The Holy Trinity

[August]

Hi Fortigurn,

Can you maybe explain the doctrine of salvation as you see it?

Thanks

[Kurieuo]

YesI am well aware that the trinity is the product of syllogistic reasoning. The problem is that the syllogism is predicated on flawed premises.

What reasoning are you referring to? Something like:

1) Only God possesses such and such an attribute (e.g., eternality).
2) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit possess such an attribute.
3) Therefore each are God.

or to take an approach more inline with Athanasius:

1) Only God can save.
2) Jesus Christ saves.
3) Therefore Jesus Christ is God

Yes that is standard syllogistic reasoning.

Yes, but I fail to see the flawed premises.

Besides which, any syllogism which results in logical contradiction cannot be taken seriously.

I must ask what logical contradiction you are referring to? Careful not to make a strawman here about what is being claimed within the doctrine of the Trinity.

The logical contradiction of having God the Father, God the Son and God the Son, and having only one God.

That is a logical contradiction if it is advocated that there are three who are God yet only one God in the same sense. But this is a malformed strawman as such a doctrine is not advocated within the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, some forms of Social Trinitarianism are quite enlightening. For example, I'd refer you to my posts at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=716.

What I am pointing out is that you cannot claim that a doctrine which was developed in the post-apostolic era, which was not even defined until the 4th century, and is the result of resolving contradictions in certain interpretations of Biblical data, is a doctrine taught in Scripture.

Yet, I never said that the doctrine was developed several centuries later. Rather the Trinitarian doctrine was very clearly and implicitly taught within Scripture (and I believe Christian tradition passed down from the Apostles), even if it is not explicitly stated within Scripture "God is a Trinity." Only the term came later, but the concept is clearly there. Now to have someone in the 21st century declare that the Christians back then who were closer to teachings handed down by the Christ and the Apostles took the wrong side on Christ's divinity, and then invented the concept which wasn't previously taught in any manner... well, nevermind they were in a better position to judge. It seems like an outlandish conspiracy theory to me.

You misunderstand. I am not saying that the true identify of Christ and God isn't important - I believe it is.

I never said you thought it unimportant. Rather you have been clear that you believe such the question surrounding who Christ is isn't binding (e.g., it doesn't matter if one believe Christ isn't divine since there are different interpretations of Scripture). This is unsound reasoning, and this is what I attempted to refute. Now our answer (or even ignoring giving one) is binding according to Scripture, given the consequences of our beliefs regarding this question have real consequences in that we can die in our sins. If we are wrong or choose to ignore or not answer there are real and unavoidable consquences to be faced.

You cannot tell me that a doctrine developed post-Biblically as a means of explaining certain interpretations of Scripture is binding on Christians. If you go that way, you'll have to accept all the Oecumenical Councils, and I don't think you want to go there.

Again, the question of who Christ is, as revealed by Christ Himself, is binding given consequences apply even if one gets it wrong due to their interpretation.

Kurieuo

[Fortigurn]

Yes, but I fail to see the flawed premises.

Well of course you and I dispute that the premises are flawed. I wasn't addressing that specifically.

That is a logical contradiction if it is advocated that there are three who are God yet only one God in the same sense. But this is a malformed strawman as such a doctrine is not advocated within the doctrine of the Trinity.

I can assure you that the orthodox trinitarian theology does indeed advocate such a doctrine. This has been recognised since the Nicene Creed. I can quote dozens of theologians and lay Christians who hold to this. It is the traditional, orthodox, Creedal presentation of the trinitarian theology.

Rather, some forms of Social Trinitarianism are quite enlightening. For example, I'd refer you to my posts at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=716.

These are new ideas which seek to avoid the classical contradiction (which is proving increasinly less convincing to the modern mind). Many of them involve something close to Modalism, or else forms of Subordinationism which have traditionally considered heretical.

Unless they depart from the concept that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, who are all God inthe same sense, and yet there is only one God, they share the same logical contradiction.

Yet, I never said that the doctrine was developed several centuries later.

No, I did. You did acknowledge that it was a post-Biblical interpretation of Biblical data.

Rather the Trinitarian doctrine was very clearly and implicitly taught within Scripture (and I believe Christian tradition passed down from the Apostles), even if it is not explicitly stated within Scripture "God is a Trinity."

Once you've said 'implicitly', you're halfway to my argument. The difficulty is that you cannot find me a single passage in Scripture which defines God as one being consisting of three persons. This all important 'must-have-to-be-a-true-Christian' is clearly very, very, 'implicit'.

If it was handed down by Christian tradition, by the way, we would expect to find some textual and historical evidence for this fact (do you have any?).

Only the term came later, but the concept is clearly there.

Where is the concept of one God consisting of three persons found 'clearly' in Scripture?

Now to have someone in the 21st century declare that the Christians back then who were closer to teachings handed down by the Christ and the Apostles took the wrong side on Christ's divinity, and then invented the concept which wasn't previously taught in any manner... well, never mind they were in a better position to judge. It seems like an outlandish conspiracy theory to me.

I'm sure it sounds that way to you. Yet I can quote you orthodox theologians from the 19th century and earlier who acknowledge that this is more or less what happened (no it wasn't a conspiracy, it was simply a convergence of events).

I can also quote you plenty of orthodox theologians and trinitarian scholars who will say the same. This is a demonstrable historical fact.

I never said you thought it unimportant. Rather you have been clear that you believe such the question surrounding who Christ is isn't binding (e.g., it doesn't matter if one believe Christ isn't divine since there are different interpretations of Scripture).

No, I haven't said that either. I believe very strongly that the question surrounding who Christ is, is totally binding.

Now our answer (or even ignoring giving one) is binding according to Scripture, given the consequences of our beliefs regarding this question have real consequences in that we can die in our sins. If we are wrong or choose to ignore or not answer there are real and unavoidable consquences to be faced.

I agree with this 100%.

You cannot tell me that a doctrine developed post-Biblically as a means of explaining certain interpretations of Scripture is binding on Christians. If you go that way, you'll have to accept all the Oecumenical Councils, and I don't think you want to go there.

Again, the question of who Christ is, as revealed by Christ Himself, is binding given consequences apply even if one gets it wrong due to their interpretation.

I agree with this. What I am wondering is whether or not you accept the doctrines of the Oecumenical Councils as accurate.

[Jbuza]

It seems to me from READING YOUR POSTS that part of the reason you don't beleive in the trinity is that you don't believe that Jesus is Divine. I guess then I would wonder what your view of the nature of God is.? There was some part of Jesus' Spirit that was sent at Pentacost. Jesus Sits on a Throne in Heaven. Perhaps our only problems in this thread are semantic ones, so it would be helpful if you could pst your understanding of the nature of God.

As I have hinted, I feel that the Trinity is a concept, and have no desire to argue for or against that concept. I do have arguments against your position that Jesus Christ our LORD isn't Divine. This view of yours walks hand in hand with Salvation by Works. It is this concept that man could do something to restore himself to the fellowship we had with God as equally pure beings, that I have a problem with. You have been asked what your view of salvation is, and I await that because salvation were a man like any man was born and man finally won his way back to God thorugh the Work of a man is far different from the salvation I find in the Bible were God's Word and The Spirit that moved across the waters in the begining took on Human existence and made a great work allowing that some men could choose to be redeemed and be resurected into a Pure Nature and Body on that Glorious day when Jesus the LORD of all returns in great glory and majesty never seen in a mere man, but as God Almighty.

[Fortigurn]

It seems to me from READING YOUR POSTS that part of the reason you don't beleive in the trinity is that you don't believe that Jesus is Divine.

No, I don't believe in the trinity because the Bible consistently describes God as one being, of one person.

I guess then I would wonder what your view of the nature of God is.? There was some part of Jesus' Spirit that was sent at Pentacost. Jesus Sits on a Throne in Heaven. Perhaps our only problems in this thread are semantic ones, so it would be helpful if you could pst your understanding of the nature of God.

* I believe that God is a spirit being, and that He is one person - the Father

* I believe that the Holy Spirit is God's power

* I believe that Jesus Christ is a man, the mediator between God and men, who is the son of God by virtue of a miraculous begettal, and who has had authority and power delgated to him by God

As I have hinted, I feel that the Trinity is a concept, and have no desire to argue for or against that concept. I do have arguments against your position that Jesus Christ our LORD isn't Divine. This view of yours walks hand in hand with Salvation by Works. It is this concept that man could do something to restore himself to the fellowship we had with God as equally pure beings, that I have a problem with.

I don't believe that at all. The only reason why you get that idea is because I reject the Propitiatory Substitution view of the atonement which was invented in the 11th century by Anselm, but which is so popular today.

You have been asked what your view of salvation is, and I await that because salvation were a man like any man was born and man finally won his way back to God thorugh the Work of a man is far different from the salvation I find in the Bible were God's Word and The Spirit that moved across the waters in the begining took on Human existence and made a great work allowing that some men could choose to be redeemed and be resurected into a Pure Nature and Body on that Glorious day when Jesus the LORD of all returns in great glory and majesty never seen in a mere man, but as God Almighty.

Quickly and simply, minus the quotes - which should be obvious from the language I'm using:

* Christ the son of God, out of his great love for us and his Father, submitted in perfect obedience to his Father's plan, which required Christ to be set forward to man as a representative of the weakeness of the flesh and the necessity of salvation by God.

* As a mortal man, fallible just as we are, and prone to sin, Christ suffered the same experiences as we do, and was tempted in exactly the same we are, but did not sin as we do. This means that we can identify with him in every way, just as he identified with us in every way.

* Christ only succeeded in his work because God was with him, and God strengthened him for the purpose. Without God working in him, Christ could never have succeeded, since he was a mortal man. The work of Christ was therefore truly a victory (if he had been God, it wouldn't have been a victory - it wouldn't even have been a challenge).

* He is set forth to us as the mercyseat of God, the means by which we find forgiveness for sins and grace in God's sight, on the condition that we identify with Christ.

* Identification with Christ requires an acknowledgement that all flesh is grass, and that only the Word of God abides forever - we find life in Christ when we take into ourselves the Word which he preached, and are renewed by it.

* Identification with Christ requires putting to death our old way of thinking and way of life, crucifying the flesh, taking up our cross daily, and seeking to follow Christ, who is set forth to us as our example, that we may follow in his footsteps.

* It also requires regular self examination, and regular repentance, since our lives will not and cannot ever be worthy. We will ever fall short of the mark, which is precisely why we are saved by grace, through faith - a living faith, which is manifested by willing and loving works of faith.

* All the loving and willing obedience we render to God is merely our 'reasonable service', and is simply considered 'thanks' by Him. It does not secure, purchase, or in any way achieve our salvation. All our loving and willing obedience is a work of God and Christ in us, and cannot be claimed as purely our own. It is simply the demonstration that our lives are in God and Christ.

* For this reason, we submit to full immersion baptism as part of our public declaration that we have made the commitment to be buried with Christ, to put aside our 'old man' (the fleshly way of thinking and living), so that we might strive to follow Christ's example of how to live.

* On the basis of our faith in God and Christ, confessed publicly and demonstrated by a change of mind and life, we are granted the grace of God which ensures our salvation, by virtue of being imputed with the righteousness of Christ - a righteousness we neither deserve nor secure for ourselves.

[Jbuza]

I don't believe that at all. The only reason why you get that idea is because I reject the Propitiatory Substitution view of the atonement which was invented in the 11th century by Anselm, but which is so popular today.

Are you refering to this:

Romans 3:25 - Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

1 John 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 - Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

I have studied the Bible, but not the hisotry of men's interpretation of it, so could you elaborate on this, please

[Deborah]

as husband and wife are one,(or at least are suppose to be)
God the father and God the son are one.

[Jbuza]

I agree with you more than I thought.

[* It also requires regular self examination, and regular repentance, since our lives will not and cannot ever be worthy. We will ever fall short of the mark, which is precisely why we are saved by grace, through faith - a living faith, which is manifested by willing and loving works of faith.

This for me is the point, and is what makes me beleive that while Jesus was a man, he had a different nature than I do. Why is it not possible, especially since we have experienced Salvation to live pure? Because we have a sinful nature. How can you say that it was possible for Jesus but not for us, if we have the same nature. I agree with you that Jesus is Man, but I believe he was in nature God, that his spirit that he received from his father is Divine. HE was indeed the only begotton Son of God, and that makes him different from you and I. I have no more arguments, just a slightly different view.

[Kurieuo]

I can assure you that the orthodox trinitarian theology does indeed advocate such a doctrine. This has been recognised since the Nicene Creed. I can quote dozens of theologians and lay Christians who hold to this. It is the traditional, orthodox, Creedal presentation of the trinitarian theology.

Firstly, I can assure you that at the Council of Nicaea did not take the simple and illogical position as the one expressed by yourself here as "orthodox" (which I'll expand further upon). Secondly, it is not the one I and many Christians today advocate, and hence your argument has no effect on me and such Christians. And thirdly, I do not see yours as being "orthodox" is any sense for Christ's divinity was something clearly advocated.

Now the Nicene Creed was largely formed to refute Arius' position of Christ only be a creature, albeit of highest rank and this should be kept in mind. It was not to formulate a doctrine of the Trinity. Still in the Nicene Creed we read "We believe in... one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father as only begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not created, of the same essence as the Father..." and that Christ is "of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father". That is, they both share the same divine nature and so this refuted Arius' position that the Son was a creature having a different nature from the divine (heteroousios). We further read, "those who assert... the Son of God, is a different hypostasis or ousia, or that he is a creature, or changeable, or mutable, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them", and all this clearly affirms Christ's divinity.

Yet, confusion followed within the church regarding the condemation of those who say that Christ "is a different hypostasis or ousia" for the West saw hypostasis as synonymous with substantia (substance) and they denied a plurality of hypostaseis in God. Whereas for the Eastern Greek-speaking theologians hypostasis and ousia were not synonymous. To them, ousia meant "substance", while hypostasis in a sense designated personal properties. Thus, while the Father and Son shared the same substance (refuting Arius' heresy), they clearly had distinct hypostaseis since they have different properties—the Father unbegotten, while the Son was uncreated but eternally begotten. After decades on intense debate, the terminological confusion was cleared up by the Council of Alexandria (AD. 362) which affirmed homoousios but allowed three divine hyposataseis. And so, again... does it seems more reasonable to believe someone or one particular group has greater insight in the 21st century interpreting Scripture and understanding Christs and the Apostles teachings, than those many fourth century Christians theologians who are much closer to the Apostolic tradition, who hotly debated the issue, and came to the classical resolution of the 3 in 1 formula?

Rather, some forms of Social Trinitarianism are quite enlightening. For example, I'd refer you to my posts at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=716.

These are new ideas which seek to avoid the classical contradiction (which is proving increasinly less convincing to the modern mind). Many of them involve something close to Modalism, or else forms of Subordinationism which have traditionally considered heretical.

I don't know how you see it as Modalism. And I think my analysis of early Church history shows anything but they were considered traditionally heretical. The most that can be said of the Nicene Creed is that it caused much confusion over terminology due to the Western Latin/Eastern Greek language divide, and it was largely focused on settling heretical Christological doctrines that took away Christ's divinity. The terminology was smoothened out by the time of the Council of Alexandria, and Christ's divinity was still affirmed throughout.

Unless they depart from the concept that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, who are all God inthe same sense, and yet there is only one God, they share the same logical contradiction.

I agree. Yet, let us say for the sake of argument you are correct, and the very ancient and stupid Greek theologians who loved their reasoning however inadequate they were at it, made such an obvious contradiction in believing in three Gods and one God in the same sense. Why does this apply to me and others here? Shouldn't your sights be aimed at our beliefs, and not what you think we ought to believe? I am certain you would think it odd if I associated your beliefs with some early heresy you didn't believe, and then I proceeded to tell you that what you believe (or ought to) is wrong because it presents a logical contradiction. Now seeing how you like to quote philosophical fallacies I'm sure you are familiar with the term "strawman"?

Yet, I never said that the doctrine was developed several centuries later.

No, I did. You did acknowledge that it was a post-Biblical interpretation of Biblical data.

Although I don't know where I acknowledged such a thing, wouldn't any interpretation of the Bible technically be "post-Biblical" (I'm assuming after the Bible was written?) since it had to be written before it could be read?

Now if the doctrine of the Trinity was a concept invented a few centuries later (as you say), for what reasons would Christians conspire to to invent or even think of up such a complex doctrine as the Trinity? If it was due to Scripture, than I fail to see how you can deny the concept is within Scripture to charge us with being unscriptural. And if the concept is not within Scripture, then for what reason did they conspire to invent it? Surely it is unfathomable to believe so many conspired...

Only the term came later, but the concept is clearly there.

Where is the concept of one God consisting of three persons found 'clearly' in Scripture?

I refer you to my earlier post(s).

I never said you thought it unimportant. Rather you have been clear that you believe such the question surrounding who Christ is isn't binding (e.g., it doesn't matter if one believe Christ isn't divine since there are different interpretations of Scripture).

No, I haven't said that either. I believe very strongly that the question surrounding who Christ is, is totally binding.

From this, it then follows if Christ is God that such is binding. But if Christ is God, and the Father I'm sure we both agree is God (even if Scripture may not explicitly say "The Father is God" ), then something like the Trinity becomes binding. Yet, I'm not as fussed personally about Trinitarian doctrine (as I consider Oneness Pentecostals saved still in their Modalist belief). I think one could be forgiven for failing to comprehend or grasp God's Trinitarian nature. On the otherhand, we both agree our response to who Christ is, is binding. If you're wrong, then according to Christ's words there are consequences that follow. If I'm wrong, then I've blasphemed God by placing a created being on par with Him. After careful consideration however, I believe I am right.

Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

* I believe that Jesus Christ is a man, the mediator between God and men, who is the son of God by virtue of a miraculous begettal, and who has had authority and power delgated to him by God

A cat begets cats. A dog begets dogs. A human begets humans. God begets ??? Or another way, a son of a man is of the nature of man. A son of God is of the nature of ???

I am further interested to understand how you perceive this "miraculous begettal" as happening?

Kurieuo

[Fortigurn]

I don't believe that at all. The only reason why you get that idea is because I reject the Propitiatory Substitution view of the atonement which was invented in the 11th century by Anselm, but which is so popular today.

Are you refering to this:

Romans 3:25 - Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

1 John 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 - Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Yes. That translation 'propitiation' is inaccurate. That is not my idea by the way, I can quote sources which identify this from at least 200 years ago.

I have studied the Bible, but not the hisotry of men's interpretation of it, so could you elaborate on this, please

Sure, I'll do that later when I have an opportunity.

[Fortigurn]

* I believe that Jesus Christ is a man, the mediator between God and men, who is the son of God by virtue of a miraculous begettal, and who has had authority and power delgated to him by God

A cat begets cats. A dog begets dogs. A human begets humans. God begets ??? Or another way, a son of a man is of the nature of man. A son of God is of the nature of ???

This works really well if you believe that God had physical relations with Mary. I don't. I hope you don't. It was an idea among some of the Early Christian Fathers though (one of them suggested that God entered Mary's ear in order to preserve her virginity!).

I am further interested to understand how you perceive this "miraculous begettal" as happening?

Exactly the way the Bible says:

Luke 1:
34 Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”
35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God.

[Fortigurn]

How can you say that it was possible for Jesus but not for us, if we have the same nature.

Because God was in him by means of the Holy Spirit, and God was working through him.

[Fortigurn]

Firstly, I can assure you that at the Council of Nicaea did not take the simple and illogical position as the one expressed by yourself here as "orthodox" (which I'll expand further upon).

You're right, sorry I was thinking of the 'Athanasian Creed', which was confirmed by the Oecumenical Councils.

Secondly, it is not the one I and many Christians today advocate, and hence your argument has no effect on me and such Christians.

I understand that, believe me. It's just that yours is still the minority non-orthodox position.

And thirdly, I do not see yours as being "orthodox" is any sense for Christ's divinity was something clearly advocated.

I have never argued that mine is 'orthodox'.

And so, again... does it seems more reasonable to believe someone or one particular group has greater insight in the 21st century interpreting Scripture and understanding Christs and the Apostles teachings, than those many fourth century Christians theologians who are much closer to the Apostolic tradition, who hotly debated the issue, and came to the classical resolution of the 3 in 1 formula?

Well Praeterists would say 'Yes', of course, but that's another issue. That aside, your case would be compelling if it weren't for the fact that we're not talking about an understanding of Scripture which originated in the 21st century, we're talking about an understanding of Scripture which preceded the 4th century.

I don't know how you see it as Modalism.

I'll see what I can do later.

And I think my analysis of early Church history shows anything but they were considered traditionally heretical.

I refer you to the treatment of Tertullian.

The most that can be said of the Nicene Creed is that it caused much confusion over terminology due to the Western Latin/Eastern Greek language divide, and it was largely focused on settling heretical Christological doctrines that took away Christ's divinity. The terminology was smoothened out by the time of the Council of Alexandria, and Christ's divinity was still affirmed throughout.

The mess grew larger, in other words.

Unless they depart from the concept that there is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, who are all God inthe same sense, and yet there is only one God, they share the same logical contradiction.

I agree. Yet, let us say for the sake of argument you are correct, and the very ancient and stupid Greek theologians who loved their reasoning however inadequate they were at it, made such an obvious contradiction in believing in three Gods and one God in the same sense. Why does this apply to me and others here? Shouldn't your sights be aimed at our beliefs, and not what you think we ought to believe? I am certain you would think it odd if I associated your beliefs with some early heresy you didn't believe, and then I proceeded to tell you that what you believe (or ought to) is wrong because it presents a logical contradiction. Now seeing how you like to quote philosophical fallacies I'm sure you are familiar with the term "strawman"?

I'm perfectly happy aiming different arguments at your beliefs, but the fact remains that there are others here who believe in the Creedal formulation of the trinity, and since this is the majority view, and the 'orthodox' view, I am addressing it.

Although I don't know where I acknowledged such a thing, wouldn't any interpretation of the Bible technically be "post-Biblical" (I'm assuming after the Bible was written?) since it had to be written before it could be read?

Yes it would. But if we have statements in the Bible which explicitly uphold one interpretation, that interpretation has more support than an interpretation which relies on implicit statements.

Now if the doctrine of the Trinity was a concept invented a few centuries later (as you say), for what reasons would Christians conspire to to invent or even think of up such a complex doctrine as the Trinity? If it was due to Scripture, than I fail to see how you can deny the concept is within Scripture to charge us with being unscriptural. And if the concept is not within Scripture, then for what reason did they conspire to invent it? Surely it is unfathomable to believe so many conspired...

There was no conspiracy. I have said this before.

Only the term came later, but the concept is clearly there.

Where is the concept of one God consisting of three persons found 'clearly' in Scripture?

I refer you to my earlier post(s).

Which passage did I miss?

From this, it then follows if Christ is God that such is binding. But if Christ is God, and the Father I'm sure we both agree is God (even if Scripture may not explicitly say "The Father is God" ), then something like the Trinity becomes binding.

Yes, I agree.

[Kurieuo]

* I believe that Jesus Christ is a man, the mediator between God and men, who is the son of God by virtue of a miraculous begettal, and who has had authority and power delgated to him by God

A cat begets cats. A dog begets dogs. A human begets humans. God begets ??? Or another way, a son of a man is of the nature of man. A son of God is of the nature of ???

This works really well if you believe that God had physical relations with Mary. I don't. I hope you don't.

No, I don't believe that. However, I do believe the titles say something of who Christ is. Names and titles are very important in Scripture to describe who a person is as I'm sure you would be aware.

I am further interested to understand how you perceive this "miraculous begettal" as happening?

Exactly the way the Bible says:

Luke 1:
34 Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”
35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God.

You called it a "miraculous begettal" though. Does this mean the Father "begot" the Son in any way? I suppose I see in the process of "begetting" something being "passed on". For example, I don't see that God "begot" Adam, or our universe, but rather that He "created" them. So if Christ was "begotten" of the Father, what qualities did Christ have that were the Father's if divinity was not one of them?

Kurieuo