Two Possibilities in Explaining Christ's Divine Behavior & His Limited Human Behavior.

[Bible Highlighter]

Problems in Each Belief:


Problems Involving Christ Having Only A Divine Soul & Not A Human Soul:

1. It goes against Christian Orthodoxy & it is labeled as heresy.
   
   
2. It does not fit so well with a normal reading of Colossians 1:19, and Colossians 2:9. For these two verses suggests a “him” (a human person or human soul) as being unique in relation to the fullness of the Godhead or the Trinity. In other words, if the Eternal Logos made flesh had no human soul, how can the “him” be in reference to the Eternal Logos in Colossians 2:9 if it also refers to the entirety of the Godhead or the Trinity (including the Logos)? The fullness of these three persons of the Trinity are within the “him” (Which sounds like a unique person to the Trinity mentioned here).

Problems Involving Christ Having Both a Divine Soul & a Human Soul:

1. Jesus is not unique, and He is similar to demigods (Who are the offspring of a god and a human, like: Hercules, Achilles, and Perseus).
   
   
2. The partial worship of a created human soul, and human mind suggests that we may be worshiping the creation and not the Creator. If Jesus had a human soul or human spirit, this would suggest a possible undoing of the command to worship God alone. For we are not to worship anyone or anything but God alone. If a human soul or human spirit was thrown into the mix, that could potentially destroy us being able to worship God alone. For it suggests that we could worship God + some newly created human soul and human spirit, too.
   
   
3. It attacks the impeccable character of Jesus Christ or the Eternal Logos. For some people think that Jesus had lusts and or that He could have potentially sinned (but He merely did not sin). This suggests that Christ had to be able to potentially sin like us so we can relate to Jesus Christ. But Jesus is also God, too. The Scriptures say that God cannot be tempted by sin. So this presents a contradiction.
   
   
4. Statements made by Christ and other Scripture that talks about His pre-existence and or eternal existence or Heavenly origin are problematic because He became a newly created being within the universe by taking on a created Human Soul within the Incarnation. For example: How can Christ claim to know Abraham if He was a newly created being within the Incarnation?
   
   
5. It does not appear to pass one of the tests given to Christians. For 1 John 4:2 states, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God."
   
   
6. It can potentially lead people to falsely claim that Jesus needed to pay the price for our sin using a human soul (i.e. a human mind, will, and emotions) when Scripture says that He bore our sins within His body and it is His shed blood that washes away our sin (that simply comes from having a human body). 1 Peter 2:24 clearly says that Jesus bore our sins in his body and not within his soul. For it is by Christ’s shed blood that washes away our sins (1 John 1:7). Some have suggested that Jesus’s soul needed to suffer in hell as a part of our redemption, but Scripture does not state such a thing.
   
   
7. 1 Timothy 3:16 says God was manifested in the flesh. This verse is not exactly accurate if Christ were to become a newly created being within the universe by His also taking on a newly created human soul (i.e. a created human mind, will, and emotions). It would not be God manifest in the flesh, but it would be a demigod or a newly created being within the universe.

 

[Tree of Life]

Jesus is not unique, and He is similar to demigods (Who are the offspring of a god and a human, like: Hercules, Achilles, and Perseus).

This is simply a total misunderstanding of what it means for Jesus to be God. The God of the Bible far exceeds any sort of demigod imagined by man. Also, these "demigods" don't exist. I don't see a problem here. If it is a problem, it's only a problem in your opinion.

The partial worship of a created human soul, and human mind suggests that we may be worshiping the creation and not the Creator.

I worship Jesus in all of his being including his created human body. Jesus' blood is the blood of God (Acts 20:28).

It attacks the impeccable character of Jesus Christ or the Eternal Logos. For some people think that Jesus had lusts and or that He could have potentially sinned (but He merely did not sin). This suggests that Christ had to be able to potentially sin like us so we can relate to Jesus Christ. But Jesus is also God, too. The Scriptures say that God cannot be tempted by sin. So this presents a contradiction.

I believe in the impeccability of Christ. I don't believe it was possible for Jesus to sin. And yet I believe that Jesus assumed a human soul in his incarnation. These beliefs are not exclusive. You only think they are exclusive. You've not demonstrated how they necessarily contradict.

Statements made by Christ and other Scripture that talks about His pre-existence and or eternal existence or Heavenly origin are problematic because He became a newly created being within the universe by taking on a created Human Soul within the Incarnation. For example: How can Christ claim to know Abraham if He was a newly created being within the Incarnation?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Christ assumed a newly created human body in his incarnation. He assumed a newly created humanity. Christ has always existed as a divine person, but he assumed humanity at a certain point in time. Jesus' humanity does not cause a problem for his divine pre-existence.

It does not appear to pass one of the tests given to Christians. For 1 John 4:2 states, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God."

Denying that Jesus was truly human (having a human soul) is actual denying that Jesus came in the flesh. It's your view that doesn't pass John's test, not the orthodox Christian view.

It can potentially lead people to falsely claim that Jesus needed to pay the price for our sin using a human soul (i.e. a human mind, will, and emotions) when Scripture says that He bore our sins within His body and it is His shed blood that washes away our sin (that simply comes from having a human body). 1 Peter 2:24 clearly says that Jesus bore our sins in his body and not within his soul. For it is by Christ’s shed blood that washes away our sins (1 John 1:7). Some have suggested that Jesus’s soul needed to suffer in hell as a part of our redemption, but Scripture does not state such a thing.

Jesus did not just suffer in his body. He also suffered anguish in his mind and emotions, as if often evidenced in Scripture. This mental and emotional anguish is part of his payment for sins.

1 Timothy 3:16 says God was manifested in the flesh. This verse is not exactly accurate if Christ were to become a newly created being within the universe by His also taking on a newly created human soul (i.e. a created human mind, will, and emotions). It would not be God manifest in the flesh, but it would be a demigod or a newly created being within the universe.

I think you're confused. Jesus assumed humanity to himself and is the God man - fully God and fully man. His full humanity entails not only a human body but also a human soul. That doesn't contradict, but is supported by 1 Timothy 3:16.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is simply a total misunderstanding of what it means for Jesus to be God.

I accept the Hypostatic Union (HU) as a possibility, but it is a slim one. The only way it can work is if one allows the definition of the HU to say that Christ can speak, act, and think from His divine side separate from His human side and that He can speak, act, and think from His human side separate from His divine side (Thus suggesting that Christ is speaking as two distinct different persons).

A definition for the HU from Wikipedia states:

"The most basic explanation for the hypostatic union is Jesus Christ being both God and man. He is both perfectly divine and perfectly human."​

Source:
Hypostatic union - Wikipedia

Got Questions says,

"The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man."​

Source:
What is the hypostatic union?

But how can the HU (as it currently stated) be a perfect union (and or be one Person) if His behavior suggests that it is not a perfect union of these two natures at times? Sometimes He speaks as from a divine nature and other times He speaks from a human nature. Thus suggesting He is two people and not a harmonization of one person. Again, I am not discounting the HU as a possibility in being true. I just think that the definition needs to be slightly adjusted so that the mechanics of this belief can work.

The God of the Bible far exceeds any sort of demigod imagined by man.

I agree. But it is odd that the HU appears to present Jesus as a fictional demigod. Again, it is possible that the enemy is merely trying to mimic the truth here, but the evil one has also been known to distort the truth, as well. For the devil hates God and I imagine he does not want too many people knowing the truth in how He really is.

Also, these "demigods" don't exist. I don't see a problem here. If it is a problem, it's only a problem in your opinion.

These demigods exist fictionally and they are well known among many people. Would they point to the truth of Jesus, or would they attempt to take us down a different road or path?

I worship Jesus in all of his being including his created human body. Jesus' blood is the blood of God (Acts 20:28).

Not a problem because Jesus said His body was just a shell or a temple. The body is not another created being in the universe. It is just a shell or a temple or an empty husk or outer covering (kind of like clothes). But if Jesus took on a newly created human soul, or a human mind in the Incarnation, this would suggest that we are worshiping an entirely different and new God or being within the universe that did not exist prior to the Incarnation. Again, the HU fails to explain this. But again, just because there is no explanation does not mean the HU is false. Like I said I believe the HU is possible. I just do not see it as the most likely possibility.

I believe in the impeccability of Christ. I don't believe it was possible for Jesus to sin.

This very statement is a contradiction. How can one be impeccable in being God and yet also able to have the potential to sin? It is a contradiction to state such a thing.

And yet I believe that Jesus assumed a human soul in his incarnation. These beliefs are not exclusive. You only think they are exclusive. You've not demonstrated how they necessarily contradict.

And you have not explained how these two things could work together. One cannot be impeccable and yet have the potential to sin. If they could possibly sin, then they are not impeccable. This is one aspect of where the HU needs to be reworked or redefined in it's definition. For God's Word says that God cannot be tempted by sin (James 1:13). So if Jesus is 100% God (and He is), then it is physically impossible for Him to be tempted by sin because He is 100% God.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, Christ assumed a newly created human body in his incarnation. He assumed a newly created humanity. Christ has always existed as a divine person, but he assumed humanity at a certain point in time. Jesus' humanity does not cause a problem for his divine pre-existence.

So you are saying that Christ was speaking from His divine side and not His human side?
This suggests that there are two persons or minds acting in the Hypostatic Union and not just one person, and they are not a perfect union of the divine nature and the human nature. One side has to split and focus on one nature only in order to speak from one nature or the other.

Denying that Jesus was truly human (having a human soul) is actual denying that Jesus came in the flesh. It's your view that doesn't pass John's test, not the orthodox Christian view.

No. Nowhere does John's test include a human soul into the mix of the flesh.
It simply says "flesh."
For it says JESUS came into the flesh. Jesus came INTO the flesh. This means JESUS pre-existed and lived before entering the flesh and He did not just receive that name only until the Incarnation. This again is a problem for the HU. The HU definition has to be amended to fit the idea that JESUS existed with the name JESUS before the Incarnation.

Jesus did not just suffer in his body. He also suffered anguish in his mind and emotions, as if often evidenced in Scripture. This mental and emotional anguish is part of his payment for sins.

Scripture verses please.

I think you're confused. Jesus assumed humanity to himself and is the God man - fully God and fully man. His full humanity entails not only a human body but also a human soul. That doesn't contradict, but is supported by 1 Timothy 3:16.

But you are not giving me an explanation in how it is supported in 1 Timothy 3:16, though.

Anyways, I hope you understand where I am coming from;
And may God bless you.

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is now closed permanently. The thread is off topic to this forum, which is intended for orthodox Christians to debate a specific other religion, eg. Buddhism, Islam, etc.

MOD HAT OFF​