The Human Spirit of Jesus?

This is an exchange between Michael Burgos' and yours truly dated 3/31/11  This discussion was on the subject  of the genuine human spirit of Jesus, and had actually been going on years before with blog comments, and email exchanges where Mr. Burgos  had made the claim:" he did not believe Jesus had a human spirit, and then he later  saw his error and changed to say he did have a human spirit," or so he claimed. Of course the evidence of his own words say otherwise. I write the following:

"I never said anything nor will I ever use the cop-out term: natures so I am not accusing you of mixing natures! I am accusing you of having a mix hybrid person. Do not assume what you cannot prove. Just tell us Jesus had a human spirit.
Did Jesus have two spirits or not?"

Michael Burgos says the following:" :πνεύμα when applied to humans is synonomous with ψυχή 99% of the time. Whichever terminology you would like to couch the immaterial human aspect in, it is clear that I and the vast majority of Trinitarians affirm that the Son has a human spirit.

Your question poses a false dichotomy based upon the assumption that the word spirit has only one meaning. The Son has a human spirit as he is like us in all ways yet without sin. But He is also God who is a spirit. The one person who is the Son possesses two different natures. To say that Jesus had two spirits fails to recognize the range of meaning of the word "spirit."(Carm.org).

So there you have it.  What kind of  mix spirit did Jesus have according to Burgos?  How is that a human spirit? It is my claim that Jesus had both one Human, and one divine spirit in his person as he was both God, and man.  To not have a genuine human spirit would make him something else. (Read Luke 23:46) I would like to know especially since Mr. Burgos has written a new book and has made claim to expertise in these matters and then further criticizes the Oneness view.

The Unconsisdered Error Of Michael Burgos New Book.

This is my second hand critique of a Book written by A person who has frequented  this blog many  times in the past. Having not actually read the book myself, but having heard the boasts on forums about what a "fool proof" argument Burgos has provided toward the Oneness view concerning the Greek word for "with" or the Grk preposition Pros in John 1:1. ( I make the disclaimer: I am no Greek scholar, but I do not have to be to use common sense.)

In Michael R. Burgos’ new Book, "Kiss the Son: A Christological Apology to Response to David K. Bernard’s The Oneness of God?, 2012."

Burgos submits a quote by David Bernard's Book as  the above title promises, and submits his own argument.

"The Greek word pros, here translated as ‘with’, is translated as ‘pertaining to’ in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. So the Word was with God in the sense of belonging to God and not in the sense of a separate person beside God."
(Burgos cites, The Oneness of God, 1997, 188-189).

 Burgos submits:“The above assertion is incorrect for a number of reasons” (Ibid. 58).

   Burgos then says:

 "The reason why pros is translated as “pertaining to” in both of the texts in Hebrews is because pros is immediately preceded by the accusative neuter plural article “ta” (trans. “things”).
(Ibid. 59). 

I would also make the bold claim for a number of reasons that  Burgos has ran down a rabbit hole and has given this absolutely no thought for many reasons on many levels.

The first question I would ask Burgos is that why did  William Tyndale( Trinitarian) translate the word/Logos as an it?
 

"The Tyndale New Testament of 1525 was the first English translation based on the Greek and the first English Bible to be printed." 

Tyndale (1494–1536) It was Tyndale's translation of  the Greek "autou" meaning; "he, she, or it." depending upon the context... Tyndale Handling God's word more carefully, and with great care did not with bias read "the Pre-incarnate Christ"  Back into John 1:1-3  and impose his own belief which; leaves something to be said for the Modern Trinitarian.

 "All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men." (John1:1-3 Tyndale)

 " Things." Are things an "it"?  Tyndale thought so. Is this my argument you ask? No, It most certainly is not my argument, but it is one that Burgos should have considered from one of his own. More than Likely he would say that today's scholars have more ancient documents and are better suited to translate. He, she, or it, would be determined by context. John is speaking from a knowing a experience of a person whom he handled and seen.(1st John 1:1-3) That is what Burgos and modern trinitarians read back into the text  of John 1 with the pronoun *he* later. I would say it is just an excuse to read doctrine back into the word of God.

 I always Like to ask the question to the Trinitarian;  "Why was not the  word/Logos with Jesus"? If Jesus were in fact God, would not the word be with him? If not, why not?   what was God, doing with God, if there is only One God. These are questions trinity doctrine ignore. Burgos book simply brings  about more questions and contradictions for his doctrine.

                                     Jesus is the God to whom the word is with.

The incarnation makes Jesus God in flesh; to whom the word is with.
 We read a prophecy of the coming Jesus in judgment: The word/Logos is the spoken creative power of God to heal,  judge, and create. God cannot be separated from that power.

but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod his mouth. and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.( Isaiah 11:4 KJV)
 (Remember the beatitudes while reading this?)

And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.(Revelation 19:15 American Standard Version)

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.(ii Thessalonians 2:8 NIV)

 At the breath of God they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish(Job 4:9 NIV)

The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. (Revelation 19:21 NIV)

By the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Grk Septuagint))

 So in summary: I do not believe that Michael Burgos  has submitted anything earth shattering with his argument.. The so called argument is simply an emotional ploy, for those who believe the word/Logos  was the pre-existent son of God. This debate is far from over and i am very happy with the stance we take against the trinity view of John 1:1.

                                                      Works cited

  Michael R. Burgos’ new Book, "Kiss the Son: A Christological Apology  Response to David K. Bernard’s The Oneness of God?, 2012."

• Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
• Publication date: 10/24/2012
• Pages: 150

The Oneness of God,  David K Bernard 1997, Word Aflame Press (188-189).

  William Tyndale A biography David Daniell Publisher: Yale University Press (March 1, 2001)