According to Christian belief, was Jesus human at all?

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

The Holy Spirit is referenced as being the thing that caused Mary to be impregnated.

The Holy Spirit is not a thing. The Holy Spirit is a He. And The bible says the Holy Spirit caused Jesus to be created within Mary. Jesus was 100% a product of the Holy Spirit, not 50% Holy Spirit 50% Mary.

Questions for debate:

1) Is this generally accepted Christian belief?

2) If Jesus was "100% a product of the holy spirit, not 50% holy spirit 50% Mary", exactly how was Mary anything other than a surrogate mother to an implanted "god"?

3) Under the proposed scenario, how can Mary be considered "the mother of Jesus" when she was nothing more than a surrogate?

[Question Everything]

My understanding of Christian doctrine is that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I once had it explained to me that God-man duality in Jesus was like wave-particle duality in physics.

This is one thing about Christianity that does not make any sense. Jesus was fully God and fully man. God the Father was his father, and Mary was his mother. However, he always existed since the beginning of time, and is unchanging.

OK, so that means that before God created the universe there was a God the Father and a God the Son, even though humans had not been created yet. Yet, God needed to exist in at least two persons so that he could sacrifice himself to save humanity. (This requires at least two persons, because someone has to be up in Heaven running the show while the other one is on Earth.) Jesus had to be fully God and fully man then, just as he is now, because he is unchanging. But how could that he be fully man when there were no humans?

I think that Daniel Dennett is right. You don't need science to show that Christianity is bogus. You only need Christianity itself.

[AquinasD]

Jesus was fully God and fully man. He had His divine nature eternally; His human nature He gained from Mary.

That's more or less what was hammered out by the first few Ecumenical Councils. There's some more technicalities, but that's the main idea.

[Shermana]

Jesus was fully God and fully man. He had His divine nature eternally; His human nature He gained from Mary.

That's more or less what was hammered out by the first few Ecumenical Councils. There's some more technicalities, but that's the main idea.

Exactly, the concept that Jesus was "God" was hammered out in the later ecumenical councils. Until then, he was "a god", and just like the rest of the Israelites. (John 10:34 is much easier to understand when 10:33 is read as "You a mere man make yourself out to be A god") The problem is that the use of the word "god" (which is the word used for "angels" such as in Psalm 136:2) got all mangled later on.

The at-the-time concept of the "Logos" as a separate soul and the highest of the Angels is discussed in detail by Philo. But the idea that Jesus was "God" as opposed to "a god" is a later gentile-convert post 2nd century invention.

[Goat]

Jesus was fully God and fully man. He had His divine nature eternally; His human nature He gained from Mary.

That's more or less what was hammered out by the first few Ecumenical Councils. There's some more technicalities, but that's the main idea.

The statement 'Jesus is fully God and fully man' is certainly the standard Chrisitian religious belief. It is ironic that 'man' and 'god' is mutually exclusive according to the Jewish scriptures, that which you call the 'Old Testament' .

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

"And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he IS not a man, that he should have regret." 1 Samuel 15:29

"I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath." Hosea 11:9

[Slopeshoulder]

Putting aside the why, how, and when, yes Jesus is affirmed in christian doctrine to be fully divine and fully human. In fact, many of the heresies of old and new(adstar's for instance) were a result of tilting toward one of these two natures. Denying Mary's role and Jesus' full humanity is a classic ancient heresy.

FWIW, I take this dual nature thingy and free if from its western ontology and simply say Jesus is an example or symbol of a fully realized human. His atman was brahmin, and he knew it. He is a jewish-euro version of that. Christology is the way it was hammered out in the west. My own take on it may be post-western, but it is not heretical, because orthodoxy requires adherenece to the idea, not the the specific ontology upon which it is based or by which it is expressed. And while eastern philosophy is monistic, so is the trinity, so no prob. Think it's a heresy? Call the Pope and ask. But the OP is certainly a heresy.

[Shermana]

Jesus was fully God and fully man. He had His divine nature eternally; His human nature He gained from Mary.

That's more or less what was hammered out by the first few Ecumenical Councils. There's some more technicalities, but that's the main idea.

The statement 'Jesus is fully God and fully man' is certainly the standard Chrisitian religious belief. It is ironic that 'man' and 'god' is mutually exclusive according to the Jewish scriptures, that which you call the 'Old Testament' .

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

"And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he IS not a man, that he should have regret." 1 Samuel 15:29

"I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath." Hosea 11:9

Goat at the very least I can see why most Jews consider "Christians" and Messianic Jews to be an apostasy, many just blindly believe the Trinity as if it were fact, violating critical scripture.

[Wootah]

1) Is this generally accepted Christian belief?

Jesus was human flesh and thoughts and abilities sure.

2) If Jesus was "100% a product of the holy spirit, not 50% holy spirit 50% Mary", exactly how was Mary anything other than a surrogate mother to an implanted "god"?

That's fine by me.

3) Under the proposed scenario, how can Mary be considered "the mother of Jesus" when she was nothing more than a surrogate?

I don't see what point you make. She was still a particularly unique human.

[dianaiad]

My understanding of Christian doctrine is that Jesus was fully God and fully man. I once had it explained to me that God-man duality in Jesus was like wave-particle duality in physics.

This is one thing about Christianity that does not make any sense. Jesus was fully God and fully man. God the Father was his father, and Mary was his mother. However, he always existed since the beginning of time, and is unchanging.

OK, so that means that before God created the universe there was a God the Father and a God the Son, even though humans had not been created yet. Yet, God needed to exist in at least two persons so that he could sacrifice himself to save humanity. (This requires at least two persons, because someone has to be up in Heaven running the show while the other one is on Earth.) Jesus had to be fully God and fully man then, just as he is now, because he is unchanging. But how could that he be fully man when there were no humans?

I think that Daniel Dennett is right. You don't need science to show that Christianity is bogus. You only need Christianity itself.

Why do you assume that there were no humans? At least, spiritually?

[Goat]

Goat at the very least I can see why most Jews consider "Christians" and Messianic Jews to be an apostasy, many just blindly believe the Trinity as if it were fact, violating critical scripture.

No, that is incorrect. I consider Christians a different religion, with a different take on it. I am merely pointing out the issues that show why Christianity is not Judaism.. nor is "Messianic Judaism" actually Judaism.