The Son Learned Obedience

[JamesL]

I hope that isn't a reference to my post. Jesus, the Son of God, born of woman, was sinless. Unlike all others born of woman he never sinned. All other flesh to be born of woman have been sinners, sinful flesh.


For my reference to sinless

It was not a reference to your post, as I did not see that in your post. It was a reference to post 14, where Tyndale said Jesus was born into sinless human flesh. But in this post you seem to agree.

That idea runs counter to scripture - Romans 8:3 & Hebrews 2:14-17 and others. He took upon Himself the Sam as us. He was made like His brethren in all things. To da otherwise is to have a different Christ from scripture.

Sure, you've got the Christ of Roman Catholicism, the Christ of creeds, but it's not the Christ of scripture.

God is Spirit, not flesh. The sinless Word of God took upon Himself sinful flesh, withstood the temptations of that flesh and overcame it perfectly and flawlessly. Something no other human has ever been able to accomplish.

This whole notion that a spirit is made sinful through a physical birth is ludicrous. God til Adam "Cursed is the GROUND because of you..."

Never once does scripture say that Adam brought a curse the very breath of God. And that is where OUR spirit comes from - Zechariah 12:1, Ecclesiastes 12:7

He brought a curse to ALL flesh. And if not Christ's flesh, then Christ was not made like us in all things.

 

[agedman]

It was not a reference to your post, as I did not see that in your post. It was a reference to post 14, where Tyndale said Jesus was born into sinless human flesh. But in this post you seem to agree.

That idea runs counter to scripture - Romans 8:3 & Hebrews 2:14-17 and others. He took upon Himself the Sam as us. He was made like His brethren in all things. To da otherwise is to have a different Christ from scripture.

Sure, you've got the Christ of Roman Catholicism, the Christ of creeds, but it's not the Christ of scripture.

God is Spirit, not flesh. The sinless Word of God took upon Himself sinful flesh, withstood the temptations of that flesh and overcame it perfectly and flawlessly. Something no other human has ever been able to accomplish.

This whole notion that a spirit is made sinful through a physical birth is ludicrous. God til Adam "Cursed is the GROUND because of you..."

Never once does scripture say that Adam brought a curse the very breath of God. And that is where OUR spirit comes from - Zechariah 12:1, Ecclesiastes 12:7

He brought a curse to ALL flesh. And if not Christ's flesh, then Christ was not made like us in all things.

James,

I understand what you are attempting to view, however, the view is not aligned with Scriptures.

The Scriptures state in Romans:

3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,...
​

The Scriptures state in Hebrews:

14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
​

Neither these verses, nor at any other place do the Scriptures state that Christ was born in sin or took the flesh of sin. Rather He was made "like us" (flesh and blood - Hebrews).


There is a complete union of God and man in Christ until the Cross. The man was subject to the tests and trials as any man, "yet without sin."



Hebrews (4:15) states the matter most clearly:

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.​

 

[percho]

It was not a reference to your post, as I did not see that in your post. It was a reference to post 14, where Tyndale said Jesus was born into sinless human flesh. But in this post you seem to agree.

That idea runs counter to scripture - Romans 8:3 & Hebrews 2:14-17 and others. He took upon Himself the Sam as us. He was made like His brethren in all things. To da otherwise is to have a different Christ from scripture.

Sure, you've got the Christ of Roman Catholicism, the Christ of creeds, but it's not the Christ of scripture.

God is Spirit, not flesh. The sinless Word of God took upon Himself sinful flesh, withstood the temptations of that flesh and overcame it perfectly and flawlessly. Something no other human has ever been able to accomplish.

This whole notion that a spirit is made sinful through a physical birth is ludicrous. God til Adam "Cursed is the GROUND because of you..."

Never once does scripture say that Adam brought a curse the very breath of God. And that is where OUR spirit comes from - Zechariah 12:1, Ecclesiastes 12:7

He brought a curse to ALL flesh. And if not Christ's flesh, then Christ was not made like us in all things.

Actually I think we agree.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 15

Adam the carnal man, put in the garden where the serpent was and the woman taken from him, who before the foundation of the world were going to need to be redeemed. Bought back.

I believe that lust above is, the lust of the flesh, and every man who has been born of woman, inclusive of the created man, Adam, allowed himself to be tempted, through the lust of the flesh unto sin. The one exception being, Jesus the Christ, who came in the flesh, subject to the lust of the flesh, tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

They were both naked and unashamed. the serpent deceived the woman, she took and gave to her husband and they consumed, the knowledge of good and evil, Adam by his own lust, was tempted, sin was brought forth, they saw they were both naked and were ashamed and dead in trespass and sin.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3:15

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18

 

[agedman]

Actually I think we agree.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. James 1:14
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. 15

Adam the carnal man, put in the garden where the serpent was and the woman taken from him, who before the foundation of the world were going to need to be redeemed. Bought back.

I believe that lust above is, the lust of the flesh, and every man who has been born of woman, inclusive of the created man, Adam, allowed himself to be tempted, through the lust of the flesh unto sin. The one exception being, Jesus the Christ, who came in the flesh, subject to the lust of the flesh, tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

They were both naked and unashamed. the serpent deceived the woman, she took and gave to her husband and they consumed, the knowledge of good and evil, Adam by his own lust, was tempted, sin was brought forth, they saw they were both naked and were ashamed and dead in trespass and sin.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Gen 3:15

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Acts 15:18

Percho, I have a slightly different view of Adam's character pre and post fall.

Remembering that he walked and talked to God face to face as no person has from the fall, and he possessed the superior knowledge as no person (some want to except Solomon but Solomon was wise, but not always smart - in my opinion - but it is of no consequence to the discussion of Adam).

Therefore, Adam new the minute Eve brought the forbidden to him that there had been a change in Eve.

He also knew that the judgment of God was death.

Adam had the love of God which compelled him to remain with Eve, in effect he gave his life for Eve. He freely chose, and he freely gave up the relationship with God in favor of that relationship of love for his wife. They chose death over life. Something that Christ warned believers when faced with betrayal and must deny the family rather than God.

Adam did not have "lust" pre-fall. He had devotion and commitment to God and to Eve. He freely chose Eve.

After the fall, the affections and emotions were corrupted into lust of flesh, eyes, and pride. Adam, pre-fall, had none of these attributes.

 

[NVSABL]

Psalm 110:7. 'I will announce the decree: the LORD has said to Me, "You are My Son. Today I have begotten You.' When were the decrees of God issued? In eternity (Acts 15:18; Rev. 12:8). Christ was made flesh in time, but He was declared to be God the Son in eternity. God lives in an eternal 'today.'

Question: If the Son was begotten on a particular day ('today') how was He eternally begotton? Eternity has no beginning nor stands in any reference to time.

In fact the correct application of Psalm 2:7 is to the resurrection of Christ as stated by John in Acts 13:33; not for eternal generation of the Son. The resurrection proved he was the Son of God Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Question: If the Son was begotten on a particular day ('today') how was He eternally begotton? Eternity has no beginning nor stands in any reference to time.

I can only refer you back to my post. God lives in an eternal 'today.' If Christ was not eternally begotten of the Father, all the creeds and confessions are wrong and we shall have to become Jehovah's Witnesses.
[BTW, I apologize for my incorrect ascription of Psalm 2. A senior moment!]

In fact the correct application of Psalm 2:7 is to the resurrection of Christ as stated by John in Acts 13:33; not for eternal generation of the Son. The resurrection proved he was the Son of God Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

He was certainly proven and declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection, but He was not begotten at His resurrection (Micah 5:2 etc.).

 

[percho]

The Son Learned Obedience

by the things he suffered. Hebrews 5:8

Is suffered, inclusive unto death? Sufferings, learned obedience - Phil 2:8 became obedient, unto death.

Now we have a Son, dead subject to corruption yet will not see corruption.


Will his Father, bring him forth, birth him from the dead?

Is the following speaking of Jesus rather than David and is it speaking of Jesus while he lay dead?

If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.> (compare Matt 12:40} Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; Ps 139:11-16 1st sentence.

Jesus brought forth from the dead, born without pain and travail?

Isa 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the (birth) pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Are all of those speaking of Jesus, the firstborn from the dead?

Do the following speak of the church to be brought forth as he was?

The balance of Ps 139:16 and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. Isa 66:8,9 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.


Did the Son learn obedience. Did the one who could save him from death, save him? - Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Heb 5:7
And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 2 Cor 5:15,16

 

[JamesL]

I can only refer you back to my post. God lives in an eternal 'today.' If Christ was not eternally begotten of the Father, all the creeds and confessions are wrong and we shall have to become Jehovah's Witnesses.

This comment goes directly to what I've tried to get at.

If Christ was not eternally begotten, then the creeds and confessions are wrong. Well, you know what? They are wrong. The Roman Catholic Church invented a Christ far different from scripture because they lost sight of one teaching in scripture - there is a clear distinction between the spirit and body.

As soon as that distinction was lost, and Traducianism spawned, it started to get real hard to explain various scriptural dynamics. And every difficulty was met with yet another invented doctrine to try to help ease tension.

All the way to a polytheistic view of the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed states that there is ONE Eternal, not Three Eternals. Yet, almost all the confessions and creeds after that have 3 Coeternal "Persons"

And just as you've done, the constant appeal is to Creeds, Confessions, and a philosophical rhetoric - and not scripture

smh

 

[NVSABL]

I can only refer you back to my post. God lives in an eternal 'today.' If Christ was not eternally begotten of the Father, all the creeds and confessions are wrong and we shall have to become Jehovah's Witnesses.
[BTW, I apologize for my incorrect ascription of Psalm 2. A senior moment!]




He was certainly proven and declared to be the Son of God by His resurrection, but He was not begotten at His resurrection (Micah 5:2 etc.).

And I also had a senior moment ascribing these verses to John, when it was Paul's first sermon.

Individual word's are important, and the word today and this day means exactly what it is meant to. Or 'this day' in the KJV - a particular day IN TIME, that the begetting took place, at His resurrection where Paul uses Psalm 2.7 to say it was fulfilled then.

1. This begetting in Psalm 2.7 is not eternal generation in eternity past or conception in Mary's womb.
2. Psalm 2.7 is describing the Lord's coronation and exaltation in heaven after His resurrection.
3. Jesus is the first begotten from the dead and the firstfruits of them (Rev 1:5, 1Cor 15:20), and this begetting from the dead at His resurrection declares Him to be the Son of God with power, as stated by Rom 1:4.
4. Ps 2.7 is also quoted in Hebrews 1:5 and is applied to His exaltation (Heb 1.4). Psalm 2.7 is fulfilled by apostolic authority in Christ's resurrection.

 

[OldRegular]

It is my opinion, correct or not, that when we attempt to reconcile the terms used to describe the nature of the Triune Godhead we all jump in over our head. John Dagg in his Manual of Theology makes this point as follows:

BEFORE HIS INCARNATION, THE SON OF GOD WAS IN INTIMATE COMMUNION OF GLORY AND BLESSEDNESS WITH THE FATHER.[1]

The existence of Christ, previous to his appearing in the world, is proved by passages of Scripture, that do not expressly declare his divinity.

If we had no further teaching on the subject, we might suppose that he was a created spirit, had enjoyed honor and happiness in the presence of God, and had consented to appear, in obedience to the will of God, in the person of Jesus Christ. But the proofs which have been adduced from other parts of Scripture, clearly show that this pre-existent spirit was God, and not a creature.

Several names are ascribed to the pre-existent divinity of Jesus Christ. John calls him the Word of God.[2] He is more frequently called the Son of God. Various passages speak of him as the Son of God, antecedent to his coming into the world. He is called the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of the Lord's presence, the Angel of the Covenant, the Captain of the Lord's hosts. It is also supposed that he is intended to be designated, in the 8th chapter of Proverbs, by the name Wisdom.

To ascertain the precise import of these several names, is attended with difficulty. He appears to be called the Angel or Messenger, because he is sent to make known, or to execute, the will of God. He is probably called the Word of God, because he is the medium through which the mind of God is made known. Why he is called the Son of God, is a question on which divines have differed. His miraculous conception, his mediatorial office, his resurrection from the dead, and his investiture with supreme dominion, have been severally assigned, as the reason of the title; but these appear rather to declare him to be the Son of God, or to belong to him because of that relation, than to constitute it. The phrases first-born, first-begotten, only-begotten, seem to refer to the true ground of the name, Son of God: but what these signify, it is probably impossible for us to understand. The ideas of peculiar endearment, dignity, and heirship, which are attached to these terms, as used among men, may be supposed to belong to them, as applied to the Son of God; but all gross conceptions of their import, as if they were designed to convey to our minds the idea of derived existence, and the mode of that derivation, ought to be discarded as inconsistent with the perfection of Godhead. Some have considered the titles Christ, the Son of God, as equal and convertible; but the distinction in the use of them, as pointed out in our examination of the charges brought against the Redeemer, shows the error of this opinion. When Saul at Damascus,[3] and Apollos in Achaia,[4] preached to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ, the aim was to convince them that Jesus was the Messiah, long expected by their nation. But when Saul preached "Christ, that he is the Son of God,"[5] and when the eunuch professed his faith, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God,"[6] more than the mere messiahship of Jesus is manifestly intended. Christ or Messiah is a title of office: but the phrase "Son of God," denotes, not the mere office, but the exalted nature which qualified for it.

The possession of proper deity is alone sufficient to show that the Son of God was glorious and happy eternally; but we may learn the same truth from the language of Scripture directly referring to this subject. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee, before the world was."[7] "For ye know the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich."[8] "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him."[9] "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."[10] "The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father."[11] The full communion of the Son with the Father, in all the glory and blessedness of the Godhead, is to be inferred from these passages.

http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/dagg/motb5c2.htm#sec1

Footnotes:
[1] John i. 15, 30; iii. 13, 17, 31; vi. 38; viii. 58; xvii. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 47; Gen xvii. xxii. 15; xxxii. 30; Ex. iii. ; xx.; Acts vii. 30, 35, 38; John i. 3; Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 10; Mic. v. 2; John viii. 58; Heb. i. 8; xiii. 8; Rev. i. 8, 18.
[2] John i. 1.
[3] Acts ix. 22.
[4] Acts xviii. 28.
[5] Acts ix. 20.
[6] Acts viii. 37.
[7] John xvii. 5.
[8] 2 Cor. viii. 9.
[9] Prov. viii. 30.
[10] Phil. ii. 6.
[11] John i. 18.

The 1646 revision of the 1644Baptist Confession describes the Triune nature of the Godhead as well as can, in my opinion, be described. Note first the 1644 language and the change or correction made in the 1646 Version:

London Baptist Confession of Faith
A.D. 1644

The CONFESSION OF FAITH,

Of those CHURCHES which are
commonly (though falsly)
called ANABAPTISTS;

I. That God as he is in himself, cannot be comprehended of any but himself,[1] dwelling in that inaccessible light, that no eye can attain unto, whom never man saw, nor can see; that there is but[2] one God, one Christ, one Spirit, one Faith, one Baptism;[3] one Rule of holiness and obedience for all Saints, at all times, in all places to be observed.

II. That God is[4] of himself, that is, neither from another, nor of another, nor by another, nor for another:[5] But is a Spirit, who as his being is of himself, so he gives6 being, moving, and preservation to all other things, being in himself eternal, most holy, every way infinite in[7] greatness, wisdom, power, justice, goodness, truth, etc. In this God-head, there is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; being every one of them one and the same God; and therefore not divided, but distinguished one from another by their several properties; the[8] Father being from himself, the[9] Son of the Father from everlasting, the holy[10] Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Footnotes:

[1] 1 Tim. 6:16
[2] 1 Tim. 2:5; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 13; John chap. 14.
[3] 1 Tim. 6:3, 13, 14; Gal. 1:8, 9; 2 Tim. 3:15.
[4] Isa. 44:67; 43:11; 46:9.
[5] John 4:24.
[6] Ex. 3:14.
[7] Rom. 11:36; Acts 17:28.
[8] 1 Cor. 8:6.
[9] Prov. 8:22, 23; Heb. 1:3; John 1:18.
[10] John 15:16; Gal. 4:6.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bc1644.htm

Now note carefully the improvement by omitting the underlined portion above {at least in my opinion} presented in the 1646 Version:

The 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith (1646 Edition)

I. The Lord our God is but one God, whose subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; who is in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; who giveth being, moving, and preservation to all creatures.

1 Cor. 8:6, Isa. 44:6, 46:9, Exod. 3:14, 1 Tim 6:16, Isa. 43:15; Ps. 147:5, Deut. 32:3; Job 36:5; Jer. 10:12, Exod. 34:6,7, Acts 17:28; Rom. 11:36.

II. In this divine and infinite Being there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; each having the whole divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided; all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God; who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties.

1 Cor. 1:3; John 1:1, 15:26, Exod. 3:14; 1 Cor. 8:6

http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/Articles/1644LondonConfessionOfFaith.htm

A comparison of the two is presented in the following:

http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Ch...4-46 London Baptist Con_of_Faith_Layout 1.pdf

I would also note that Icon presents the best answer to the issue in the following brief post!

Jesus is eternal God. There was never a time where this is not true.

A denial here is a denial of the trinity

Phil 2 demonstrates this along with jn 17.

I am of course assuming that Icon does not include the human nature of Jesus Christ when he speaks of Him as Eternal God!

 

[Rippon]

Dag man! John Dagg nails it. He was a remarkable man. Nearly blind, with a weak vice he had to give up preaching. But he persevered. Mark Dever gave a good lecture on his life.

Sorry, for getting off the subject. It's just that that man's life is deeply impressive. In his Manual of Theology he just references Scripture --nothing else.

The perfection of the Godhead --treading such holy ground.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it will be helpful if JamesL and NVSABL explain to us exact what their theory (theories?) is/are, so that we know what we're dealing with.

All the way to a polytheistic view of the Trinity. The Athanasian Creed states that there is ONE Eternal, not Three Eternals. Yet, almost all the confessions and creeds after that have 3 Coeternal "Persons"

There is one eternal God in three coeternal persons. One What; three Whos. Are you proposing Sabellianism?

I hope the mods will keep a close watch on this thread.

 

[agedman]

I think it will be helpful if JamesL and NVSABL explain to us exact what their theory (theories?) is/are, so that we know what we're dealing with.

There is one eternal God in three coeternal persons. One What; three Whos. Are you proposing Sabellianism?

I hope the mods will keep a close watch on this thread.

Let us not forget that the opening of Genesis uses the plural form, so that it really reads:

"In the beginning God(s) made heaven and earth..."
and upon the day man was made, "Let us make man in our image."

The trinity was "in the beginning" just as it is now.

God is the "I Am" not the I was, or I appeared in various forms at various times.

I agree, I also hope the mods keep a close watch.

 

[OldRegular]

Dag man! John Dagg nails it. He was a remarkable man. Nearly blind, with a weak vice he had to give up preaching. But he persevered. Mark Dever gave a good lecture on his life.

Sorry, for getting off the subject. It's just that that man's life is deeply impressive. In his Manual of Theology he just references Scripture --nothing else.

The perfection of the Godhead --treading such holy ground.

John Dagg was indeed a remarkable man as was his friend and brother in Jesus Christ, P. H. Mell!

 

[JamesL]

OldRegular,
What do you mean by "human nature" ?

 

[OldRegular]

OldRegular,
What do you mean by "human nature" ?

I used the term "human nature" in the following context:

I am of course assuming that Icon does not include the human nature of Jesus Christ when he speaks of Him as Eternal God!

Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, is one person with two natures, the "human nature" from the Virgin Mary in fulfillment of Scripture, and the Divine nature. The "human nature", according to Scripture, consists of both the physical body and the "soul"!

Any further questions can probably be answered by the Chalcedon Creed if the Roman Catholic interpretation is ignored!

https://carm.org/christianity/creeds-and-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-451-ad

 

[JamesL]

I used the term "human nature" in the following context:



Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, is one person with two natures, the "human nature" from the Virgin Mary in fulfillment of Scripture, and the Divine nature. The "human nature", according to Scripture, consists of both the physical body and the "soul"!

Any further questions can probably be answered by the Chalcedon Creed if the Roman Catholic interpretation is ignored!

https://carm.org/christianity/creeds-and-confessions/chalcedonian-creed-451-ad

So....and I'm merely asking....
Considering that the soul is personality, rationale, will, emotions, memory, etc.,

Do you think Jesus has two souls? One human soul and one divine soul?
Or maybe God had no ability to think until the Incarnation of Christ?

Piece it together please?

You still didn't define "human nature"

 

[OldRegular]

So....and I'm merely asking....
Considering that the soul is personality, rationale, will, emotions, memory, etc.,

Do you think Jesus has two souls? One human soul and one divine soul?

I gave you a reference to the Chalcedon Creed which explains the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Messiah, much better than I can.

Or maybe God had no ability to think until the Incarnation of Christ?

I can only assume you are being facetious! Certainly you cannot be that Biblically illiterate. Certainly you will not blaspheme GOD!

Piece it together please?

The nature of GOD and the incarnation cannot be "pieced together"!

You still didn't define "human nature"

Yes I did!

The "human nature", according to Scripture, consists of both the physical body and the "soul"!

Now please answer a question for me and perhaps we can continue the conversation: Do you believe the following about the ONE TRUE GOD?

Deuteronomy 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

And:

The 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith (1646 Edition)

I. The Lord our God is but one God, whose subsistence is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; who is in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; who giveth being, moving, and preservation to all creatures.

1 Cor. 8:6, Isa. 44:6, 46:9, Exod. 3:14, 1 Tim 6:16, Isa. 43:15; Ps. 147:5, Deut. 32:3; Job 36:5; Jer. 10:12, Exod. 34:6,7, Acts 17:28; Rom. 11:36.

II. In this divine and infinite Being there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; each having the whole divine Essence, yet the Essence undivided; all infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God; who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties.

1 Cor. 1:3; John 1:1, 15:26, Exod. 3:14; 1 Cor. 8:6

http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/Arti...ionOfFaith.htm