@Deep Sight

I have been trying to be reasonably polite and as such I have not really let you know my full thinking on some of the things you write.

I will give you some indication, still mild, this time. When you say things like:

Deep Sight:

. . . The etymology of the word monogenes applied to Jesus also kills your analogy DEAD. You have not read or understood the etymology.

I'm afraid you display gross ignorance and shallowness. It is evident and even worsened when your basis for such conclusion is Wikipedia. Just use your loaf better for once! Do you think that if Christians hadn't thought through the meaning of the word "begotten", they would have then used it in the creeds --- especially the Nicene creed

Your attempt to explain "monogenes" is so shallow that it is laughable. I'll give you a clue; go back to your Wikipedia and read up the entry on "consubstantiality" and then take up your research on "monogenes/begotten" from there. In fact, I'll give you a little further help: (a) ask yourself why many other Bible translations say "only son" in John 3:16 and elsewhere (not using the word "begotten"; clue -- it has to do with potential translations of your "monogenes"; (b) learn to use a concordance (very simple task) and check all the renderings of "monogenes" in the Bible.

If afterwards you want the proper Christian perspective, I may be interested enough to help.

On your point about the sun etc  it is enough for me to say (a) it is an analogy and (b) read the words in bracket (c) make of the entire analogy what you will.

Deep Sight:
. . .
PS: I hope you are aware that the adherents of the Grail Message - from which M_Nwankwo's views are sourced, also believe that the writer of the Grail Message, Mr. Abd Ru Shin - is the earthly incarnation of a being called Parsifal - who they believe is the Holy Spirit himself and part of the Trinity. Perhaps you are also willing to swallow that?

I know very much of m_nwankwo's adherence to the Grail Message and very much knew that when I made the post you allude to. Ta very muchly.

@ Enigma -

I will not be so kind as to address you in the way you have addressed me as "shallow" or "grossly ignorant" - I would rather as always prefer to stick to the issues and not obsess on the nature of the person I may be discussing with.

Now regarding the term "monogenes" -

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE SAME WORD IS USED TO REFER TO BEGOTTEN SINGLE CHILDREN OF HUMANS?

In fact it is never used save in this context! So when applied to Jesus tell me EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION - If not simply to escape the obvious!

The self same Greek writters used the same word four other times  -

-   Luke 7: 12 “And when he drew near to the gate of the city, and behold, a dead [man] was being carried out, [size=16pt]a monogenes[/size] in relation to his mother, and she [was] a widow, and many people of the city [were] with her.”

-   Luke 9:38 “And behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, ‘Teacher, I am begging you to look at my son, because he is [size=16pt]monogenes[/size] to me.’ ”

-   Luke 8:42 “And behold, [there was] a man who was named Jairus, and he was ruler of the synagogue.  And he, having fallen at the feet of Jesus, was exhorting him to enter into his house, because he had a [size=16pt]monogenes daughter[/size] about twelve years [old], and she was dying.”

-   Hebrews 11:17. “In faith, Abraham, when he was tested offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up [size=16pt]the monogenes[/size] (he) to whom it was said that, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ”

IN [B]ALL[/b] of these verses the word referred to single begotten children. ALL!

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY WE SHOULD SUDDENLY DEVELOP A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION WHEN USED WITH REFERENCE TO JESUS? ? ? ? ? ? ?

@ Deep Sight

Firstly in response to your concern about my use of 'shallow/ignorant': if you are able to observe that a person has not read or understood an issue, don't be surprised if they say your understanding of the issue is shallow --- and that is why you do not appreciate their own perspective.

Secondly, the rest of your post indicates that I was right on some of the work that you still have to do: please go and read up on the uses in English language Bibles of "only son" or "only child" on the one hand and "only begotten son" on the other.

^^^ I am afraid you have not said anything really. I laid out 4 clear contexts of the use of the word which prove my point. You cannot revert asking me to "research further" - and expect that that suffices as a rebuttal.

And you should also be aware that given your explanation of your use of the words "shallow" and "ignorant" - everybody will be entitled to view everybody else as shallow and ignorant - once they have different views.

Oh, I m not trying to rebut your points and I do not need to. What I am pointing to you is that you are criticising and being condescending to Christian doctrine without really understanding it. If you must challenge/criticise something, the mark of the intellectual is that he at least understands the thing fully or sufficiently.

EDIT

Deep Sight:
. . .
And you should also be aware that given your explanation of your use of the words "shallow" and "ignorant" - everybody will be entitled to view everybody else as shallow and ignorant - once they have different views.

And perhaps everybody can say to everybody else that they have not read and understood a particular topic?

Well I gave this -

Deep Sight:

The word translated "only begotten" is monogenes. This same word was used by the scripture writers to refer to human children who were single children. It is thus eminently obvious that the term monogenes contains the connotation of having been brought into existence. We can go onto the etymology if you wish.

Monogenes is a cumulative derivative from the Greek words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’.

The word Monogenes comprises two components as stated above.

Monos (mon'-os) is defined as: sole or single - alone, only.

The Second component is -genos (ghen’-os) which means an offspring or kind. It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

In greek the derivative root of the term Monogenes is ‘ginomai’ - which is defined as; to cause to be ("gen"-erate or to be born)}, and thus is thus accurately rendered as ‘only begotten’.

There is no doubt and no escaping the implications of the root word “gi nomai” – which has a clear indicative meaning as “to be caused, generated or born.”

If Jesus was begotten, then he came into existence at a point. God, by contrast, is eternal and always existed.

And this -

Deep Sight:


Now regarding the term "monogenes" -

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE SAME WORD IS USED TO REFER TO BEGOTTEN SINGLE CHILDREN OF HUMANS?

In fact it is never used save in this context! So when applied to Jesus tell me EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION - If not simply to escape the obvious!

The self same Greek writters used the same word four other times -

- Luke 7: 12 “And when he drew near to the gate of the city, and behold, a dead [man] was being carried out, [size=16pt]a monogenes[/size] in relation to his mother, and she [was] a widow, and many people of the city [were] with her.”

- Luke 9:38 “And behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, ‘Teacher, I am begging you to look at my son, because he is [size=16pt]monogenes[/size] to me.’ ”

- Luke 8:42 “And behold, [there was] a man who was named Jairus, and he was ruler of the synagogue. And he, having fallen at the feet of Jesus, was exhorting him to enter into his house, because he had a [size=16pt]monogenes daughter[/size] about twelve years [old], and she was dying.”

- Hebrews 11:17. “In faith, Abraham, when he was tested offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up [size=16pt]the monogenes[/size] (he) to whom it was said that, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ”

IN [B]ALL[/b] of these verses the word referred to single begotten children. ALL!

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY WE SHOULD SUDDENLY DEVELOP A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION WHEN USED WITH REFERENCE TO JESUS? ? ? ? ? ? ?

- And so I would expect that it is YOU who should give a "scientifc" and "intellectual" rebuttal of the specific points contained therein - instead of merely asking me to "research further" - which is escapist at best.

And I had given this quote below before all of that:

When we say that the Son is begotten of the Father, we do not refer to an event in the remote past, but to an eternal and timeless relation between the Persons of the Godhead.

Shouldn't that tell you that your understanding of the word "begotten" is not the same as ours and therefore perhaps you should seek a proper understanding and appreciation of what we mean by "begotten" ---- especially when we emphasise His "begottenness" in our creeds by saying

begotten not made

?

"begotten not made" is simply another human contradictory creation trumped up to prop up an illogicallity.

I have said enough on the word "monogenes" and you have offered nothing of substance to rebutt that which I have set forth.

I therefore leave it to the objective observer to examine that which has been posted and see what is "scientific" and what is not.

^^^ Absolutely fine by me.

Deep Sight:

PS: I hope you are aware that the adherents of the Grail Message  - from which M_Nwankwo's views are sourced, also believe that the writer of the Grail Message, Mr. Abd Ru Shin - is the earthly incarnation of a being called Parsifal - who they believe is the Holy Spirit himself and part of the Trinity. Perhaps you are also willing to swallow that?

Hi Deep Sight. Your assertion above is not what the Grail Message teaches and I have on several discussions drawn you attention to the point that Parsifal is not the Holy Spirit. I will again remind you the position of the Grail Message on this issue and hopefully you will see the teaching of the Grail Message on this issue even when you disagree with it. The Grail Message teaches that Imanuel is the Holy Spirit. Parsifal is the Primordial Spiritual clock of Imanuel. Parsifal is created even though he is the first in creation. Thus it is the HolySpirit or Imanuel that is a son of God just like Jesus, not Parsifal who is the highest created being. The Grail Message teaches that Jesus is the inborn son of God the Father and Imanuel is the outborn son of God the Father. As always,stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Deep Sight. Your assertion above is not what the Grail Message teaches and I have on several discussions drawn you attention to the point that Parsifal is not the Holy Spirit. I will again remind you the position of the Grail Message on this issue and hopefully you will see the teaching of the Grail Message on this issue even when you disagree with it. The Grail Message teaches that Imanuel is the Holy Spirit. Parsifal is the Primordial Spiritual clock of Imanuel. Parsifal is created even though he is the first in creation. Thus it is the HolySpirit or Imanuel that is a son of God just like Jesus, not Parsifal who is the highest created being. The Grail Message teaches that Jesus is the inborn son of God the Father and Imanuel is the outborn son of God the Father. As always,stay blessed.

With much respect I have to disagree with you sir. And in this by no means do i propose to address to you that which you certainly know better than I do: but I wish to draw your attention to what I believe amounts to hairsplitting.

Let us imagine a human spirit which incarnates on earth as a human being in a physical body. Let us call the human spirit "X."

Going by your analogy once X incarnates on earth in a physical body, we would state that he is no longer "X." We would state that the human being on earth is a different personage. As you can see this is absolutely untenable. The accurate perception will be to say that the human being in the physical body is indeed X himself in a physical body.

It is abundantly clear that the Grail Message teaches that -

1. Imanuel is the Holy Spirit

2. Parsifal is the Primordial Spiritual Cloak of Imanuel.

Thus as is the case with the human example i gave above, it is abundantly clear that Parsifal is indeed Imanuel with a Primordial Spiritual Cloak. As such it is very strange indeed that you can say (a) Imanuel is the Holy Spirit and (b) Parsifal is the cloak of Imanuel - and yet contend that Parsifal is not the Holy Spirit. This is exactly analogous to saying that X in the example above is not the human being incarnated on earth. You will agree with me that this amounts to a grievuous degree of hairsplitting which cannot be said to convey the truth.

If your statement were to be accepted, then it would equally follow that Jesus of Nazareth as incarnated on Earth was not the Son of God BUT A DIFFERENT PERSONAGE! I hope you see this clearly.

Now if you insist that Jesus was actually the Son of God incarnated on EARTH then you CANNOT state that Abd Ru Shin, the writer of the Grail Message was not Parsifal! This is absolutely ineluctable.

At the end of the day, you have spoken about radiated beings. This must perforce be the same process by which the supposed son of God, Jesus, was radiated to Earth: or do you assert it not to be so? Once you call Jesus the Son of God, then it per force follows that Abd Ru Shin is indeed also that other son of God and is thus the Holy Spirit - Imanuel - in a physical body.

Imanuel - - - -> Parsifal - - - - > Abd Ru Shin

Are these not THE SAME PERSON in different cloaks?

I therefore regard it as eminently strange that you would claim that the Grail Message does not assert Abd Ru Shin to be the son of God who is teh Holy Spirit.

If you will insist on this, perhaps it will be apt for me to extract word for word what the Grail Message does say and post it here?

Matt 28:19 - "Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".

Interesting, ain't it? And this didn't come from a council meeting or the RCC!

^^^ I dont see how that says anything. Baptism in the name of Deep Sight, Deep Sight's Son, and Deep Sight's powers does not in anyway render Deep Sight Three persons in one, does it? ? ?

All dis masculinity inside the Godhead sef! Why no be daughter God come get? Ehn? Ehn?? Ehn Why e no be "God the Mother" and "God the Daughter" sef?

Abi God sef na man?

The domineering patriachal culture is at the root of these deifications.

@Deep Sight

Hi DeepSight. I again address your concern and in doing so I will leave out Abd-ru-Shin and concentrate on Imanuel and Parsifal.

With much respect I have to disagree with you sir. And in this by no means do i propose to address to you that which you certainly know better than I do: but I wish to draw your attention to what I believe amounts to hairsplitting.

Let us imagine a human spirit which incarnates on earth as a human being in a physical body. Let us call the human spirit "X."

Going by your analogy once X incarnates on earth in a physical body, we would state that he is no longer "X." We would state that the human being on earth is a different personage. As you can see this is absolutely untenable. The accurate perception will be to say that the human being in the physical body is indeed X himself in a physical body.

Your analogy with respect to the human spirit and his physical clock does not apply for the simple reason that a physical clock is not a living being in itself but simply an instrument through which the spirit experiences the physical world. Parsifal is a living being and the use of the word clock is simply to show that it is the vessel through which Imanuel, the Holy Spirit works in creation. The divine radiations of the the Holy Spirit will remain divine radiations except when transformed through the vessel that is Parsifal. Only by such a transformation do you have the Primordial Spiritual creation. The animating core of Imanuel is God essence and the animating core of Parsifal is Primordial Spiritual essence. May I also remind you that Imanuel, or Parsifal do not need to step out of outside of creation or at the submit of creation into creation, rather there volition are living and can emanate from them, journeying into different parts of the creations. When the time is ripe, hopefully I will be permitted to show you in spirit what may help you in this connection.

It is abundantly clear that the Grail Message teaches that -

1. Imanuel is the Holy Spirit

2. Parsifal is the Primordial Spiritual Cloak of Imanuel.

This is correct.

Thus as is the case with the human example i gave above, it is abundantly clear that Parsifal is indeed Imanuel with a Primordial Spiritual Cloak. As such it is very strange indeed that you can say (a) Imanuel is the Holy Spirit and (b) Parsifal is the cloak of Imanuel - and yet contend that Parsifal is not the Holy Spirit. This is exactly analogous to saying that X in the example above is not the human being incarnated on earth. You will agree with me that this amounts to a grievuous degree of hairsplitting which cannot be said to convey the truth.

This is wrong and look at my explanation above. Immanuel is connected to Parsifal by unbreakable radiation and it is wrong to say that Parsifal is Imanuel with a Primordial Spiritual Clock. If you agree that Parsifal is the Primordial Spiritual Clock of Imanuel, does it make sense to you to say again that the "the Primodial Spiritual Clock of Imanuel (Parsifal) is Imanuel with the Primordial Spiritual Clock". This is a direct literal translation of what you are saying. Parsifal is inseparable from Imanuel in there working but they are not the same. How can a vessel become the same as the owner of the vessel? Even in your human analogy, can you say that the human physical body is the spirit with a physical body. Reflect on this and maybe you may sense what I am trying to convey to you.

f your statement were to be accepted, then it would equally follow that Jesus of Nazareth as incarnated on Earth was not the Son of God BUT A DIFFERENT PERSONAGE! I hope you see this clearly.

Now if you insist that Jesus was actually the Son of God incarnated on EARTH then you CANNOT state that Abd Ru Shin, the writer of the Grail Message was not Parsifal! This is absolutely ineluctable.

If you wish to know the detail of the incarnation of God as Jesus, I may offer my perception if I consider it to be necessary. Jesus is the son of God even on earth for what is Jesus is an incarnation of an essence of God the Father. That unsubstantiate divine essence left God the Father but connected to God the Father through an unbreakable radiation chain. Thus it is absolutely correct to call him the son of God or God the son. It is a similar process with Imanuel, the Holy Spirit. But it is different with Parsifal. Parsifal unlike Jesus and Imanuel is not the unsubstantiate essense of God the Father, rather he is the Primordial Spiritual anchorage of Holy Spirit. The origin of Parsifal lies in the union of radiation between the Holy Spirit and the Primordial Queen, the queen of heaven. Parsifal thus have an unbreakable radiation connection with the Holy Spirit and the Primordial Queen. The divine radiations of the Holy Spirit glows through Parsifal resulting in a transformation of the radiation and consequent emergence of various creations. For some personal reasons, I will not dwell on the identity of Abd-ru-Shin. But be reminded that even when Abd-ru-Shin was physically on earth, Parsifal was still at the summit of the entire creation as the king of the highest temple of God in creation, the Primordial Grail Castle, and Imanuel, the Holy Spirit was still outside and above all creation and king in the Divine Grail Castle. Reflect on this and may be the correct picture may emerge. I state again, it is Imanuel that is the the Holy Spirit and hence a son of God and not Parsifal. Parsifal came from Imanuel and is absolutely dependent on Imanuel but Imanuel didnot come from Parsifal and has no beginning. Parsifal is nothing without Imanuel. Thus Imanuel works in and through Parsifal and not the reverse.

At the end of the day, you have spoken about radiated beings. This must perforce be the same process by which the supposed son of God, Jesus, was radiated to Earth: or do you assert it not to be so? Once you call Jesus the Son of God, then it per force follows that Abd Ru Shin is indeed also that other son of God and is thus the Holy Spirit - Imanuel - in a physical body.

See my explanations above.

manuel - - - -> Parsifal - - - - > Abd Ru Shin

Are these not THE SAME PERSON in different cloaks?

The are not the same persons. See again my explanations above.

I therefore regard it as eminently strange that you would claim that the Grail Message does not assert Abd Ru Shin to be the son of God who is teh Holy Spirit.

If you will insist on this, perhaps it will be apt for me to extract word for word what the Grail Message does say and post it here?

I do not want to dwell on the identity of Abd-ru-Shin. Revelation of the identity of Abd-ru-Shin should be personal to each person. You are free to pull out relevant passage and I will offer my perceptions on them. As always stay blessed.

Thank you Nwankwo. Your explanations are most useful.

But why resile from discussing Abd-Ru-Shin? That would be useful too.

Deep Sight:

^^^ I dont see how that says anything. Baptism in the name of Deep Sight, Deep Sight's Son, and Deep Sight's powers does not in anyway render Deep Sight Three persons in one, does it? ? ?

As usual, you post stuff that has the tendency to make people wonder and then will get all "preachy" when called out. So "DeepSight's powers" has a name, right? Or you think anyone is fooled by this deliberate "obtuseness" which pretends not to get the point?

This is not a court where you win at all cost. I will cite you for contempt and that comes with a verdict on NL.

I rhino, by my son here, and by the power vested on me. . . I let this game begins.

OK: now on the "eternality" of Jesus i.e. Jesus is eternal. Jesus exist[b]S[/b] outside time!

Revelation 1:8

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 1:18

I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

John 17:5

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 17:24

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

John 16:28

I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Jesus Christ of no beginning, no end, no descent

Jesus is described as a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek of who himself it was said:

Hebrews 7:3

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Thus it stated in Hebrews 7:24, 25

But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

In fact Jesus just IS

John 8:58

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus IS

Jesus is eternal!

Yet He calls Himself the Son of God? Yet God calls Him Son?

Deep Sight:

Thank you Nwankwo. Your explanations are most useful.

But why resile from discussing Abd-Ru-Shin? That would be useful too.

Hi Deep Sight. The reason is that each human spirit should come to such a recognition by himself. Reading the Grail Message and even seeing some passages where an intellectual inference can be made on the identity of Abd-ru-Shin is not equivalent to recognising or knowing who Abd-ru-Shin is. Many intellectually believe he is this or that after reading the Grail Message but they have not recognised him. Recognition of the personality of Abd-ru-Shin is a spiritual experience that God gives to those who need it for there own spiritual advancement. It may thus sound strange to you but I am aware of individuals who know who Abd-ru-Shin is even without reading the Grail Message.  I leave it at that. As always stay blessed.

That is fine. I entirely understand the hesitation at stating it. Although I will note that it is intriguing that no such hesitation is to be noticed in terms of stating who Jesus is. It thus appears rather strange that this is not also the case in stating who Abd Ru Shin is.

Is the one a more sensitive issue than the other?

Enigma:

Jesus IS

Jesus is eternal!

Yet He calls Himself the Son of God? Yet God calls Him Son?

1. Of the Father's heart begotten,
Ere the world began to be,
Called the Alpha and Omega,
Both the source and end is He
Of all things that are,
that ever have been,
And that future years shall see,
Evermore and evermore!

2. O that birth forever blessed!
When the Virgin, full of grace,
By the Holy Ghost conceiving,
Bore the Savior of our race;
And the Babe, the world's Redeemer,
First revealed His sacred face,
Evermore and evermore!

3. O ye heights of Heav'n, adore Him;
Angel hosts, his praises sing;
Pow'rs, dominions, bow before Him,
And extol our God and King;
Let no tongue on earth be silent,
Ev'ry voice in concert ring,
Evermore and evermore!

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-XYlu3667s?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed>[/flash]

Psalm 33:6

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

Just as God's "word" and His "breath" are both separable and inseparable from God so are Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit both separable and inseparable from God the Father.

To know when Jesus Christ began to exist is to know when God began to be as, somewhat paradoxically, it is to know when God's "word" began to exist.

To know when the Holy Spirit began to exist is to know when God began to be as, somewhat paradoxically, it is to know when God's breath began to exist.

In the Christian expression "begotten not made" is a technical expression to distinguish between "generation" and "creation".

While a thing can be created using 'existing tools' the 'creation' is outside the creator. In the case of 'generation' on the other hand, the generation is from within the generator and, as such, has always existed with the generator.

One person puts it this way (though the pettifogger can quibble with some bits):

In the case of Christ it is completely logical to say that He existed from all eternity in some form in the Father before He was begotten as God. In fact, in John 1:18 Scripture teaches that Christ is the "only begotten God" (this is the literal translation from the Greek New Testament). The word "begotten" in the passage comes from a Greek word from which we get our English word "generate". To "generate" means to "bring forth" out of pre-existing substance, whereas "to create" means to "bring forth" out of nothing. Just as sunlight is generated (begotten) from the Sun but is not created by the Sun, so, too, Christ was generated (begotten) from the Father but was not created by the Father. Amen!! Amen!!

http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Christ_Was_Begotten_-_Not_Created_&articleid=100113&from=PROFILE

What's about God's thoughts, His anger, His love, His indifference, His sight, His hearing etc? Do they have beginnings too? Why are they not separate and distinct like His word and His breath as you suppose?

I did not say "separate and distinct"; I said separable and inseparable. Don't worry, take your time to digest it. 

EDITED

i'm sorry, I did not notice your previous post before I posted.

There is a thing modern Christians do that unnerves me. They redefine what bible writers wrote and declare it means this or that. For instance, I might say 'I hate my flat screen TV'. A century later, people will start redefining it thus: 'I hate all TVs' 'I hate electronics' 'I only hate Samsung TVs' 'I hate the shows shown on my TV and not the TV itself' or that it is only allegorical and what I mean is 'I hate the fleeting pleasures of life' Nevermind what I meant though which can at most combine only two of the above meanings.

That said. I understand the idea of God generating Jesus. If He generated Jesus, what about the Holy Spirit? Is He generated? If He is not, why distinguish Him at all? If He is, why call Jesus the only begotten (generated) Son of God? Does this generation thing mean God is some kind of cosmic Cell capable of mitosis?

I do not think Trinity was developed in the Council of Nicaea, although they tried explaining the relationship of Jesus with God. Jesus could not be accepted as a creation of God since the essence of the sacrifice would be in jeopardy. Their solution was a basis from which Trinity grew out from.