[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I do proclaim that Jesus came in the flesh. I just do not say that the flesh is that of an ordinary man or that it became special and extra-ordinary only at the ascension.

OK, you claim Jesus came in "extraordinary" flesh, divine flesh.

I claim Jesus came in "the" flesh.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A prime example of interpretations being troubling rather than the scripture itself, is how yourself and the box person both claim to use scripture only yet both disagree.

This is an example that there are mysteries in the Bible that no one truly understands. Triune God is the perfect example of that.

Once you leave the word of God you are completely unlimited as to what you can say. Words like trinity and incarnation are derivative of many verses. They are "Bible based" but removed from the word by one level. You should never use these terms unless you can clearly refer back to the Scriptural basis. Otherwise your interpretation of what "incarnation" means can deviate from "the word tabernacled among us".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's a mystery, but I lean towards believing that God's divine nature did not die. However since "nothing is impossible for God" is true, I can't rule it out - I equally believe that God could kill his own divinity if He wanted to and bring his own divinity back to life. Being able to do the unthinkingly impossible is what the word God means.

Yes it is a mystery, which is why I lean towards not saying anything that the Bible does not say. The Bible says "Jesus was made lower than the angels" and that "Jesus was God come in the flesh". I say both of those. The Bible does not ever say that Jesus flesh on the cross was "God" or that "God died" on the cross, so I don't say it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK I can answer that now. Economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death. Ontologically Jesus was equal with the Father. As you are a Trinitarian you might agree that Jesus was always equal with the Father even when He was suffering death? I'm hoping.

Yes we both agree that "economically Jesus was made lower than the angels for the purpose of suffering death". Where we disagree is that I understand that this means the Son of God took on a mortal, human body identical to mine only without sin. You on the other hand do not explain what you mean that "economically he was made lower".

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee clearly taught that God died, or that both God and man died, not just one or the other.

Lee said:

You can take a person’s belongings, but you cannot take away his human nature since this is an intrinsic part of his being. Jesus is constituted with the divine essence and the human essence, and these essences could never be taken away from Him since they are an intrinsic part of His divine and human being. We should not forget that the One who died on the cross for us was both God and man—the God-man.

I agree with this. Jesus has both essences, and they are now both part of the Triune God.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"God died on the cross in order to be released."

Although I feel this is very poorly worded I somewhat agree with some caveats. God, in the form of Jesus, the ark of the covenant that tabernacled with us, went to the cross and died. as a result the way to the Holy of Holies was opened. I agree that since Jesus is the Son of God He experienced death on the cross and I have said this as well. So if you look at God today He clearly experienced death on the cross, I said that as well. What I disagree with is the idea that Jesus human body was God. At most I believe the Bible would equate Jesus human body with the human body prior to the fall.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

blood,” as the blood of God, proves the fact that God died on the cross. More than two centuries ago, Charles Wesley wrote a hymn that speaks of God dying for us. In this hymn Wesley says: Amazing love! How can it be That thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

Luther said:

For in His nature God cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is correctly called God's death

When Lee wrote “God died in man. God died not in His own death but in another One's death.” I understand this to mean as Luther wrote "For in His nature God cannot die;"

Witness Lee, Luther and Wesley are matching.

This is answered by understanding the difference between the ontological and the economical Trinity. Witness Lee did not introduce these terms, they are theological terms, eg see

https://carm.org/ontological-and-economic-trinity

I do not expect the Box person to accept this, but I thought it would be clear to a Trinitarian such as yourself.

I see the economical trinity as taking on human flesh so that through incarnation, human living, death and resurrection man could become part of the Godhead in Jesus Christ. That is what "mingling" refers to in the type.