe, you are not a Christian. Jesus is Incarnate; the Son is begotten from the Father. You are making up your own theology as you go along, FK, that much is obvious.
That which is created is a creature. That which is divine is uncreated. I am beginning to believe you are rather new at this, since you are not familiar with much of the standard theological vocabulary.
You are correct. I am very new at this. In fact, this is my first real theological discussion on this level with those with whom I disagree, ever. And, I am not ashamed. Everyone has to start somewhere.
FK: '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" '
If that is what you believe, you are not a Christian. Jesus is Incarnate; the Son is begotten from the Father. You are making up your own theology as you go along, FK, that much is obvious.
Thanks a lot! :), and I'm not even sure what part you are saying is un-Christian. As Jo and I have been recently discussing, I have been using "begotten" in the sense of "to sire" or "to cause to exist". Jo has another view, which is fine. However, Jo and I agree that the Son and the Father had no beginning and neither existed before the other. If this is your beef then you are calling all Catholics un-Christian along with me.