Jason Dulle article:

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

From a Oneness perspective, the 'hypostatic union' would be a union between the man and God, would it not? 'Hypostatic union with the Father' is clearly erroneous way of speaking from a trinitarian point of view. But neither Dulle nor Bernard are trinitarians. So then what was united to what in a 'hypostatic union'? If a purely Chalcedonian definition is followed, I do not see how one can be Oneness! For the definition of Chalcedon is that human nature and divine nature were hypostatically united in Christ, that is, two natures united in one person or hypostasis of Christ. But that would mean Christ is a distinct hypostasis from the Father... ie binitarian or trinitarian theology.

So, from a Oneness view, attempting to adapt the definition of Chalcedon to a Oneness understanding, we would have to have Christ in hypostatic union with ... what? A divine 'essence'? Or God? That is to say, the man is united with God in One Person?

This is the whole problem with borrowing trinitarian theology and Christology and trying to express Oneness concepts. It creates a confusion of words, terms, etc. And leads to some strange (logically) conclusions.

My opinion, anyway, YMMV.

the Hypostatic Union is where a Person, God, is Personally joined with a Human nature

In other words that Person becomes Human by obtaining a Human nature in addition to His own nature.

The New nature is JOINED To His Person. Both Natures are united, not mixed.

The only difference between Oneness and Trinity is WHO was Hypostatically joined with a human nature...or who was incarnate.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Those were my concerns.

Yeah...a little confused

"The testimony of Scripture is that Jesus had a humans spirit. On the cross Jesus said, "Father, into your hand I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). Was Jesus giving the Father back His Holy Spirit? How could Jesus' divine Spirit separate from Him? Death occurs when the spirit separates from body (James 2:26), but if the Divine Spirit separated from Jesus He would cease to exist. If God did not actually become a man, with all that that entails, we end up with a picture of Jesus’ humanity being nothing more than that of a suit that God put on.

I do not see any way of getting around the idea that Jesus had an authentic human spirit and the authentic divine Spirit. How exactly these two spirits came together in the one person of Christ Jesus is something I do not claim to know. The Scripture never says anything about it. I do not find this concept as difficult as I do the idea of the incarnation. How could God ever become man in the first place? How could the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and infinite God become a man who is limited in power, knowledge, location, time, and finitude? That is the greatest of all mysteries."

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/twospirits.htm

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

He died by a voluntary act of his will. He waited until the time of the evening sacrifice and said 'It is finished' and 'gave up the ghost' and died. Nobody took his life from him, he did it by choice.

So the idea that because he was sinless he couldn't die seems unscriptural. He chose to die.

And that's the other half of the equation. Christ could have called 12 legions of angels and annihilated the Roman empire in one fell swoop...or...He could submit to the will of the Father and voluntarily lay down His life, much like Isaac. This He received as a commandment from the Father.

Until His hour was come, no one could do a thing to Him. But once that hour had arrived, they did to Him whatsoever they "listed", as it were, and in the process of that, He expired.

Having a human spirit, realizing that the body without the spirit is dead, and that the human spirit goes back to the God who gave it upon death, seems pretty reasonable in terms of the Lord Jesus. When He knew He couldn't take anymore, and there wasn't any life left in Him to give, He cried out and gave in. All that needed to be be "finished" was finished. He didn't have to mentally and physically fight the end. He could let go, and so, did.

It was His choice the whole way.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

From a Oneness perspective, the 'hypostatic union' would be a union between the man and God, would it not? 'Hypostatic union with the Father' is clearly erroneous way of speaking from a trinitarian point of view. But neither Dulle nor Bernard are trinitarians. So then what was united to what in a 'hypostatic union'? If a purely Chalcedonian definition is followed, I do not see how one can be Oneness! For the definition of Chalcedon is that human nature and divine nature were hypostatically united in Christ, that is, two natures united in one person or hypostasis of Christ. But that would mean Christ is a distinct hypostasis from the Father... ie binitarian or trinitarian theology.

So, from a Oneness view, attempting to adapt the definition of Chalcedon to a Oneness understanding, we would have to have Christ in hypostatic union with ... what? A divine 'essence'? Or God? That is to say, the man is united with God in One Person?

This is the whole problem with borrowing trinitarian theology and Christology and trying to express Oneness concepts. It creates a confusion of words, terms, etc. And leads to some strange (logically) conclusions.

My opinion, anyway, YMMV.

Dulle is very much a Chalcedonic Christologist, augmented of course, by His Oneness views. See here:

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/chalcedon.htm

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Dulle is very much a Chalcedonic Christologist, augmented of course, by His Oneness views. See here:

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/chalcedon.htm

Oh yes, I am aware of brother Dulle's thoughts on Chalcedonian Christology.

I just think using an early medieval trinitarian philosophical definition or exposition of the greatest mystery that has ever been delivered to mankind is a bit unnecessary. I think it leads to questions such as the one this thread is about, questions that to me are really unnecessary and would not even come about unless the mishmash of apostate philosophical speculations are brought to the table.

I think Servetus had the same opinion of the Doctors of the 'church' and their metaphysics, so I guess I'm in decent company.

[Scott Pitta]

Very interesting posts.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I have not stood on either ground of explanation, since some of these things are moot, really. But the reasoning behind Him dying only by the Father leaving Him is due to the idea that he was without sin, and those without sin need not die. Death only came by sin.

Food for thought.

If Jesus could not die without the father leaving him the it's not the Romans that killed Jesus, it's his own father that caused him to die by leaving him.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yeah...a little confused

"The testimony of Scripture is that Jesus had a humans spirit. On the cross Jesus said, "Father, into your hand I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). Was Jesus giving the Father back His Holy Spirit? How could Jesus' divine Spirit separate from Him? Death occurs when the spirit separates from body (James 2:26), but if the Divine Spirit separated from Jesus He would cease to exist. If God did not actually become a man, with all that that entails, we end up with a picture of Jesus’ humanity being nothing more than that of a suit that God put on.

I do not see any way of getting around the idea that Jesus had an authentic human spirit and the authentic divine Spirit. How exactly these two spirits came together in the one person of Christ Jesus is something I do not claim to know. The Scripture never says anything about it. I do not find this concept as difficult as I do the idea of the incarnation. How could God ever become man in the first place? How could the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and infinite God become a man who is limited in power, knowledge, location, time, and finitude? That is the greatest of all mysteries."

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/twospirits.htm

I agree He could not have been man without a human soul and spirit. The Eternal Spirit was incarnate in body-soul-spirit.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I agree He could not have been man without a human soul and spirit. The Eternal Spirit was incarnate in body-soul-spirit.

Please forgive me if I am overstepping...sincere question here.

I have always seen Jesus as "body-soul-Spirit" rather than "body-soul-spirit + Divine Spirit". Not saying I'm right...im just wondering if Jesus is the Divine Spirit incarnate in human body-soul-spirit, then how does the human body-soul-spirit not constitute a separate or distinct person apart from divinity? I have always seen the Jesus' cry of "Father why has thou forsaken me" as the departure of the Divine Spirit because of the sin that was emptied on Him...which in turn let do death because the life in him was not the life of Himself but that of the Eternal.

Again not saying I'm right and not trying to be argumentative...just an honest question.

[kclee4jc]

Clearly, if it is human body-soul-spirit it does not constitute a distinct or separate person in the Godhead because the human spirit is not divine. I'm thinking..