Why is Jesus called the Only Begottten Son?

[Arial]

The latter posits flesh before his physical existence on earth.

Sorry. But no it doesn't. Explain.

The human can't merit forgiveness for offense to the Divine.
Only the Divine can merit it.

The creature (a created being of which humans are one)can't merit forgiveness for offense to the Divine. IOW Jesus was in the form of a human---a substitute must be of the same kind as the one he substitutes for----the all the same needs and activities of humans. He was tempted by Satan, he could get tired, hungry, thirsty, bleed, die, just as humans can, but was without sin, went to the cross, died in the place of his people, was raised to life, assuring our own resurrection in due time. But he was not created as that would make him a creature. A sinless creature to be sure, but still, a creature.

Jesus was begotten of the Father. He came forth from the Father, incarnate. We can speculate til the cows come home on the particulars of how he came to be in the form he came in. The truth of the matter, the one that is absolute and needs no speculation, is that he did. He was born of a woman but without the nature of Adam as a sinner, fully human and fully divine. It is no more unreasonable to believe that through faith than it was for Lazarus, four days in the grave, to walk out alive and fully healthy at the command of God.

 

[makesends]

Please re-read the thread, or at least the set of posts that led to my inclusion of the words, "the divine cannot be physical," because I was quoting another poster. Those were not my words, nor is that my position and I explained how and why that is not my position so Post 70 is not only misguided; it's unnecessary. Every single one of those questions have all already been answered.

Go ask to poster who originally claimed the divine cannot be physical all those questions.

My bad. I wrote as I read. The paragraph to which I answered sounded like you agreed with @Eleanor that the divine cannot be physical, though it sounded as though, since the divine cannot be physical, you come to a different conclusion than she came to.

As for what @Eleanor originally said, I disagree with the statement that the divine cannot be physical. It remains to be proven whether the divine did indeed become physical, but I find the statement unsupported. However, to me, that statement (and its supposed implication) is spurious to the argument.

 

[Eleanor]

The original comment was not about his nature. Thinking it is about his nature is a mistake. Do you know and understand the differences between mereology (the study of parts and their relationship to one another), teleology (the design, function and purpose), and ontology (the nature of a thing)? The original comment in Post #47 has nothing to do with ontology, or the nature of Christ.

This (Mary not contributing an egg) goes against the traditional viewpoint in which Mary contributed an egg, or ovum, and Jesus was half-human and half Spirit in his physical constitution, as a matter of biological conception.​

That has nothing to do with the ontological doctrine of Christ being fully God and fully human.

If you think the "nature of a thing" has nothing to do with his divinity as distinct from his humanity, then you are misinformed.

 

[Eleanor]

Sorry. But no it doesn't. Explain.

became = process of transformation

came as = transformation competed

He became flesh (Jn 1:14).

The creature (a created being of which humans are one)can't merit forgiveness for offense to the Divine. IOW Jesus was in the form of a human---a substitute must be of the same kind as the one he substitutes for----the all the same needs and activities of humans. He was tempted by Satan, he could get tired, hungry, thirsty, bleed, die, just as humans can, but was without sin, went to the cross, died in the place of his people, was raised to life, assuring our own resurrection in due time. But he was not created as that would make him a creature. A sinless creature to be sure, but still, a creature.
Jesus was begotten of the Father. He came forth from the Father, incarnate. We can speculate til the cows come home on the particulars of how he came to be in the form he came in. The truth of the matter, the one that is absolute and needs no speculation, is that he did. He was born of a woman but without the nature of Adam as a sinner, fully human and fully divine. It is no more unreasonable to believe that through faith than it was for Lazarus, four days in the grave, to walk out alive and fully healthy at the command of God.

 

[Arial]

became = process of transformation

came as = transformation competed

He became flesh (Jn 1:14).

Both are true of the incarnation, even though I disagree that "became" can only refer to the process. If Jesus was not always in human form, there was a process of him arriving at a human form---therefore he came as one of us.

We have both said all that really needs to be said on the matter, lest we bicker over it for several posts.

 

[Eleanor]

Both are true of the incarnation, even though I disagree that "became" can only refer to the process. If Jesus was not always in human form, there was a process of him arriving at a human form---therefore he came as one of us.

"Came as human" denotes transformarton completed before coming to earth.
"Became human" denotes transformation occurring on earth, in the womb of Mary.

"The Word became flesh." (Jn 1:14)

 

[makesends]

Sorry. But no it doesn't. Explain.

The creature (a created being of which humans are one)can't merit forgiveness for offense to the Divine. IOW Jesus was in the form of a human---a substitute must be of the same kind as the one he substitutes for----the all the same needs and activities of humans. He was tempted by Satan, he could get tired, hungry, thirsty, bleed, die, just as humans can, but was without sin, went to the cross, died in the place of his people, was raised to life, assuring our own resurrection in due time. But he was not created as that would make him a creature. A sinless creature to be sure, but still, a creature.

His physical body, it seems reasonable to me to say, was no less created than we are. I don't get how you would think different. Did it exist from all eternity with the Father, and not, after all, "become" flesh? Was it always flesh? That is what you are implying, it seems to me.

Jesus was begotten of the Father. He came forth from the Father, incarnate. We can speculate til the cows come home on the particulars of how he came to be in the form he came in. The truth of the matter, the one that is absolute and needs no speculation, is that he did. He was born of a woman but without the nature of Adam as a sinner, fully human and fully divine. It is no more unreasonable to believe that through faith than it was for Lazarus, four days in the grave, to walk out alive and fully healthy at the command of God.

Of course. How does any of that contradict that his physical body no less was creature than ours?

 

[makesends]

How does adding sin subtract from goodness?

You're not spelling out why adding creaturely flesh is adding sin. If, as I have heard and still consider likely, the sin nature is passed down through the male seed, and not the female ovum, why would Mary's ovum pass down sin to Jesus' physical nature?

 

[Eleanor]

His physical body, it seems reasonable to me to say, was no less created than we are. I don't get how you would think different. Did it exist from all eternity with the Father, and not, after all, "become" flesh? Was it always flesh? That is what you are implying, it seems to me.

Of course. How does any of that contradict that his physical body no less was creature than ours?

A review of orthodoxy might be helpful.

 

[Eleanor]

You're not spelling out why adding creaturely flesh is adding sin. If, as I have heard and still consider likely, the sin nature is passed down through the male seed, and not the female ovum, why would Mary's ovum pass down sin to Jesus' physical nature?

God reckons sin through the father (beginning with Adam).

 

[makesends]

A review of orthodoxy would be helpful.

Explain

 

[Eleanor]

Explain

Not referring to you necessarily.

A lot of this stuff on essence, nature, being, etc. was hammered out near the beginning, and has been held as orthodoxy ever since.

 

[makesends]

A lot of this stuff was hammered out near the beginning, and has been held as orthodoxy ever since.

Yes, I get that, but what specifically does orthodoxy say, that applies to this, that you are saying needs brought to bear.

 

[makesends]

Both are true of the incarnation, even though I disagree that "became" can only refer to the process. If Jesus was not always in human form, there was a process of him arriving at a human form---therefore he came as one of us.

We have both said all that really needs to be said on the matter, lest we bicker over it for several posts.

Good point, that last. The more I read over these posts, the more I'm seeing we most likely agree on the orthodoxy, and disagree on the implications of how we describe that orthodox teaching.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes, I get that, but what specifically does orthodoxy say, that applies to this, that you are saying needs brought to bear.

Well, for starters,
1) Christ was incarnated in heaven or in Mary's womb?
Orthodoxy: in Mary's womb.

2) Christ was 50% God & 50% man.
Orthodoxy: Christ had two natures, human and divine, not intermingled, and was both 100% God and 100% man.

3) Christ's mother was not sinless, so Christ was born with sin.
Orthodoxy: God reckons through the father, Christ was born sinless becaue his father was sinless.

 

[makesends]

Well, for starters,
1) Christ was incarnated in heaven or in Mary's womb?
Orthodoxy: in Mary's womb.

2) Christ was 50% God & 50% man.
Orthodoxy: Christ had two natures, human and divine, not intermingled, and was both 100% God and 100% man.

3) Christ's mother was not sinless, so Christ was born with sin.
Orthodoxy: God reckons through the father, Christ was born sinless becaue his father was sinless.

Thanks. Exactly.

 

[Arial]

His physical body, it seems reasonable to me to say, was no less created than we are. I don't get how you would think different. Did it exist from all eternity with the Father, and not, after all, "become" flesh? Was it always flesh? That is what you are implying, it seems to me.

I must say, the two on here who claim Jesus was created, are the only two Trinity believing Christians I have heard say that. Why is it so hard to accept that he wasn't created but not hard to accept that a virgin conceived him? I am not implying that he was always flesh. What has invaded your thinking on this I think, is something you address often. Seeing things from a human perspective, unable to see or comprehend it from any other perspective. It is the only perspective we have. So the assumption becomes if he was not always flesh, and he came as flesh, then that flesh must have been created. I think Scripture bears out that a creature, even one who has no sin nature and never sinned, cannot atone before the thrice Holy God for the sins of fellow creatures.

Of course. How does any of that contradict that his physical body no less was creature than ours?

It speaks to our minds only being able to say things are one way, and at the same time we accept without question (faith) other things that are just as "impossible" from our perspective.

Here's another. Often in Scripture we have angels, created but invisible spirit beings, appear with visible, eating and drinking flesh. Does that mean God created that flesh, then uncreated it when their mission was accomplished? Did he create in the donkey that spoke, a human voice box and the capacity to speak whatever human language it was speaking. When God says let there be---there is. No matter whether it is a creation or just an "is".

That is why the doctrine that Christ is not created is called the incarnation, which means the act of being made flesh. "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. He took on human flesh. Why? He had to be born under the law and keep it perfectly to fulfill all righteousness in order to be our substitute. And he had to shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22).

"When Christ came into the world, he said: 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared from me'" (Heb 10:5).

 

[makesends]

I must say, the two on here who claim Jesus was created, are the only two Trinity believing Christians I have heard say that. Why is it so hard to accept that he wasn't created but not hard to accept that a virgin conceived him? I am not implying that he was always flesh. What has invaded your thinking on this I think, is something you address often. Seeing things from a human perspective, unable to see or comprehend it from any other perspective. It is the only perspective we have. So the assumption becomes if he was not always flesh, and he came as flesh, then that flesh must have been created. I think Scripture bears out that a creature, even one who has no sin nature and never sinned, cannot atone before the thrice Holy God for the sins of fellow creatures.

It speaks to our minds only being able to say things are one way, and at the same time we accept without question (faith) other things that are just as "impossible" from our perspective.

Here's another. Often in Scripture we have angels, created but invisible spirit beings, appear with visible, eating and drinking flesh. Does that mean God created that flesh, then uncreated it when their mission was accomplished? Did he create in the donkey that spoke, a human voice box and the capacity to speak whatever human language it was speaking. When God says let there be---there is. No matter whether it is a creation or just an "is".

That is why the doctrine that Christ is not created is called the incarnation, which means the act of being made flesh. "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. He took on human flesh. Why? He had to be born under the law and keep it perfectly to fulfill all righteousness in order to be our substitute. And he had to shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22).

"When Christ came into the world, he said: 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared from me'" (Heb 10:5).

We are not saying Jesus was created. We are saying his body was created. Call it formed, if you will. Call it whatever you want, I have to think that his human physical temporal body was made as ours are, by whatever means God saw fit. Do you say his human physical temporal body existed as God from all eternity with God? I don't think you do.

Your paralleling his existence as Christ, granted, 'appearing in the flesh', just as the Bible says, with the angels now and then appearing as flesh, eating and drinking, to me doesn't work. Their flesh was not actually human, in the normal sense. I think Jesus' flesh was in every way as ours, yet without sin. As Adam's flesh was —not as the angels'. It would be false equivalence, in my opinion, to say his flesh was like the angels', or formed as theirs was for a temporary purpose.

I don't claim to know what exactly is the difference between risen Christ's body, and later what it was as glorified, but in this the angels have no share. If there was any permanent —i.e. "from all eternity past and future"— body that WAS God, I think it would have to be Christ's glorified body, and that is a riddle beyond my ability to work out. And it is probably completely wrongly stated, anyway, so not sure it's worth chasing that rabbit.

Also, I admit, for whoever wants to razz me about it, that I don't know what form his body took/takes/has/is as THE LORD OF ALL —God himself— in heaven. One of my favorite and very useful axioms in arguing about God's existence, is that He does not answer to form. If he had a human body, but not created, then I should think it implied that he has had a humanly comprehensible form all along. I don't think he has. Nor even now, after his glorification, I think. WE are the body of Christ, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.

 

[makesends]

Well, for starters,
1) Christ was incarnated in heaven or in Mary's womb?
Orthodoxy: in Mary's womb.

2) Christ was 50% God & 50% man.
Orthodoxy: Christ had two natures, human and divine, not intermingled, and was both 100% God and 100% man.

3) Christ's mother was not sinless, so Christ was born with sin.
Orthodoxy: God reckons through the father, Christ was born sinless becaue his father was sinless.

I disagree partly with how you state 3). Christ's mother was not sinless, but that doesn't mean he was born with sin, or in sinful flesh. I don't mean he didn't have dandruff, pimples and genetic 'mistakes', but that he didn't inherit Adam's sin nature. But he was born 'under' sin, if you will; that is, he was born with the same 'ability' (I keep speaking from human terms), as any other human, to sin, and born into a sinful world.

 

[Josheb]

As for what @Eleanor originally said, I disagree with the statement that the divine cannot be physical.

i agree.

It remains to be proven whether the divine did indeed become physical, but I find the statement unsupported.

????? "It remains to be unproven whether the divine did indeed become physical"????? Is that another typo? Have I misunderstood?

John 1:1-5, 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it...... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The logos of God that is God (i.e., divine) became flesh. Scripture reports those who deny Jesus coming in the flesh from God are antichrists!

1 John 4:2-3
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

If Jesus is divine (as all the trins here believe and as @Eleanor has argued), then Jesus' coming in the flesh is a paradigmatic example of the divine being physical. The question being debated is whether the flesh in which Jesus came a byproduct of the Holy Spirit alone, or the Holy Spirit plus a physical ovum from the sinful Mary. I say the former, not the latter. Maybe there is some kind of flesh that is not physical. If that is being asserted, then I would very much like to read the case for the existence of a non-physical flesh.

However, to me, that statement (and its supposed implication) is spurious to the argument.

Assuming refers to @Eleanor's claim the divine cannot be physical, I agree.