Jesus the Embryo (Another Ensoulment Question)

[grannymh]

This is part of the deeper sub-text of my question I’m trying to figure out. I’m wondering this too. So, thanks!

I’ve been reading through the CCC quotes provided, and they’re a bit above my head. Here’s what keeps sticking out to me: He’s an exception in that He’s Divine, but He is true man, too. These quotes come to my attention:

So, it seems we can’t affirm one at the expense of the other?

First, God does not need or have a soul. God is pure spirit.

Please keep reading the CCC, from CCC, 461 all the way to CCC, 483.
CCC, 472 is the one which says that Jesus assumed the human soul with a true human knowledge. CCC, 461 says that Jesus became “flesh” when he assumed human nature at the Incarnation. Jesus did not assume our state of Original Sin.

A good way to make sense out of the difficult paragraphs is to remember that Jesus is One Divine Person with Two Natures, divine and human.

Because Jesus is God, everything relates to His divinity. At the Incarnation, He assumed a true human nature so that there is a union between divine and human. The is why Jesus is True God and True Man. Because He had human flesh, Jesus could suffer and die. This did not change His divinity.

The whole thing is amazing!

 

[TCEL]

I dont see anything there that is problematic. Christ was fully human as well as fully divine, of cpurse, but He was sinless. Humans are sinful creatures. How is this so? He is the exception once again, of course. IMO same concept in regards to His soul.

and think about the process in which Jesus was conceived. The Lord put the Holy Spirit (Jesus) into Mary. He didnt inseminate her and fertilize an egg and then a soul created. The Spirit entered into her womb directly.

Well, I have no idea as to the process of Jesus’ conception. This does sound a lot like “God in a mini-suit.”

Maybe what I’m not taking into account is the transferal of our fallen nature?

Maybe it’s also the concept of time that’s giving me a problem.

 

[TCEL]

First, God does not need or have a soul. God is pure spirit.

Please keep reading the CCC, from CCC, 461 all the way to CCC, 483.
CCC, 472 is the one which says that Jesus assumed the human soul with a true human knowledge. CCC, 461 says that Jesus became “flesh” when he assumed human nature at the Incarnation. Jesus did not assume our state of Original Sin.

A good way to make sense out of the difficult paragraphs is to remember that Jesus is One Divine Person with Two Natures, divine and human.

Because Jesus is God, everything relates to His divinity. At the Incarnation, He assumed a true human nature so that there is a union between divine and human. The is why Jesus is True God and True Man. Because He had human flesh, Jesus could suffer and die. This did not change His divinity.

The whole thing is amazing!

I know! It’s mind-boggling! I did read through all the quotes. Again, what keeps jumping out at me is that He assumed human nature without losing divine nature. Part of human nature is a rational soul, isn’t it?

 

[grannymh]

I know! It’s mind-boggling! I did read through all the quotes. Again, what keeps jumping out at me is that He assumed human nature without losing divine nature. Part of human nature is a rational soul, isn’t it?

Yes. A rational spiritual soul is essential for human nature. What keeps jumping out at you and me is the key truth that Jesus did not lose His divine nature. A sign of that divine nature is that Jesus worked miracles and forgave sins.

 

[Thorns]

Having a soul doesnt appear to be part of human nature, but rather human spirituality.

So Jesus just assumed human nature, not our spirituality. His spirituality is Divine.

Would this be correct?

 

[TCEL]

Having a soul doesnt appear to be part of human nature, but rather human spirituality.

So Jesus just assumed human nature, not our spirituality. His spirituality is Divine.

Would this be correct?

I don’t know.

 

[Thorns]

I don’t know.

Id think so lol.

 

[grannymh]

Having a soul doesnt appear to be part of human nature, but rather human spirituality.

So Jesus just assumed human nature, not our spirituality. His spirituality is Divine.

Would this be correct?

I am not sure about terms like human spirituality. Maybe, you are using the word spirituality in the same way that we can be called a spiritual being because of our spiritual soul. Personally, I like the word nature because it is a strong word that is easily recognized.

Here is the essential definition of human nature. Human nature is a unique unification of the spiritual world and the material world. (CCC, 355) Specifically, we are an unique unification of the spiritual soul and the material anatomy. We are the pinnacle of creation.

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: that is, it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human person. Spirit and matter, in a human, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature. (CCC, 365)

The nature of the One Person Jesus is divine. He assumed human nature in order to offer atonement for Original Sin. (Romans 5: 12-21) I find this hard to picture; yet, we do have paintings, etc., picturing Jesus. Despite our difficulty in understanding, we love Jesus with our whole being.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We are created in His image, actually.

This is a joke isn’t it?
For if it were true we would be god by nature which we clearly are not.

At least TCEL compared apples (Jesus human nature) with apples (our human nature)

 

[grannymh]

This is a joke isn’t it?
For if it were true we would be god by nature which we clearly are not.

At least TCEL compared apples (Jesus human nature) with apples (our human nature)

Goodness gracious!

That “joke” about being god by nature has been around since Adam ate organic fruit.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I promise I’m not trying to be purposefully dense.

So, my fellow Christian friend who holds to Sola Scriptura is making a man-made distinction when s/he brings up the question of ensoulment?

In other words I could ask, “Where is ensoulment found in the Bible?”

Additionally, I was hoping that by appealing to the example of Jesus my friends could then understand, by analogy, that to affirm His human soul from conception, but to deny our own, is a contradiction? (My working assumption is that none of them would say it would have been ok to abort Him!!! I shudder at even thinking of that.) So that is not correct?

Not dense at all, its a very good question.
You could mean two things:
(i) is there a Greek concept of “soul” in the Bible?
(ii) if so, is there a teaching of exactly when a fully human-soul vivifies the body?

I think this falls over at (i).
Yes, you will certainly find words in the Bible that in English get translated “soul.”
However it would be exceedingly naiive to then just assume this concept is the same as the one spoken of by Aristotle/Aquinas and the Magisterium (in the latest Catechism for example.

The short answer is it isn’t in the OT…
Most of the books in the Bible are of Hebrew cultural origin. So the thinking is Semitic not Greek even if translations turn some Hebrew words into “soul.” Hebrew words in this are are better translated as “spirit” or “person/self” or “breath.”
The main difference between Greek and Hebrew understanding of “soul” is often provided in a classic remark from a Scripture scholar by the name of Robinson: “Greeks think of an incarnate spirit, and the Hebrews of an animated body.” More helpfully in this context is that Greeks see humanity as a composite of parts - Hebrews as an existing totality.
They had little if any concept of survival after death that the Greek concept of soul intrinsicly involves. The Book of Wisdom (strongly influenced by Greek concepts) has a hint of something closer to the understanding of soul that Aquinas worked with.

I recommend checking out the New Jerome Biblical Commentary 77:66, 77:170.

In the New Testament the influence of Greek understanding is considerably deeper than in the Old Testament. For example human immortality after death is accepted and a Greek understanding of soul is sometimes explicit (wrt immortality). e.g.In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus asked his followers “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Matthew 16:26a) He also taught his followers to “fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)
However this concession to Greek understanding of “soul” is not deep, widespread or complete. It is more about surviving death than vivifying new life in the manner this thread speaks of.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Im not sure Christ received a soul at conception. Christ has always existed in Heaven even before He became incarnate. He always had a soul. Of course, He is the exception.

I am sorry this is complete humbug.
God as God does not have a soul and the 2nd Person of the Trinity certainly didn’t before the Incarnation. (BTW we do not usually refer to the 2nd Person as “Christ” when referring to his Godhead before the Incarnation.)

It may be more helpful to your fellow Catholics here if you researched your Catholic Faith a little before attempting to guide so confidently. I find the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is a very helpful site for theological questions like this.(Google “New Advent”)

 

[Thorns]

I am sorry this is complete humbug.
God as God does not have a soul and the 2nd Person of the Trinity certainly didn’t before the Incarnation. (BTW we do not usually refer to the 2nd Person as “Christ” when referring to his Godhead before the Incarnation.)

It may be more helpful to your fellow Catholics here if you researched your Catholic Faith a little before attempting to guide so confidently. I find the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is a very helpful site for theological questions like this.(Google “New Advent”)

Maybe I used an improper term like “soul” but Christ has always existed. I read that on New Advent or Catholic Encyclopedia actually.

And if Jesus always existed before the Incarnation, He must’ve been pure Spirit at that point too. So His own spirit always existed and it would seem He would’ve received no soul at conception since He’s always existed. Conception and ensoulment are attributes of being created for the first time.

 

[Thorns]

This is a joke isn’t it?
For if it were true we would be god by nature which we clearly are not.

At least TCEL compared apples (Jesus human nature) with apples (our human nature)

Saying Jesus received a soul to be like us would be incorrect I would think. Us having a soul has more to do with us “being like” Him.

Many people ask why God would come to us so ordinarily, as a man. Hardly spectacular or miraculous, but people forget we are created in His image, not the other way around

 

[TCEL]

Maybe I used an improper term like “soul” but Christ has always existed. I read that on New Advent or Catholic Encyclopedia actually.

Definitely. He’s God. I think, perhaps, that we get hung up on these things sometimes because we’re stuck in a progression of time.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Maybe I used an improper term like “soul” but Christ has always existed. I read that on New Advent or Catholic Encyclopedia actually.

And if Jesus always existed before the Incarnation, He must’ve been pure Spirit at that point too. So His own spirit always existed and it would seem He would’ve received no soul at conception since He’s always existed. Conception and ensoulment are attributes of being created for the first time.

I know what you mean but your terminology is going to get you into confusion with others because it strictly speaking is not correct.

"Christ has always existed"
Well if this is a direct quote from the New Advent Encyclopedia I would love to see it. Can you reference the exact location for me?

Now if we said “the Word of God” or “the Son” or “the Second Person of the Trinity” always existed that would be absolutely fine. It is clear you are talking about Person, or even the Divine Nature.

But what are we primarily referring to when we say “Jesus” or “Christ”.
Well, “Christ” simply means “the Anointed One” which refers to the Messiah. So “Christ” is a title. Hence “Jesus the Christ (Messiah).”
Acceptably in later times from frequent use of the above title it came to be understood as a surname for Jesus (“Jesus Christ”). Of course that is not his real surname, he would in fact have been called “Jesus son of Joseph” in his own life-time.

So if we accept that when we use the word “Christ” by itself we are really referring to Jesus’s surname in a formal way we are really talking first and foremost about a human. Before 0 AD this person was not the Messiah and not the subject of this title or “surname.” He aquired it at a certain point of time in history.

Having dragged all this out there is however a secondary sense in which we could say “Christ always existed”. In so far as “Christ” is clearly used to identify “personhood” (albeit through his human nature) then whatever pertains to that Person (through either his human or divine nature) may be said of “Christ.”

It is pretty much the same principle used to justify saying “Mary is the Mother of God.”
How can God have a mother if God always existed and there is none greater? This example (which is the reverse of what we are discussing above) was finally accepted as valid in the Early Church because…we are really saying Mary is the mother of the human person Jesus. And because this person is also God then indirectly (Jesus’s person forms a “bridge” between the two natures) we may validly say Mary is also Mother of God.
It does NOT mean Mary generated the Divine Nature NOR that she is the Mother of the Holy Spirit of of the Father. They are different Persons.

However you are probably going to cause a lot of needless confusion in your future discussions if you say Christ always existed as it suggests his human nature was eternal (ie at least his soul) which is manifestly false for Catholics. BTW Some Christians actually believe this it seems.

Your words above about the soul of Christ show you are confused on this point.
Only humans have undying souls. The Divine Nature does not have a soul. Angels do not have souls. Therefore Jesus certainly got one at the very moment of the Annunciation and Mary’s fiat.

This is more than you want but unless you have access to a Catholic theologian for 20 minutes who is willing to listen to you then you will prob remain confused on this point for at least the next 20 years. Its not easy to find out if you dont know where to look.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Saying Jesus received a soul to be like us would be incorrect I would think.

No, this is pretty much the definition of the Incarnation. To receive a soul is to become a Man.
We cannot imagine how much God “stooped” to save us.

Us having a soul has more to do with us “being like” Him.

You seem to be referring to Man being made in the Image and Likeness of God.

If so then I don’t know of a polite way to say this but…you’ve got this completely wrong.
First, the 2nd Person of the Trinity was not a Man at this time. Nor is the Divine Nature a soul, not even a super-duper Soul .

Yes the creature man received a “participation” in some of the perfections of the Creator.
Like all other creatures the primary “natural” gift was a limited hold on “existence”. The highest “natural gift” was a “self” a self-directing personhood (with intelligence and free will though this bit is a later Greek interpretation of Genesis 1).

You seem to think that if man has a “soul” (which by the way is not what Gensis 1 means anyway, that is Greek thinking) then God must have a real kick-*** Soul. That is not what the doctrine of “participation in God’s perfections” means. Though it is usually the one we leave school with. Most people are smart enough to know “image and likeness” doesn’t apply to matter (for God is pure Spirit, yet Man is Dust) … but few naturally understand how the spirit of man relates to the Spirit of God.

It reminds me of the standard question my old theology professor used to love asking new students. “If the most perfect of men has the strongest of biceps and the biggest hairy chest … does that mean God’s must be even bigger and hairier than that?”

The only way you are right when you say “Us having a soul has more to do with us “being like” Him” is that both the human soul and the Divine Nature are “non-corporeal substances”. The Divine Nature does not have a soul, nor humanity. Never has and never will.

 

[grannymh]

No, this is pretty much the definition of the Incarnation. To receive a soul is to become a Man.
We cannot imagine how much God “stooped” to save us.

You seem to be referring to Man being made in the Image and Likeness of God.

If so then I don’t know of a polite way to say this but…you’ve got this completely wrong.
First, the 2nd Person of the Trinity was not a Man at this time. Nor is the Divine Nature a soul, not even a super-duper Soul .

Yes the creature man received a “participation” in some of the perfections of the Creator.
Like all other creatures the primary “natural” gift was a limited hold on “existence”. The highest “natural gift” was a “self” a self-directing personhood (with intelligence and free will though this bit is a later Greek interpretation of Genesis 1).

You seem to think that if man has a “soul” (which by the way is not what Gensis 1 means anyway, that is Greek thinking) then God must have a real kick-*** Soul. That is not what the doctrine of “participation in God’s perfections” means. Though it is usually the one we leave school with. Most people are smart enough to know “image and likeness” doesn’t apply to matter (for God is pure Spirit, yet Man is Dust) … but few naturally understand how the spirit of man relates to the Spirit of God.

It reminds me of the standard question my old theology professor used to love asking new students. “If the most perfect of men has the strongest of biceps and the biggest hairy chest … does that mean God’s must be even bigger and hairier than that?”

The only way you are right when you say “Us having a soul has more to do with us “being like” Him” is that both the human soul and the Divine Nature are “non-corporeal substances”. The Divine Nature does not have a soul, nor humanity. Never has and never will.

Being in the “image of God” (CCC, 355-357) refers to the State of Sanctifying Grace (CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898) in which we share in the divine life of the Trinity. Being in the “Image of God” is the means for human communication with the Divine Creator.

 

[TCEL]

So, Jesus assumed human nature at the Incarnation, which occurred before the Nativity. (Reference John leaping in Elizabeth’s womb at Mary and Jesus’ Visitation, and Scripture saying He was like us in all things but sin.) We know that we start out as embryos, and because Scripture says Jesus has a mother, Jesus did too. Therefore…to say we can abort some human embryos would be to place Jesus’ own life in jeopardy. (Similar to what another poster said.)

Boy, I sure feel like I’m treading water here.

…Maybe other Christians have a different understanding of Jesus’ soul.

Ugh. Remember in the gospels when Jesus is talking with the Sadducees about the resurrection of the body? Unlike the Pharisees, who accepted the Prophets and such, the Sadducees only accepted the Torah as authoritative, and Jesus argued strictly from the Torah as to the validity of resurrection. That’s what I’m trying to do; see if there’s a way to argue from an authority Sola Scriptura Christians accept.

I’m sorry for being so disjointed; and I appreciate all the (name removed by moderator)ut. It takes a while for things to sink in with me.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Being in the “image of God” refers to the State of Sanctifying Grace

I believe you may have misunderstood the CCC glossary (not that I can find it) as this does not accord with either Augstine or Aquinas. Or perhaps you have mistakenly inferred this from two different articles?

Can you supply a single quote (as opposed to an inference from two different quotes) to support this conclusion?

“Image of God” is primarily a category of created nature not of supernatural participation (grace). Sure, grace perfects that created human nature (and is also the end of that nature), but only by God giving us a “bit” of his nature as it were. So by grace we truly become “gods” - thus we have gone way beyond “image of God” into taking on the very substance of the divinity and ourselves become gods.