Why is Jesus called the Only Begottten Son?

[Arial]

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.

If his body was created his humanity was created. I am saying his flesh came to be. He gets his humanity from Mary. I said it before in my last post, and I will say it again. No I do not think his temporal body existed as God from all eternity, He did though. He took on flesh by virtue of being born of a woman. Nature of his Father---deity. Nature of his mother---human.

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.

You are missing my point and I have no other words to try and explain it.

 

[Josheb]

You're not spelling out why adding creaturely flesh is adding sin.

Which part of a person's flesh is not sinful? If God were to happen upon a finger, or a fingernail, a hair from someone's ear, a knee cap, a piece of the liver or the spleen, which piece of a human would God examine and say, "This came from a sinless person?"

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?

There is no such thing as a "sin nature" in the Bible. Our dynamic translations use the phrase "sinful nature" in place of the word "sarx," which literally means "flesh." The phrase "sinful nature" is doctrinal, its inclusion as part of the Bible translation is a function of doctrine, not what scripture actually, specifically, explicitly states.

Human flesh was once good (Gen. 1:31). After Genesis 3:7 no one, including his or her flesh, is good. The unavoidable implication of God using an ovum from Mary is that God used something not-good to make, to conceive, His Son in the womb. This is fundamentally different than acknowledging the fetus' nourishment in the womb through Mary's placenta. Were God to use something of post-disobedient creation, He has many alternatives to the use of sinful flesh. It has nothing to do with whether or not sin is passed down through the male. It has everything to do with the fact Mary was sinful and any and all arguments that God uses sin to save from sin need explanatory justification.

 

[makesends]

Which part of a person's flesh is not sinful? If God were to happen upon a finger, or a fingernail, a hair from someone's ear, a knee cap, a piece of the liver or the spleen, which piece of a human would God examine and say, "This came from a sinless person?"

False equivalence. I did not say Mary's ovum would be sinless. I said Jesus was without sin. The one does not necessarily produce the other. DNA is information.

There is no such thing as a "sin nature" in the Bible. Our dynamic translations use the phrase "sinful nature" in place of the word "sarx," which literally means "flesh." The phrase "sinful nature" is doctrinal, its inclusion as part of the Bible translation is a function of doctrine, not what scripture actually, specifically, explicitly states.

So the problem is, what? Is the doctrine wrong?

Human flesh was once good (Gen. 1:31). After Genesis 3:7 no one, including his or her flesh, is good. The unavoidable implication of God using an ovum from Mary is that God used something not-good to make, to conceive, His Son in the womb. This is fundamentally different than acknowledging the fetus' nourishment in the womb through Mary's placenta. Were God to use something of post-disobedient creation, He has many alternatives to the use of sinful flesh. It has nothing to do with whether or not sin is passed down through the male. It has everything to do with the fact Mary was sinful and any and all arguments that God uses sin to save from sin need explanatory justification.

I think you are assuming more than you know. Again, false equivalence. You are depending on the nature of what God used to produce purity, as though it should be endemic to the purity of what is produced. We can't know that. Her ovum could have been used in whatever capacity God decided to use it. Genesis says, "her seed", not her fetus. The focus on the lack of Adam was not on her being used for a nurturing carrier. Even the sound of, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you", doesn't sound like the Holy Spirit will produce both ovum and sperm to unite within her.

Btw, I don't claim to know how it was done. I'm just saying, nobody else does either. You, I think, and I, and most everyone else on this thread, including @Arial and @Eleanor, are in agreement as to the value of orthodoxy on this matter.

The odd fact is that this is not even necessary to prove, in order to point to the notion that Christ's body was created, and not eternal from the beginning. @Arial contributed a valid (or so it seemed) notion of a possible flesh, neither temporal in the sense that ours is, though temporary in the sense that the angels' flesh was in some instances. I disagree, but it makes more sense than to rule out creature-hood of Christ's physical body by the notion that anything Mary might have contributed would necessarily be of sinful substance.

As to that, why would Mary's placenta transferring nourishment from her blood to the placenta not also be 'of sin' or however you want to condemn her ovum? What part of her blood is not sinful?

 

[makesends]

i agree.

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

Not exactly a typo. Just an unfortunate, incomplete, way to put it. It remains undemonstrated just HOW the divine became physical; thus @Eleanor's statement, "The divine cannot be physical" —as she meant it, perhaps not as that sounds—after all, she does agree that God become flesh— is not directly opposed by demonstrated means. I also disagree with it in that God can do whatever he wants —but she knows that. She was talking logical difference between divinity and flesh, as in Jesus Christ, there was no mixing, no confusing, (but also no separating), his two natures in one person. His flesh came from Mary, as (or so I understand it) claims Orthodoxy. Not 50-50, but both natures in full.

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.

Lol, I hear ya!

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

 

[Josheb]

False equivalence. I did not say Mary's ovum would be sinless. I said Jesus was without sin. The one does not necessarily produce the other. DNA is information.

I understood what was not said.

So the problem is, what? Is the doctrine wrong?

Re-read the posts.

I think you are assuming more than you know.

Thank you for your time, but I have made no such assumption and repeatedly asked that you keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

Again, false equivalence. You are depending on the nature of what God used to produce purity, as though it should be endemic to the purity of what is produced................

Never happened.

 

[Eleanor]

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.
We refer to our human bodies as created.
Christ's human body was likewise created.

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.

Christ's created human body is now a glorified body in "heaven," as those in Christ will be.

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.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Check it out . .isn't that what I maintianed?
His flesh is reckoned through his father.

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.

But not with a fallen nature and its propensity to sin.

He could have felled his nature had he chosen to sin.

 

[Eleanor]

i agree.

God is spirit (non-material), as are angels, neither of which are physical (material).

God the Son became physical (Jn 1:14) in Jesus of Nazareth, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit did not.

????? "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.

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

 

[makesends]

Christ's created human body is now a glorified body in "heaven," as those in Christ will be.

Yet, are we not THAT body —The Body of Christ? Or is that not literal? Is it something else, besides his glorified body?

 

[makesends]

Check it out . .isn't that what I maintianed?
His flesh is reckoned through his father.
But not with a fallen nature and its propensity to sin.

He could have felled his nature had he chosen to sin.

My bad. I read it wrong —the first part of statement 3, as though it was what you think, and not what orthodoxy denies.

 

[Eleanor]

Yet, are we not THAT body —The Body of Christ? Or is that not literal? Is it something else, besides his glorified body?

Well, all the born again form the spiritual bride and body of Christ in the two-in-one-enfleshment of the marital union (Eph 5:30-32).

 

[Arial]

Yet, are we not THAT body —The Body of Christ? Or is that not literal? Is it something else, besides his glorified body?

What do you mean by suggesting that it is literally? I ask because it sounds like you are saying our body and his body are the same body, literally, which would make us all Christs. Surely that is not what you mean.

That we are the body is a literal truth stated in figurative language. We are united to him, and as his representatives, carry out the work of Christ as to spreading the gospel, gathering in his people. Announcing the good news so people can hear, and either believe and therefore are united to him, or remain in unbelief and be judged. The true Church is his body and we are individual members of it.

 

[makesends]

What do you mean by suggesting that it is literally? I ask because it sounds like you are saying our body and his body are the same body, literally, which would make us all Christs. Surely that is not what you mean.

That we are the body is a literal truth stated in figurative language. We are united to him, and as his representatives, carry out the work of Christ as to spreading the gospel, gathering in his people. Announcing the good news so people can hear, and either believe and therefore are united to him, or remain in unbelief and be judged. The true Church is his body and we are individual members of it.

No. Our bodies, (souls and glorified bodies, or whatever physicality 'soul' is), all members of his body. In Christ —again, "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh". I'm saying that is how I understand it, as little as I understand of it. Ridiculously literal, in fact, and almost as a play on words, "In Christ" has everything to do with it, I think. But, admittedly, I don't know, and could be wrong, or even if I am right, I don't know how it will be. Only hints.

 

[Carbon]

Well, using my crazy premise that the egg of a woman does not carry the "sin nature" per the theory that Jesus was created using Mary's egg ... All women have sinned because they were created using male sperm but my crazy speculation was to use the genetic material from two women ..... (aside: beyond wild speculation, but entertaining)

Actually, women are just as sinful as men. Neither is less sinful than the other. So, her seed was also sinful; it can't escape it.
No matter what way one looks at it, Jesus was pure and holy, without sin, because he is God.

As Walter Cronkite said: And that's the way it is!.

Or was it that's the way it was?

Either way, there is no way to escape the fact.

Edit} I think when people argue that Mary was sinless (therefore so was her seed) we start getting into Catholicism.

 

[Josheb]

No. Our bodies, (souls and glorified bodies, or whatever physicality 'soul' is), all members of his body. In Christ —again, "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh". I'm saying that is how I understand it, as little as I understand of it. Ridiculously literal, in fact, and almost as a play on words, "In Christ" has everything to do with it, I think. But, admittedly, I don't know, and could be wrong, or even if I am right, I don't know how it will be. Only hints.

I had a literature teacher who admonished me for repeatedly saying, "I think....." She explained everyone reading me writing or hearing me speak KNOWS what I think because I am the obvious author. Even when "I think..." is an expression of qualified hesitancy or a lack of surety everyone knows the words are the authors views. Give that some thought. The members here are a heady bunch and will gladly report on words that are wrong and affirm the words that are correct. Nothing said well needs to be couched in "I think.... [but] don't know." One of the purposes of the discussion board is to provide a platform for sorting things out - within ourselves and between each other.

I've been spending time over at civ's forum and I often think, "Man, if could get a half-dozen members from CCAM in here to deal with this dross....."

Does anyone here believe God is unable to save (anyone)? Everyone post me an answer to that question. All you lurkers, too. I do not care whether your monergist, synergist, or druxilationist. Does God have an inability to save? Yes? No? @civic tells everyone what he thinks. It makes no difference whether what is posted is factually correct or not. He'll tell everyone. Everything he thinks about Calvinism is wrong, but it makes no difference how much correction is provided, it will not stop the deception.

You, @makesends, my friend, do not have that problem.

 

[Arial]

Actually, women are just as sinful as men. Neither is less sinful than the other. So, her seed was also sinful; it can't escape it.
No matter what way one looks at it, Jesus was pure and holy, without sin, because he is God.

As Walter Cronkite said: And that's the way it is!.

Or was it that's the way it was?

Either way, there is no way to escape the fact.

Edit} I think when people argue that Mary was sinless (therefore so was her seed) we start getting into Catholicism.God sa

God says in Gen 3 that the one who will crush the serpents head is the seed of the woman.

My reasoning on why Jesus could get his human nature and flesh from Mary and not inherit a nature to sin, is from God's declaration of federal headship in the man, not the woman. It is a decree. Therefore, even though women are just as sinful as men, by decree of God, that nature of Adam comes from the male, and that is how the children are born sinners---including their mothers. Both genders have sin nature, but a child conceived of the Holy Spirit does not have a human father.

That is the only difference I am able to see. I think if frankly useless to speculate on how that came to be or how the sin nature is passed from the father---such as DNA or genetics or what not. Or whether or not God used an ovum from Mary. Or any other speculation. We don't know and we don't have to know everything. We are grossly kidding ourselves if we think we can figure it all out. That is just my two cents. I know many find the topic fascinating, and enjoy the discussions on it. I am not giving a lecture.

One thing though, I have now heard three solid Bible students on the forum say that Jesus was created. I am shocked! That is so against orthodoxy that I don't know where it came from. I have been a Christian for over forty years and today was the first time I ever heard a Trinitarian say or write that, and I heard it from three different people. What is going on?

 

[Carbon]

God says in Gen 3 that the one who will crush the serpents head is the seed of the woman.

Isn't that saying that Jesus will be human? Christ is the central figure of scripture. His humanity is 100% human, like every other human ever born.

My reasoning on why Jesus could get his human nature and flesh from Mary and not inherit a nature to sin, is from God's declaration of federal headship in the man, not the woman.

Christ's human nature was sinless and pure because God said so.

It is a decree.

We are grossly kidding ourselves if we think we can figure it all out. That is just my two cents. I know many find the topic fascinating, and enjoy the discussions on it.

Agreed.

ne thing though, I have now heard three solid Bible students on the forum say that Jesus was created. I am shocked! That is so against orthodoxy that I don't know where it came from. I have been a Christian for over forty years and today was the first time I ever heard a Trinitarian say or write that, and I heard it from three different people. What is going on?

Guess they are very confused.

 

[Carbon]

Christ retained his divine nature while also being fully human.

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
One thing though, I have now heard three solid Bible students on the forum say that Jesus was created. I am shocked! That is so against orthodoxy that I don't know where it came from. I have been a Christian for over forty years and today was the first time I ever heard a Trinitarian say or write that, and I heard it from three different people. What is going on

Guess they are very confused.

Or maybe @Arial is confused on what they are saying.

God says in Gen 3 that the one who will crush the serpents head is the seed of the woman.

My reasoning on why Jesus could get his human nature and flesh from Mary and not inherit a nature to sin, is from God's declaration of federal headship in the man, not the woman. It is a decree. Therefore, even though women are just as sinful as men, by decree of God, that nature of Adam comes from the male, and that is how the children are born sinners---including their mothers. Both genders have sin nature, but a child conceived of the Holy Spirit does not have a human father.

That is the only difference I am able to see. I think if frankly useless to speculate on how that came to be or how the sin nature is passed from the father---such as DNA or genetics or what not. Or whether or not God used an ovum from Mary. Or any other speculation. We don't know and we don't have to know everything. We are grossly kidding ourselves if we think we can figure it all out. That is just my two cents. I know many find the topic fascinating, and enjoy the discussions on it. I am not giving a lecture.

One thing though, I have now heard three solid Bible students on the forum say that Jesus was created. I am shocked! That is so against orthodoxy that I don't know where it came from. I have been a Christian for over forty years and today was the first time I ever heard a Trinitarian say or write that, and I heard it from three different people. What is going on?

No. We are saying that HIS HUMAN PHYSICAL TEMPORAL BODY was created. That is, I am saying that, and I'm pretty sure (apologies to @Josheb (post 113)) that is what @Eleanor is saying.

But I agree with everything else. AND I add to it, that to 'get his human nature and flesh from Mary', is, in fact, "creating" his human physical temporal body, every bit as much as it would have been, had he also have been conceived of Joseph instead of being "conceived of the Holy Ghost".

 

[Eleanor]

Actually, women are just as sinful as men. Neither is less sinful than the other. So, her seed was also sinful; it can't escape it.
No matter what way one looks at it, Jesus was pure and holy, without sin, because he is God.
As Walter Cronkite said: And that's the way it is!.
Or was it that's the way it was?
Either way, there is no way to escape the fact.
Edit} I think when people argue that Mary was sinless (therefore so was her seed) we start getting into Catholicism.

Well, if Mary had to be sinless so Jesus could be sinless, then didn't Anne have to be sinless so Mary could be sinless, and Anne's mother be sinless so Anne could be sinless, etc., etc., etc.?