Amended* God cannot die and question regarding the Hypostatic union

RickReads said:

You are the second person to give me 4th century literature as though it`s inspired scripture.

Click to expand...

I haven't. I've quoted a church father. I didn't say St. Gregory's writings were Scripture.

I never heard of Apollinarianism until now. I had to look it up to find out what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

That's fine. Learning things is good.

I believe what God says about Himself and my views are based on the Torah and the witness of those who knew Jesus.

Isaiah 47 -> As for our redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.

Click to expand...

Reflect on what your views are, and the implications of them.

By asserting that Christ was not completely human--in body, mind, and soul--we deny the completeness of our salvation.

God becoming man is our salvation. It is His uniting of our manhood to His Godhood, and bringing it through death to resurrection that He conquers death and hell for us.

-CryptoLutheran

RickReads said:

You are the second person to give me 4th century literature as though it`s inspired scripture. I never heard of Apollinarianism until now. I had to look it up to find out what you are talking about. I believe what God says about Himself and my views are based on the Torah and the witness of those who knew Jesus.

Isaiah 47 -> As for our redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.

Click to expand...

The OP seemed to want an explanation of the traditional doctrine. Viacrucis was responding.

One reason for all the theological definitions is that people came up with ideas that were close but seemed to have serious problems. Understanding the difference sometimes required a bit of explanation.

One of the biggest problem is that some Christians were so intent on treating Christ as God that they lost track of his humanity. I hope someone using Scripture as an authority will agree that the NT describes Jesus as really human.

Apollinarianism was one of those. It said that Jesus didn't have a human spirit, but that the Logos replaced it. I hope you'll agree that this is a problem. Unfortunately Apollinarianism was just one of several different ideas that made Jesus less than fully human.

ViaCrucis said:

I haven't. I've quoted a church father. I didn't say St. Gregory's writings were Scripture.



That's fine. Learning things is good.



Reflect on what your views are, and the implications of them.

By asserting that Christ was not completely human--in body, mind, and soul--we deny the completeness of our salvation.

God becoming man is our salvation. It is His uniting of our manhood to His Godhood, and bringing it through death to resurrection that He conquers death and hell for us.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

First off, let me say thanks for letting me engage you. I love to discuss Issues I haven`t dealt with before so this is a real pleasure. Having said that, I will cut you no slack, brother.

You quoted a Church Father and my response was critical. I apologise to you for that but he is your church father not mine. My church Father is an apostle named Paul.

The Bible says the Word became flesh and I have always viewed that as the act of God becoming man or the Son of Man as Jesus would put it.

By becoming flesh the Word became tempted in every way that we are, Hebrews 4:15.By becoming flesh the Word suffered when He was murdered as we would. So, I don`t see the case you make that he wasn`t human unless his inner person was changed. In effect, when one says Jesus had to recieve a human soul when He came you are saying that God was changed. And by insisting that Jesus recieved the nature of Adam you give him the curse of Adam and human sinful nature. So, for these reasons this whole issue doesn`t make sense to me. Then you justify your view with fourth century literature. Sounds like an effort to dispute the diety of Christ.

Does the Word change? If the answer to that question is no then His inner person must have remained the same when He became flesh.

hedrick said:

The OP seemed to want an explanation of the traditional doctrine. Viacrucis was responding.

One reason for all the theological definitions is that people came up with ideas that were close but seemed to have serious problems. Understanding the difference sometimes required a bit of explanation.

One of the biggest problem is that some Christians were so intent on treating Christ as God that they lost track of his humanity. I hope someone using Scripture as an authority will agree that the NT describes Jesus as really human.

Apollinarianism was one of those. It said that Jesus didn't have a human spirit, but that the Logos replaced it. I hope you'll agree that this is a problem. Unfortunately Apollinarianism was just one of several different ideas that made Jesus less than fully human.

Click to expand...

I`m ready to look at some scripture but so far, haven`t seen any to support your view.

RickReads said:

I`m ready to look at some scripture but so far, haven`t seen any to support your view.

Click to expand...

Since the OP asked for help understanding the doctrine, not a Biblical justification for why one might believe the doctrine, I don’t think you’re going to get what you’re looking for.

Ann77 said:

I have a question that I've been wondering about ever since I've been responding to Muslims and Jews regarding the crucifixion. Some say Jesus' human flesh only died on the cross and not His devine nature. When we respond saying Jesus' human nature died on the cross, does this include a human soul since a human nature isn't just physical flesh, and would that mean Jesus had two Spirit's, His divine and human? I'm not trying to believe anything heretical. I honestly don't know. I've heard a popular Christian apologist say only his flesh died and nothing further. This seems off.

*Amended

New Question regarding the Hypostatic Union.

Jesus is two natures one person.
Jesus is 100 % human and a 100% devine.

How many persons is Jesus?
Is the Union denying a human soul is a person?

I prefer traditional Christians to answer this.
Answers coming from non Trinitarians, Mormons and physicalists will be disregarded.

Click to expand...

Death is a moot point as He rose again. The Muslims failed to tell you that they do not believe in His resurrection. And why? Because it would make Mohammed less powerful because he did not resurrect from the dead. I would suggest to equip yourself more thoroughly with knowledge so that you avoid thinking the Gospel is somehow "off". Be blessed.

Amended from your amend: Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God in the Flesh.

RickReads said:

F
The Bible says the Word became flesh and I have always viewed that as the act of God becoming man or the Son of Man as Jesus would put it.

Click to expand...

I would agree. But it's all a matter of what you mean.

. So, I don`t see the case you make that he wasn`t human unless his inner person was changed. In effect, when one says Jesus had to recieve a human soul when He came you are saying that God was changed. And by insisting that Jesus recieved the nature of Adam you give him the curse of Adam and human sinful nature. So, for these reasons this whole issue doesn`t make sense to me. Then you justify your view with fourth century literature. Sounds like an effort to dispute the diety of Christ.

Does the Word change? If the answer to that question is no then His inner person must have remained the same when He became flesh.

Click to expand...

One reason we study ancient theology is that discussions like this tend to duplicate discussions in the early church. So we know where they lead.

Indeed the first attempts to say that Jesus became truly human did tend to have the problems you suggest. Either God became something partially human, or he changed. Both have problems.

Hence the final conclusion was that the Logos remained fully God, but united himself to a human in such a way that that human was the Word made flesh.

Some Biblical passages that might suggest that: Rom 1:3-4 which suggests that Christ was human from one perspective ("according to the flesh") but was shown also to be the son of God. Or Col 1 , in which Christ has a real human body, but the fulness of God dwelled in him. It doesn't say that Christ was a mixture, but that the wholeness of God dwelled in a whole human.

I will admit that the NT doesn't use the kind of terms that later theology did. But I think there's some support for the idea that we need to understand Christ in two ways, both as a human and as the fullness of God.

As I've noted above, I'm not so happy with the way this developed by the 8th Cent. But the main standard is Chalcedon, which can reasonably be understood as saying simply that we have to understand Christ in those two ways. That's certainly how modern theology understands Chalcedon, as it tends to stick more with NT ways of thought rather than later Greek metaphysics.

But in defense of the Church's use of Greek metaphysics: The Church was trying to reach out to intellectuals in the 2nd and 3rd Cent. Sometimes to talk with people, you have to use their language. So NT concepts sort of got translated into ancient metaphysics.

It's true that the NT never quite says that Jesus has a human spirit. Generally you see passages (e.g. Col 1:22 or 1 John 4:2) emphasizing that Christ came in the flesh. But the idea of God having flesh was the most challenging. God being spirit or soul had some basis in Greek thought. So I think flesh is what they emphasized. Surely neither the author of Col or 1 John intended that Christ came in the flesh but with other parts missing.

It's also worth noting that "flesh" is often used simply to indicate the whole person. Typical are Luke 3:6, Mat 16:17, 2 Cor 10:3. Paul often used flesh to refer to the unredeemed part of, contrasted with the spirit, but that's a metaphorical usage.

RickReads said:

First off, let me say thanks for letting me engage you. I love to discuss Issues I haven`t dealt with before so this is a real pleasure. Having said that, I will cut you no slack, brother.

You quoted a Church Father and my response was critical. I apologise to you for that but he is your church father not mine. My church Father is an apostle named Paul.

Click to expand...

It's not a competition. Those who came before us in the faith are our fathers and mothers. But we need to remember that Christianity didn't take a hiatus after the apostles passed on, there is a reason why they put others in charge to safeguard the Church, to serve the churches and to defend the faith. We see this in the Bible itself, for example Paul left two letters to Timothy instructing him on his pastoral duties.

Those we refer to the fathers of the Church are simply these men, pastors and teachers who continued in the apostolic work of preaching and defending the Gospel. And this work can't be underestimated. Without these precious saints who continued to carry the torch of faith, in the face of adversity from external persecution and also the internal struggle of defending the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints", neither you nor I would be here today to even argue about theology. We wouldn't even have a Bible to debate over unless there were people whose commitment to Jesus Christ persevered and continued the good fight down through the centuries.

So when I quote someone like Gregory of Nazianzus I am not attributing divine inspiration to his writings, I am relying on the good work of defending the faith which those who came before us have done, their fight is still our fight, their race is now our race, and they are the great cloud of witnesses cheering us on, as the author of Hebrews says.

The Bible says the Word became flesh and I have always viewed that as the act of God becoming man or the Son of Man as Jesus would put it.

By becoming flesh the Word became tempted in every way that we are, Hebrews 4:15.By becoming flesh the Word suffered when He was murdered as we would. So, I don`t see the case you make that he wasn`t human unless his inner person was changed. In effect, when one says Jesus had to recieve a human soul when He came you are saying that God was changed. And by insisting that Jesus recieved the nature of Adam you give him the curse of Adam and human sinful nature. So, for these reasons this whole issue doesn`t make sense to me. Then you justify your view with fourth century literature. Sounds like an effort to dispute the diety of Christ.

Click to expand...

Jesus' "inner person" wasn't changed. He was God from all eternity, and He was God in Mary's womb, and God on the cross, and He is still God at the right hand of the Father. Jesus didn't change.

What the doctrine of the Incarnation is is that God the Son united Himself to human nature. He didn't just take on a human appearance, He was really human.

Christ is the second Adam, the new man; and as we have born in the image of the first Adam in our mortality and corruption of our flesh, so shall we bear the image of the last Adam who will transform our lowly corruptible bodies to be like His glorious immortal body.

Christ bore Adam's nature--our nature--but not as it pertains to sin. Christ became human like we are human in order to save us humans. What Christ became He saves.

Does the Word change? If the answer to that question is no then His inner person must have remained the same when He became flesh.

Click to expand...

This is strange language you keep using. Scripture speaks of us having our "inner humanity" (ἔσω ἄνθρωπον). Christ wouldn't have an "inner humanity" before becoming human.

The Person and nature of the Word never changed, He never ceased to be Almighty God. But He did take on human nature, He became a human being. When Scripture calls Him human it's not joking--He really is human.

The Divine Person of the Logos remained the Same, and also united to Himself human nature, becoming human, being conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, being mortal even as we are mortal, thus suffering under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, descended into the place of the dead, and rose from the dead on the third day.

If He were not truly human, with a human soul, a human mind, a human will then the Incarnation is only theatrics.

And the Scriptures time and again insist on this, which is why in Philippians chapter 2 the Apostle St. Paul writes that though Christ is truly God He did not exploit His Divinity, but willingly humbled Himself, becoming human--even a human servant--who embraced the shame and humiliation of death, even death on the cross. The emptying of Christ in humility, in love, in taking upon Himself our nature, our shame, our death.

"But we see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that He, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why He is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, 'I will tell of your name to My brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing Your praise.'" - Hebrews 2:9-12

He became man to live as a man, suffer as a man, to die as a man; and through this He bore the death of all, the shame of all, the sufferings of all, that He might call us brothers and sisters. He is brother to us because we have been adopted by the grace of God as children and heirs, He calls us brothers because He bore our flesh, He bore our suffering, He bore our humanity--and through Him and in Him we have God's promise that we shall bear His humanity. For as through the one man's disobedience came death and sin to all men, so by the one Man's obedience has come resurrection from the dead and justification to life for all men; that as we have bore the image of the first man so shall we when we too are raised up from the dead on the last day bear the image of the second Adam. For He "will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself." (Philippians 3:21)

When St. Gregory writes, "That which He did not assume He did not heal" isn't something he made up, he gets it from all that Scripture says concerning our hope and salvation in Christ, of the reality of the Incarnation, of the Word become flesh. God became man, and by Him we have hope and salvation. His becoming man and suffering, and dying, and rising is our salvation as men.

-CryptoLutheran

Ann77 said:

Ok, I'm going to be OCD about this just so I get it right.
The Divine nature and human nature aren't both soul and Spirit? Or are you saying they are two but infused in one?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you ask "the Divine nature and human nature aren't both soul and Spirit?". He has a human soul/spirit, because He's human. He doesn't have an analogous "divine soul", because there's no such thing as a divine soul--God doesn't have a soul; or at least certainly not in any comparable sense to what we mean when we speak of the rational soul of man.

-CryptoLutheran

hedrick said:

Since the OP asked for help understanding the doctrine, not a Biblical justification for why one might believe the doctrine, I don’t think you’re going to get what you’re looking for.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it really wasn`t a fair remark. I`m actually trying to work on that. I want to get better at discussing scripture without resorting to debate tactics. For me it`s a red flag when somebody turns to sources outside the Bible. I rarely do that and it`s been my experience that it means no Bible evidence when someone does. It`s a very large amount of matereal that can be used to support just about any view someone wants to take.

ViaCrucis said:

It's not a competition. Those who came before us in the faith are our fathers and mothers. But we need to remember that Christianity didn't take a hiatus after the apostles passed on, there is a reason why they put others in charge to safeguard the Church, to serve the churches and to defend the faith. We see this in the Bible itself, for example Paul left two letters to Timothy instructing him on his pastoral duties.

Those we refer to the fathers of the Church are simply these men, pastors and teachers who continued in the apostolic work of preaching and defending the Gospel. And this work can't be underestimated. Without these precious saints who continued to carry the torch of faith, in the face of adversity from external persecution and also the internal struggle of defending the faith "once and for all delivered to the saints", neither you nor I would be here today to even argue about theology. We wouldn't even have a Bible to debate over unless there were people whose commitment to Jesus Christ persevered and continued the good fight down through the centuries.

So when I quote someone like Gregory of Nazianzus I am not attributing divine inspiration to his writings, I am relying on the good work of defending the faith which those who came before us have done, their fight is still our fight, their race is now our race, and they are the great cloud of witnesses cheering us on, as the author of Hebrews says.

Jesus' "inner person" wasn't changed. He was God from all eternity, and He was God in Mary's womb, and God on the cross, and He is still God at the right hand of the Father. Jesus didn't change.

What the doctrine of the Incarnation is is that God the Son united Himself to human nature. He didn't just take on a human appearance, He was really human.

Christ is the second Adam, the new man; and as we have born in the image of the first Adam in our mortality and corruption of our flesh, so shall we bear the image of the last Adam who will transform our lowly corruptible bodies to be like His glorious immortal body.

Christ bore Adam's nature--our nature--but not as it pertains to sin. Christ became human like we are human in order to save us humans. What Christ became He saves.

This is strange language you keep using. Scripture speaks of us having our "inner humanity" (ἔσω ἄνθρωπον). Christ wouldn't have an "inner humanity" before becoming human.

The Person and nature of the Word never changed, He never ceased to be Almighty God. But He did take on human nature, He became a human being. When Scripture calls Him human it's not joking--He really is human.

The Divine Person of the Logos remained the Same, and also united to Himself human nature, becoming human, being conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, being mortal even as we are mortal, thus suffering under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, descended into the place of the dead, and rose from the dead on the third day.

If He were not truly human, with a human soul, a human mind, a human will then the Incarnation is only theatrics.

And the Scriptures time and again insist on this, which is why in Philippians chapter 2 the Apostle St. Paul writes that though Christ is truly God He did not exploit His Divinity, but willingly humbled Himself, becoming human--even a human servant--who embraced the shame and humiliation of death, even death on the cross. The emptying of Christ in humility, in love, in taking upon Himself our nature, our shame, our death.

"But we see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that He, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why He is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, 'I will tell of your name to My brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing Your praise.'" - Hebrews 2:9-12

He became man to live as a man, suffer as a man, to die as a man; and through this He bore the death of all, the shame of all, the sufferings of all, that He might call us brothers and sisters. He is brother to us because we have been adopted by the grace of God as children and heirs, He calls us brothers because He bore our flesh, He bore our suffering, He bore our humanity--and through Him and in Him we have God's promise that we shall bear His humanity. For as through the one man's disobedience came death and sin to all men, so by the one Man's obedience has come resurrection from the dead and justification to life for all men; that as we have bore the image of the first man so shall we when we too are raised up from the dead on the last day bear the image of the second Adam. For He "will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself." (Philippians 3:21)

When St. Gregory writes, "That which He did not assume He did not heal" isn't something he made up, he gets it from all that Scripture says concerning our hope and salvation in Christ, of the reality of the Incarnation, of the Word become flesh. God became man, and by Him we have hope and salvation. His becoming man and suffering, and dying, and rising is our salvation as men.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with considering the opinions of Chrisitan writers but it doesn`t carry the same weight as scripture written by people who knew Jesus, heard Him speak and witnessed His wroks. My experience has been that when non Biblical sources are used then actual scripture evidence isn`t there as seems to be the case here.

I`ve read several commentaries today on Jesus humanity and I`m not seeing anything about it that isn`t covered by the statement that the Word became flesh. He was celestial and when He was sent here He became terrestial. That made Him human and there is no Biblical foundation that I can see that would require His soul/spirit or whatever you want to label Him as to be tinkered with.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

My evidence is what Jesus said about Himself in the book of John and I will post some of those scriptures soon.

28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.

29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.

16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

ViaCrucis said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you ask "the Divine nature and human nature aren't both soul and Spirit?". He has a human soul/spirit, because He's human. He doesn't have an analogous "divine soul", because there's no such thing as a divine soul--God doesn't have a soul; or at least certainly not in any comparable sense to what we mean when we speak of the rational soul of man.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The soul is part of being made in the image of God.

Ann77 said:

I have a question that I've been wondering about ever since I've been responding to Muslims and Jews regarding the crucifixion. Some say Jesus' human flesh only died on the cross and not His devine nature. When we respond saying Jesus' human nature died on the cross, does this include a human soul since a human nature isn't just physical flesh, and would that mean Jesus had two Spirit's, His divine and human? I'm not trying to believe anything heretical. I honestly don't know. I've heard a popular Christian apologist say only his flesh died and nothing further. This seems off.

*Amended

New Question regarding the Hypostatic Union.

Jesus is two natures one person.
Jesus is 100 % human and a 100% devine.

How many persons is Jesus?
Is the Union denying a human soul is a person?

I prefer traditional Christians to answer this.
Answers coming from non Trinitarians, Mormons and physicalists will be disregarded.

Click to expand...

Hello Ann,
You know that our Lord Jesus Christ appeared to His disciples including apostle Peter after the third day that He was crucified.

This is what we have heard apostle Peter have spoken:
"Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that He (God) would set one of his descendants on his throne,
he FORESAW and SPOKE ABOUT the resurrection of the Christ, that he (Christ) WAS NOT ABANDONED TO Hades, NOR DID HIS FLESH (Christ’s flesh) SEE CORRUPTION.
This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,- Acts 2:29-33

Here, we have heard that it is evidence that our Lord Jesus Christ was not abandoned or alone but with the Father and the Holy Spirit when our Lord Jesus went to Hades.

As we have heard:
Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "FATHER, INTO YOUR HANDS I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last. -Luke 23:46

As we also have heard :
If the Spirit of Him (God) who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He (God the Father) who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit (the Spirit of God) who dwells in you. -Romans 8:11

From what apostle Paul, we come to know that the God the Father through His Holy Spirit who raised Jesus Christ our Lord.

Indeed, the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ or human nature as you understand that was crucified and killed by lawless men of Israel but God has raised Christ and freed Him from the suffering of death ; it was impossible that death could keep its hold on Him.

Also, we have received the testimony from apostle Peter who HAVE SEEN the Lord after His crucifixion that the Lord’s flesh see no corruption!

In regard to the Lord’s soul, this is what we have heard the Lord Himself have spoken:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. -Matthew 10:28

So it is impossible that these lawless men of Israel could kill the soul of our Lord !

Likewise, the Lord Jesus Christ have spoken of his life or soul:
For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. -John 10:17
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." -John 10:18

In regard to the Lord’s divine nature, this is what we have heard :

God is SPIRIT, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." -John 4:24

Likewise, this is what we have heard :
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. -1 Corinthians 15:21
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. -1 Corinthians 15:22
Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. -1 Corinthians 15:45

Here, we come to know our Lord Jesus Christ’s divine nature is life-giving Spirit.

So as we have heard as in Adam all die, that is why God gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.
And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

As the Lord has called to the Jews and Muslim
and those in the world, saying :
and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." -Mark 1:15

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. -John 3:5

Ann77 said:

Sorry I'm reading other people's answers on this and they're all different. I'm just learning J. P. Moreland and W. L. Craig are both neo-Apollinarians. I guess I should avoid their material.

I'm mainly thinking before the incarnation, the eternal Son was Spirit, right? What happened in the incarnation, did he take on a human soul too since He has two natues? I know we say He's 100% human and 100% God. I want to know what this really means. Does my question kind of make sense now?

Click to expand...

I think I'm following now.

Prior to the Incarnation He is God the Son. And as we read "God is spirit" so I guess you could say that, but I think the point in saying that God is spirit is to emphasize the transcendence of God, that's why Jesus says that day would come when it wouldn't matter whether this or that mountain, because true worshipers of God will worship in spirit and truth.

When He became man, He took on a second nature, human; and that means He has a human soul/spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

RickReads said:

That made Him human and there is no Biblical foundation that I can see that would require His soul/spirit or whatever you want to label Him as to be tinkered with.

Click to expand...

I don't see why you think I'm saying His soul was "tinkered with". I've never said anything close to that effect. I've said that Christ in becoming human became fully human, that means He then had a human body, a human soul, a human mind, etc.

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Click to expand...

"This day" is eternal. Jesus never became God the Son. He has always been God, only-begotten of the Father.

-CryptoLutheran

RickReads said:

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The soul is part of being made in the image of God.

Click to expand...

Except that all living things have nephesh.

What makes man unique among the animals isn't that he has the breath of life, but that he has been endowed with reason, moral responsibility, can be in communion with God, and bear God's image.

-CryptoLutheran