Jason Dulle article:

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

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.

To me it is just simple as man He was human body-soul-spirit and the Eternal Spirit was incarnate in body, soul, spirit. I feel Jesus statement of being forsaken was because He felt forsaken because He became the sin offering? To me Heb. 9:14 makes it clear the Eternal Spirit was present in the offering up of His blood via death. I think the problem is really very simple as humans we grasp to comprehend the totality of the incarnation. The fine linen of the tabernacle was entwined representing His deity and humanity thus difficult to distinguish. My simple thoughts.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by 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..

You are working on the assumption that Spirit and person are synonyms

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

To me it is just simple as man He was human body-soul-spirit and the Eternal Spirit was incarnate in body, soul, spirit. I feel Jesus statement of being forsaken was because He felt forsaken because He became the sin offering? To me Heb. 9:14 makes it clear the Eternal Spirit was present in the offering up of His blood via death. I think the problem is really very simple as humans we grasp to comprehend the totality of the incarnation. The fine linen of the tabernacle was entwined representing His deity and humanity thus difficult to distinguish. My simple thoughts.

Thank you Elder. I suppose it does make sense that had he not had a human spirit he would not have been fully man. When yA start to feel like ya know Him...it's still through a darkened glass.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

Thank you Elder. I suppose it does make sense that had he not had a human spirit he would not have been fully man. When yA start to feel like ya know Him...it's still through a darkened glass.

Paul did say GREAT is the mystery of godliness did he not?

[Scott Pitta]

This is a great thread.

Are there any Scriptures that provide us with illumination on this topic ??

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Paul did say GREAT is the mystery of godliness did he not?

Yessir!

[Praxeas]

1Co 2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man that is in him? Thus also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Those were my concerns.

I agree with Dulle that person is the spirit/soul, the inner man, otherwise "person" is vacuous, without substance, not grounded in reality.

1Thess5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Somewhere in there Paul is describing a person, a real entity. The human person has to be either the spirit, soul, or body, or perhaps all three. I believe the person is the inner man, the immaterial aspect of a man, the part that leaves the body at death. The inner man must be the mind, the emotions, the will, the spirit...all of which make up the person.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents toward this discussion.

[mizpeh]

Esaias said, "All this however can be avoided by rejecting Platonic, Aristotelian, Catholic trinitarian metaphysical terms and paradigms, and sticking with the Biblical statements themselves.

The Word (who was God) became flesh. Not the Word was 'hypostatically united to a human nature', nor that the Word was 'hypostatically united to a human body', but that the Word which was God 'came to be' flesh (ie a physical, genuine, human being, as 'flesh' does not mean merely the physical body, but refers to a living human).

So when Jesus died, what actually happened? The HUMAN SPIRIT departed from the HUMAN BODY, and the MAN DIED (this is what happens to every human who dies). God did not 'depart' because God was never 'united' in any way that a 'departure' or 'separation' could be possible. God WAS the man, he was existing AS THE MAN. As the man, he died a human death (human animus or spirit separating from the human physical body). He remained in that condition until the third day, when human spirit was re-united with the human body, and the MAN came alive once again."

What do you mean when you say "God WAS the man"? How did God become a human spirit? Did he inherently cease to be God in the context of becoming a man?

I have my own way of looking at this but I do not deny that the person who became flesh was God and I can without equivocation say that God walked on the earth, God died on the cross, and God rose from the grave as the man, Jesus Christ. And not like any of the examples you gave above using Dulle and Bernard. I'd like to hear your answers to my questions before I propose and explain another way to look at the incarnation of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

What do you mean when you say "God WAS the man"? How did God become a human spirit? Did he inherently cease to be God in the context of becoming a man?

John says the Word was made flesh. Did the Word cease to be the Word when it was made flesh? He also says the Word was God, and was made flesh. Did the Word cease to be God when it was made flesh?

Obviously not. God cannot cease to exist, or cease to be whatever He is. God however can become a man, because that does not involve ceasing to be something, but rather taking on a new way of being. God 'took on himself human nature', isn't that what everyone says? So God became a man - that is what 'assuming to himself human nature' means, indeed, that is all it CAN mean because a Person, who has human nature, is a MAN (ie human being). So when God 'took human nature to himself' he began to exist as a man, a genuine human being. Yet, God did not cease to exist as God, such a thing is a logical impossibility.

I have my own way of looking at this but I do not deny that the person who became flesh was God and I can without equivocation say that God walked on the earth, God died on the cross, and God rose from the grave as the man, Jesus Christ. And not like any of the examples you gave above using Dulle and Bernard. I'd like to hear your answers to my questions before I propose and explain another way to look at the incarnation of God.

God did all those things, as a human being, did he not? Therefore, he did them 'as a man'. It was God who did them, via the human nature (the human existence). Dulle and Bernard seem, to me, to be trying to express a Biblical truth via trinitarian christological terminology, which derives from Greek pagan metaphysics. My point is that going that route, instead of simply sticking to the Biblical data and statements, leads to unnecessary complication of a simple fact - God became a man, died for us, rose again, and demonstrated to us in living technicolor the very character and will of God.