Why is Jesus called the Only Begottten Son?

[Josheb]

Before the Incarnation, there was the eternal word of the Father, who was Himself very God, but was not yet very man until His birth as Jesus of Nazareth happened in real space and time

Immaterial.

Jesus existed prior to his incarnation. Trying to defend his non-existence based on qualifiers like his not being a man is a red herring. The fact of scripture is that he, the person, pre-existed his incarnation and, according to Paul, his existence was that of Christ Jesus.

Now this conversation is starting to become imbalanced because I've asked a few questions that haven't been answered, like were we created in his image or was he created in ours? The answer to that question is important and relevant to this discussion. Why has no one (other than me) broached it? Why, having been broached, is the matter being neglected? When Philippians 2 states he emptied Himself by taking the form of a bondservant and was born in the likeness of men, that cannot mean he was born in the likeness of sinful men. It can only mean he was born in the likeness of men as they were originally created by God. This is especially so of the Reformed perspective on Christology and anthropology because if Jesus had anything about him that was sinful then he is wholly unqualified as Christ!!! He cannot be the perfect sacrifice if he's not perfect. In what likeness was Jesus born? The likeness in which men were created. In what likeness were men created? The image of God. Therefore, even Jesus' incarnation in the likeness of men is a reference to Jesus' pre-existent ontology.

Don't get hung up on the name Jesus. The name means "God saves." There has never been a moment anywhere nor anytime in creation when God Saves did not exist.

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; the one who believes in me will live, even if he dies...

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.


To suggest otherwise would be to suggest there was a point at/in which Jesus was not the resurrection, way, truth, or life. Prior to his incarnation as a bondservant, he was "incarnate" as a tree . This is a problem for the literalist because Jesus' birth as a human baby was not his first physical manifestation . When Jesus was preaching about himself in the John texts above he was making ontological statements, not temporal ones. We KNOW this because the language is not future-tense. Before Jesus hung on the cross, he was the resurrection. Humans were made mortal. It was always appointed for men to die once and face judgment. The tree of life existed from the beginning, and it was the tree of life that was with God in the beginning as God.

The incarnation is not the beginning of Jesus. It is merely the beginning of his performance as the bondservant by which all would be judged.

 

[JesusFan]

Immaterial.

Jesus existed prior to his incarnation. Trying to defend his non-existence based on qualifiers like his not being a man is a red herring. The fact of scripture is that he, the person, pre-existed his incarnation and, according to Paul, his existence was that of Christ Jesus.

Now this conversation is starting to become imbalanced because I've asked a few questions that haven't been answered, like were we created in his image or was he created in ours? The answer to that question is important and relevant to this discussion. Why has no one (other than me) broached it? Why, having been broached, is the matter being neglected? When Philippians 2 states he emptied Himself by taking the form of a bondservant and was born in the likeness of men, that cannot mean he was born in the likeness of sinful men. It can only mean he was born in the likeness of men as they were originally created by God. This is especially so of the Reformed perspective on Christology and anthropology because if Jesus had anything about him that was sinful then he is wholly unqualified as Christ!!! He cannot be the perfect sacrifice if he's not perfect. In what likeness was Jesus born? The likeness in which men were created. In what likeness were men created? The image of God. Therefore, even Jesus' incarnation in the likeness of men is a reference to Jesus' pre-existent ontology.

Don't get hung up on the name Jesus. The name means "God saves." There has never been a moment anywhere nor anytime in creation when God Saves did not exist.

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; the one who believes in me will live, even if he dies...

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.


To suggest otherwise would be to suggest there was a point at/in which Jesus was not the resurrection, way, truth, or life. Prior to his incarnation as a bondservant, he was "incarnate" as a tree . This is a problem for the literalist because Jesus' birth as a human baby was not his first physical manifestation . When Jesus was preaching about himself in the John texts above he was making ontological statements, not temporal ones. We KNOW this because the language is not future-tense. Before Jesus hung on the cross, he was the resurrection. Humans were made mortal. It was always appointed for men to die once and face judgment. The tree of life existed from the beginning, and it was the tree of life that was with God in the beginning as God.

The incarnation is not the beginning of Jesus. It is merely the beginning of his performance as the bondservant by which all would be judged.

The deity nature of Jesus existed from all eternity as the word of the Father, but in the incarnation as Jesus there came into existence his sinless Humanity, hence at that time and forward very God, very man

 

[Josheb]

The deity nature of Jesus existed from all eternity as the word of the Father,

Yep. And nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise.

but in the incarnation as Jesus there came into existence his sinless Humanity,

As Jesus he existed in the form of God. Why is the text of Philippians 2:6 being denied. Why are you making this about his humanity?

...hence at that time and forward very God, very man

Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my point, nor the error made in Post 192. The existence of Jesus did not originate in the incarnation.

What was Jesus' name prior to his incarnation?

 

[JesusFan]

Yep. And nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise.

As Jesus he existed in the form of God. Why is the text of Philippians 2:6 being denied. Why are you making this about his humanity?

Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my point, nor the error made in Post 192. The existence of Jesus did not originate in the incarnation.

What was Jesus' name prior to his incarnation?

There was no Jesus, just God the Son , so His "name" would the word of God the Father

 

[Josheb]

There was no Jesus,

Philippians 2 says otherwise.

just God the Son ,

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions. Jesus and the Son co-occur. Can't have one without the other.

so His "name" would the word of God the Father

Correct that par of sentence. I think you're missing a "be" in there but don't want to assume it. If you mean to say his name would [be] the word of God, then, again, there is a false dichotomy because the word of God and God saves are not mutually exclusive conditions and both names pre-exist the incarnation.

 

[John Bauer]

That is incorrect.

Here, Josh simply reasserts his claim—literally, for he links back to it. But doing so openly ignores my counter-argument and assumes the very thing to be proved (i.e., that "Jesus" and "the Son" are equivalent referents).

I am content to let the record stand as is.

As Jesus he existed in the form of God.

And this is a repeat instance of the same error: Josh again ignores the counter-argument and begs the very question under dispute (i.e., that Paul's application of the name "Jesus" was ontological, not proleptic, moving the name out of history and into the eternal being of God).

Josh is treating "Jesus" as the eternal name of the Son, as though the human identity of the incarnate Word were intrinsic to his eternal being, but he does this without a shred of argumentation. (His reference to Philippians 2:5-11 simply begs the question, as my rebuttal exposed, which is not a valid argument.) As we see throughout scripture, Jesus is the name of the Son as incarnate redeemer, not as eternal Logos.

Consistent with my argument (and counter-argument against Josh), notice the absence of the name "Jesus" in the Old Testament (OT). The Son as a person of the Godhead is revealed progressively in the OT (e.g., Zech. 1:12-13), present under types, shadows, and prophetic anticipation, but the name "Jesus"—that is, Yeshua, "Yahweh saves" (Matt 1:21)—enters history at the incarnation, designating that same eternal person as incarnate redeemer.

"You will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." That statement defines the name's temporal and vocational character: It is given when the Word became flesh (personal versus modal). It identifies the Son in his redemptive mission, not in his eternal preexistence. All of this supports my point: the name Jesus belongs to the incarnate identity of the Son, not his pre-incarnate essence.

While the Son was eternally with the Father, he was called Jesus only when he entered history to save his people. The OT anticipates him under shadows—the Angel of Yahweh, the Son of Man, the promised Messiah—but the name "Jesus" belongs to the Word made flesh.

 

[JesusFan]

Here, Josh simply reasserts his claim—literally, for he links back to it. But doing so openly ignores my counter-argument and assumes the very thing to be proved (i.e., that "Jesus" and "the Son" are equivalent referents).

I am content to let the record stand as is.




And this is a repeat instance of the same error: Josh again ignores the counter-argument and begs the very question under dispute (i.e., that Paul's application of the name "Jesus" was ontological, not proleptic, moving the name out of history and into the eternal being of God).

Josh is treating "Jesus" as the eternal name of the Son, as though the human identity of the incarnate Word were intrinsic to his eternal being, but he does this without a shred of argumentation. (His reference to Philippians 2:5-11 simply begs the question, as my rebuttal exposed, which is not a valid argument.) As we see throughout scripture, Jesus is the name of the Son as incarnate redeemer, not as eternal Logos.

Consistent with my argument (and counter-argument against Josh), notice the absence of the name "Jesus" in the Old Testament (OT). The Son as a person of the Godhead is revealed progressively in the OT (e.g., Zech. 1:12-13), present under types, shadows, and prophetic anticipation, but the name "Jesus"—that is, Yeshua, "Yahweh saves" (Matt 1:21)—enters history at the incarnation, designating that same eternal person as incarnate redeemer.

"You will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." That statement defines the name's temporal and vocational character: It is given when the Word became flesh (personal versus modal). It identifies the Son in his redemptive mission, not in his eternal preexistence. All of this supports my point: the name Jesus belongs to the incarnate identity of the Son, not his pre-incarnate essence.

While the Son was eternally with the Father, he was called Jesus only when he entered history to save his people. The OT anticipates him under shadows—the Angel of Yahweh, the Son of Man, the promised Messiah—but the name "Jesus" belongs to the Word made flesh.

The Brother seems to arguing here then that Jesus Himself as that very person eternally existed in the trinity, and he became then Incarnated, but we are saying that while Jesus is Himself Very God, before the Incarnation "only" existed as the Word/Sin of the Father and Became the man Jesus when he assumed human flesh and took on sinless humanity now also?

 

[JesusFan]

Yep. And nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise.

As Jesus he existed in the form of God. Why is the text of Philippians 2:6 being denied. Why are you making this about his humanity?

Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my point, nor the error made in Post 192. The existence of Jesus did not originate in the incarnation.

What was Jesus' name prior to his incarnation?

He existed simply as God the Son, who appeared at times as Angel of the Lord, but was not yet Jesus