If a person were "God in the flesh" would they be entirely aware of it?

[Rainbow Mage]

I raise this question because of discussions I've had about both Krishna and Jesus lately, two figures that many believe were God incarnate.

I have no trouble accepting they were both God incarnate, as well as others, but I also don't assume that means they were god-like or perfect in their human vessels. I don't think Krishna or Jesus were god-like or miraculous in their time here. For all extensive purposes they were still human beings limited by human limitations.

They might have had some inkling that they were somehow different or special, and that might have evolved as they got older, but I don't think it was ever to the level that they could be said to have come into the fullness of godhood in their humanity.

What think you?

 

[asketikos]

according to the bible Jesus was aware
but i don't think Budhha was God incarnate, and i don't think he said that

but i think there is God in everyone
he is in each stranger that i meet

 

[YmirGF]

What think you?

It is inconceivable for me to imagine that such personalities would not be intimately aware of the implications of their manifestation due to the nature of expanding awareness.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

according to the bible Jesus was aware
but i don't think Budhha was God incarnate, and i don't think he said that

but i think there is God in everyone
he is in each stranger that i meet

I said Krishna, not Buddha

 

[sandandfoam]

I think that to be human is to be God in the flesh.
Seems to me that not everyone is aware of it.
I like Nietzsche's idea that behind our little intelligence which says and is proud of "I" is a great intelligence which performs "I", he says this little intelligence is a toy of the great intelligence.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

I raise this question because of discussions I've had about both Krishna and Jesus lately, two figures that many believe were God incarnate.

I have no trouble accepting they were both God incarnate, as well as others, but I also don't assume that means they were god-like or perfect in their human vessels. I don't think Krishna or Jesus were god-like or miraculous in their time here. For all extensive purposes they were still human beings limited by human limitations.

They might have had some inkling that they were somehow different or special, and that might have evolved as they got older, but I don't think it was ever to the level that they could be said to have come into the fullness of godhood in their humanity.

What think you?

I'm not sure....there are stories from the gospels that wasn't included in the bible saying kid version of Jesus pawning things. So maybe these two demi-gods had incredible powers and maybe they didn't.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I'm not sure....there are stories from the gospels that wasn't included in the bible saying kid version of Jesus pawning things. So maybe these two demi-gods had incredible powers and maybe they didn't.

What gives me reason to doubt is the nature of humans is exaggerating about those we admire. Take other figures that no one believes was god in the flesh for examples. Muslims don't believe Muhammad was god in the flesh, but they still believe he was born circumcised. Buddhists don't believe Buddha was a god, but they still wrote a story about him being born out of his mother's side.

It seems to be human nature to write about people we admire in superhuman ways.

 

[Thesavorofpan]

It seems to be human nature to write about people we admire in superhuman ways.

Well that would be much better then writting

"Our Great lord and savior Bob was beat up by the neighborhood bully and his dad was always ashamed of him for not fighting back."

 

[BruceDLimber]

>If a person were "God in the flesh" ...?

Given that this doesn't happen, the whole topic is rather irrelevant! I quote:

"Let no one meditating ... on the nature of the Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, mistake its character or misconstrue the intent of its Author. The divinity attributed to so great a Being and the complete incarnation of the names and attributes of God in so exalted a Person should, under no circumstances, be misconceived or misinterpreted. The human temple that has been made the vehicle of so overpowering a Revelation must, if we be faithful to the tenets of our Faith, ever remain entirely distinguished from that 'innermost Spirit of Spirits' and 'eternal Essence of Essences'--that invisible yet rational God Who, however much we extol the divinity of His Manifestations on earth, can in no wise incarnate His infinite, His unknowable, His incorruptible and all-embracing Reality in the concrete and limited frame of a mortal being. Indeed, the God Who could so incarnate His own reality would, in the light of the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, cease immediately to be God. So crude and fantastic a theory of Divine incarnation is as removed from, and incompatible with, the essentials of Bahá'í belief as are the no less inadmissible pantheistic and anthropomorphic conceptions of God-- both of which the utterances of Bahá'u'lláh emphatically repudiate and the fallacy of which they expose."

—(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, pp. 112-113)

Peace,

Bruce