I have a couple of questions for those who are familiar Craig's model of the incarnation and his model of the trinity. I suspect that I have misunderstood some element of the models, and I am seeking clarification. My questions are about whether to the two models can successfully be brought together.
1. According to Craig's model of the incarnation, the Logos possessed all the essential properties of the human nature except for a physical body until he took on a body at the incarnation, thereby becoming fully human. But when humans die, our souls separate from our bodies without ceasing to be human, which suggests that having a body is not essential to the human nature. But if this is so, then two problems result. First, the Son would have been fully human even before he was incarnated. And second, both the Father and the Spirit would be just as fully human as the Son even though they didn’t take on bodies (for they possess the same properties of personhood that the Son does). How can this problem be resolved?
2. It seems that one of the essential properties of the human nature is having (or being) a soul. But according to Craig's model of the trinity, the Son is not a soul; he is only part of a soul. There is one single soul that is God, and it supports three persons (the Father, Son, and Spirit). So either Jesus did not have a complete soul, or all of God (i.e. the one tri-personal divine soul) was united with Jesus’ body. But both of these are problematic. If Jesus did not have a complete soul like other humans, then he was not fully human. But, on the other hand, if the complete divine soul united with the body of Jesus, then how can we avoid the conclusion that all three persons were incarnated?
Any help with this would be appreciated.
jm: 1. According to Craig's model of the incarnation, the Logos possessed all the essential properties of the human nature except for a physical body until he took on a body at the incarnation, thereby becoming fully human.
jc: The proper way to say this is that the Logos possessed all the essential properties to animate a human body in the way a God can do, except for a physical body until he took on a body at the Incarnation, thereby becoming God in a body. Christianity has been human-centric, not really allowing for other types of entities, such as the Lord or angels. The reason for this is that it is very difficult for actual humans to think of what is Above.
jm: But when humans die, our souls separate from our bodies without ceasing to be human, which suggests that having a body is not essential to the human nature.
jc: It’s curious you admit the soul separates from the body, when I’m involved in a debate elsewhere on the forum with Christians insisting the Bible preaches annihilation. It is probably best to say that God has an “embodyable portion,” somewhat analogous to the appendix in a human, which is to say a tiny part of Himself not involved in central functions. Perhaps not just the Lord, but also angels are able to dwell in the human frame.
jm: But if this is so, then two problems result. First, the Son would have been fully human even before he was incarnated.
jc: The question is whether the human frame is robust enough to support different types of spiritual entities, the humans the lowest. For instance the Lord and angels would likely possess enough bliss that to experience it would kill a human from sheer nervous shock.
jm: And second, both the Father and the Spirit would be just as fully human as the Son even though they didn’t take on bodies (for they possess the same properties of personhood that the Son does). How can this problem be resolved?
jc: If it isn’t necessary to become human to dwell in a human body, the problem is resolved. Yet the Father and the Spirit cannot take on a body, only the Son can do so.
jm: 2. It seems that one of the essential properties of the human nature is having (or being) a soul. But according to Craig's model of the trinity, the Son is not a soul; he is only part of a soul.
jc: Indeed, the Lord has no soul, and this I believe is how He was recognized by the disciples. Any soul who knows himself or herself, can recognize the Lord has none. As Craig comes close to saying, the Lord is driven externally, but souls are driven internally.
jm: There is one single soul that is God, and it supports three persons (the Father, Son, and Spirit).
jc: The wise would never say that God has a soul. The one who can create souls, is not like a soul! The Maker’s spirit is of a different order, never mingling with the creatures.
jm: So either Jesus did not have a complete soul, or all of God (i.e. the one tri-personal divine soul) was united with Jesus’ body.
jc: The latter is ludicrous, and yet these are the proofs Christians expect, for instance that the Lord would know all languages or their entire dreary past histories of selfish exploits. The sentence is a false dilemma, the third and overlooked possibility that God does not embody via a soul, but by an embodyable portion, consciousness literally springing from Him. Jesus is complete, for a True God in a body, the intent to express God’s Personality.
jm: But both of these are problematic. If Jesus did not have a complete soul like other humans, then he was not fully human.
jc: If other types of spiritual beings can inhabit human bodies, none of them are human. The humans might be called impure spirit rising, and the angels pure spirit descending.
jm: But, on the other hand, if the complete divine soul united with the body of Jesus, then how can we avoid the conclusion that all three persons were incarnated?
jc: The Lord’s Mind can only contain a billionth, trillionth, or even smaller part of God’s Being. Furthermore it is subjected to all the limitations inherent to embodiment, for instance growing tired and requiring rest. The body limits all, no matter the spiritual power. Yet the thoughts of the Lord are seen by the angels, as emerging from the Maker.