If God was born into flesh, did He have an "extra" soul to make Him fully human?

I enjoy reading the declarions and clarifications of Christian faith, like the Niacene Creed.
According to this the Catholics and their wayward Protestant off-shoots regard Jesus as both fully human and divine.
However, to be fully human one needs a spirit-soul to contemplate, and in Christianity one should consider its direction toward heaven or eternal hell.
But how could Jesus have had such a soul? He was resurrected and levitated up to a heavenly God (Himself really) on a cloud. As the judge of souls, He had none of the human terrorism of the fear of hell. His path was already predestined by Himself, or at least an aspect of Himself.
So, either Jesus had some "twin soul" that was the true soul of a human, or He could not have been both human and divine. This may again imply that a soul can exist outside the individual capacity.
Either way, if Jesus was not human and divine then the churches need to radically alter their teachings.
If Jesus was indeed divine then the incarnated Godly spirit did not have an unseen human spirit with an unsure future. You can't be divine spirit and human spirit at once. In that case He was not a human in any sense.
Perhaps He was just physically divine? But that wouldn't make Him fully human either.

Here is how it works IMO. A man is born predestined. Not all men are born like this, just a few. This man is more connected to the God consciousness than all before him. He meditates and focuses. He becomes one with the God consciousness and urges all to do so as well. He teaches of love and acceptance and shows all the miracles possible under the oneness that is found in the God consciousness. He keeps urging all to follow in his path. He is murdered willingly. Even after death of the physical, the spiritual is still one with the all inclusive Father/Mother.

reply to post by halfoldman


I personally don't believe in humans having a soul as it's never been proven to be true, but I would imagine that if God were born into human flesh, his soul would still be the same soul prior to birth. A lot if not all Christian attempt to say that Jesus was God incarnate, meaning God in the flesh, but the Messianic prophecies never called for the Messiah being God in the flesh, nor for God himself to die for our sins in the flesh. Christians don't really know a whole hell of a lot about their own religion and especially less about the prophecies themselves in regards to the Messiah who hasn't shown up yet.

Great question though, I'll give this a star and flag.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by sirnex]

Originally posted by halfoldman
I enjoy reading the declarions and clarifications of Christian faith, like the Niacene Creed.
According to this the Catholics and their wayward Protestant off-shoots regard Jesus as both fully human and divine.
However, to be fully human one needs a spirit-soul to contemplate, and in Christianity one should consider its direction toward heaven or eternal hell.
But how could Jesus have had such a soul? He was resurrected and levitated up to a heavenly God (Himself really) on a cloud. As the judge of souls, He had none of the human terrorism of the fear of hell. His path was already predestined by Himself, or at least an aspect of Himself.
So, either Jesus had some "twin soul" that was the true soul of a human, or He could not have been both human and divine. This may again imply that a soul can exist outside the individual capacity.
Either way, if Jesus was not human and divine then the churches need to radically alter their teachings.
If Jesus was indeed divine then the incarnated Godly spirit did not have an unseen human spirit with an unsure future. You can't be divine spirit and human spirit at once. In that case He was not a human in any sense.
Perhaps He was just physically divine? But that wouldn't make Him fully human either.

Wouldn't that give him two consciences ?

2 consciences in one body would be an experience unexplainable to all those who have that has not occured to.....= everyone else..

maybe he was inhabited by his normal soul , like ours, but also by his higherself, or that he was in contact with his higher self for the entirety of his knowledge gaining and enlightening of people's minds....

he was one special dude....i just think of him in a different way than most though..

And since i'm not really religious ( nor am I an athiest....i do believe in a higher great conscience...), I can have a pretty balanced view of him...


IMHO he was one of many chosen to start the process of enlightening us to our true selves......

He was allowed to do all he did.....I also think there was more to the details of his death, and resurrection that we are told......

For all we know, he could have been a test for us...

1.) to see how blindly we follow others

2.) to see if we are excepting of change

3.) To enlighten us to what we really are and what the real purpose in life is.....only we as we are right now, can't fully comprehend everything he knew..

Take his teachings as a beginners course in what really IS and what can be....and we use multiple life cycles to continue to figure it out...


just my opinion.....and sorry if i got off course..

Good thread and a great thought that I had never thought of..

S&F for it being just plain interesting..

Originally posted by TheOneElectric


Here is how it works IMO. A man is born predestined. Not all men are born like this, just a few. This man is more connected to the God consciousness than all before him. He meditates and focuses. He becomes one with the God consciousness and urges all to do so as well. He teaches of love and acceptance and shows all the miracles possible under the oneness that is found in the God consciousness. He keeps urging all to follow in his path. He is murdered willingly. Even after death of the physical, the spiritual is still one with the all inclusive Father/Mother.

Well said, not exactly the Christian tradition though (sounds like pluralism). Isn't being murdered willingly "suicide"?
I suppose it depends on the cause.
Personally I agree, we have "avatars" who sacrifice themselves for humanity in many traditions. Rarely are they seen as the sole, permanent essense of Godhood though.

reply to post by halfoldman

There has been quite a bit of discussion on this subject since the formulation of Niacene Creed.

I summarize it like this...

His humanity is divine and his divinity is human.

both are true at the same time.

Like many things in Judeo/Christian thought...
...there is the element of interdimensionality...
...where apparent opposites can both be true at the same time.

Most theological arguments cease when this dialectic is recognised.

Science also works with dialectic...
...discoveries are often made when apparent contradictions are resolved...
...where opposites are seen to work in unity.

Here's the Truth in regards to your question with Scripture references. In short, the trinity is a falsehood. Christ Jesus was very much human and the Son of God. Before that he was The Word / Michael the Archangel. He is our Savior.

reply to post by sirnex

Interesting post. Like a growing number of people this skeptic's dis-satisfaction lies with church distortions of an assumed "truer" earlier proof.
I'm curious; if the messianic prophets were misunderstood, then what was the true, original message or intention?

If God was born in the flesh, it might be as if God simply created a human-looking manifestation of His will - that is, the nature of God doesn't change because he has a son, & everything Jesus experienced was a communication, an aspect rather than a focus of God's will.

reply to post by halfoldman

Here is a brief history of the discussion so far...

A. Greek Gnosticism suggested Jesus only "appeared" to be human - Docetism

B. Ebionites (Jewish Christians) asserted Jesus was fully human, and Holy Spirit descended upon Him at baptism - Adoptionism.

C. Arius (c. 250-336) argued that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father. "There was a time when the Son was not" - Subordinationism; denial of pre- existence.

D. Council of Nicea (325) affirmed that Jesus was fully God and fully man in homoousion.

E. Apollinarius (c. 310-380) posited that human rational soul of Jesus was replaced by divine logos in single nature - Monophysitism

F. Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389) stated, "the unassumed is the unhealed"

G. Nestorius (c. 380-451) suggested that there were two separate beings in Jesus Christ; no real union

H. Eutyches (c. 378-454) indicated that the human nature was absorbed into the divine in a synthesis - Absorption

I. Tome of Pope Leo (449), Council of Chalcedon (451) established orthodoxy as "two natures (divine and human) in one hypostasis or Person (Lat. personae)."

J. Leontius of Byzantium (c. 500-560) introduced concept of enhypostasia, that human nature of Jesus did not have independent existence.

K. German theology of 18th and 19th centuries - quest for "historical Jesus." Led to R. Bultmann's "demythologization"

L. Nineteenth century theology - argument of kenotic theories of Christology

M. Karl Barth (1886-1968) - Christocentric revelation of God. Humanity of God- assumption of humanity into Deity, leading to universalism.

you should not talk talk about god's journey like that, heh?

Originally posted by ReginaAdonnaAaron
Here's the Truth in regards to your question with Scripture references. In short, the trinity is a falsehood. Christ Jesus was very much human and the Son of God. Before that he was The Word / Michael the Archangel. He is our Savior.

sound like you are from Jehovah's witness.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by sirnex

 

Interesting post. Like a growing number of people this skeptic's dis-satisfaction lies with church distortions of an assumed "truer" earlier proof.
I'm curious; if the messianic prophets were misunderstood, then what was the true, original message or intention?

to understand the Messianic Prophecies you need to look towards the house of Judah and Israel as that is what they were intended for. Jesus never brought these two houses together, so it's no surprise he wasn't accepted as the Messiah. He didn't even die for our sins either, he died because he broke Roman law, so again, no surprise why he was crucified as others were crucified for breaking Roman law. Christians are just a group of lying hypocrites as they can't even bother to follow the teachings of Jesus himself. They preach in a holier than thou manner while putting you down as a lesser being. Yet, they make up most of the prison population, isn't that funny?

reply to post by sirnex

Which Roman law did he break?
I always thought the Pharisees twisted the Roman arm to kill him on blasphemy charges. But this is going slightly off topic.
In Christianity (excluding Arius, against whom this whole rigmarole was conceived) he is both human and divine. But He cannot be so, without a human soul - and how can God ever experience a human soul?
Yes, maybe God can do anything he wants - but that does not mean we humans can ever really accept it, no matter how much we say that we do.
He could make us accept it - but that overthrows free-will.

reply to post by 517.101

Why, where did He go?

reply to post by halfoldman


Maybe you should read this book and find out why not for yourself incomplety, heh>
www.amazon.com...

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by sirnex

 

Which Roman law did he break?
I always thought the Pharisees twisted the Roman arm to kill him on blasphemy charges. But this is going slightly off topic.
In Christianity (excluding Arius, against whom this whole rigmarole was conceived) he is both human and divine. But He cannot be so, without a human soul - and how can God ever experience a human soul?
Yes, maybe God can do anything he wants - but that does not mean we humans can ever really accept it, no matter how much we say that we do.
He could make us accept it - but that overthrows free-will.

link

reply to post by troubleshooter

C. Arius (c. 250-336) argued that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father. "There was a time when the Son was not" - Subordinationism; denial of pre- existence.

Arius did not deny that Jesus existed before the incarnation. Arius did not say that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius said that the Son was begotten before time existed because Arius realized time is a function of matter. Since all things were created through the Son, no matter existed before the Son existed (and so, no time ever passed that Jesus did not exist).
Before Athanasius came up with his pseudophilosophical version of the Trinity, Arius was considered to be the champion parexcellence of the orthodox version of the Trinity.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by jmdewey60]

I do not believe as a Christian that Jesus was God. Jesus was God's son Granted.. But Not God himself. I do not believe in the Trinity as most Christians think of it. The triune God idea was not what the early Christians believed but was something that the Catholic church brought into existence through the pagan influences of the day.

All Protestant churches retained this Catholic belief when they split from the Catholic Church during the Reformation. This includes Baptists Presbyterians Episcopalians and all of the Assembly of God or Charismatic or Pentecostal churches, However I do not believe there is Biblical or historical evidence that the true early Christian Church believed this.

This would solve your OP problem right there.

We call him 'Jesus Christ' or 'Yeshua the Messiah', Therefore we should understand what is meant by messiah, chosen anointed one.

The expectation of a future messiah was first with king David, as king of the United Kingdom of Israel.

2SA 7 " `The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.' "

This messiah was to be born as the seed of David after his death. Solomon assumed the throne before David's death, hence not the Messiah of the eternal throne.

It was not until the earthly throne line was broken first by division of Israel and then destruction of Jerusalem, that it was revealed(to Daniel the exile) that the Messiah as God's chosen Son(King) was Son of Man, true man and heir to God's kingdom including all of mankind.

Jesus is the seed of David, the son of man, and heir to all that is. Any speculation about preexistance must never in any way compromise the true humanity of Jesus, else he is not messiah.

At baptism, the Father called him Son (chosen king), and so he is. After ascension the Father gave him the highest Name, and so He is.

I see no necessity to establish one to one identity between Jesus and any pre exiting creator. But when God names, it is so.