Dr. Craig. First, let me express my deep admiration for your extensive contributions to Christian apologetics and philosophy.

Your work has been a tremendous resource for those seeking to defend and understand the faith.

However, I'm grappling with attention between your latest views on human nature and your neo-apollinarian

Christology, and I'd greatly value your clarification on how these positions align.

In a recent interview on August 29, 2004, you stated,

Human persons are souls that each of us is identical to his soul,

so we are not composite entities, we are souls who have bodies.

This suggests that the soul is the essential, defining

component of human nature, with the body playing a secondary role. In contrast, your Neo-apollinarian

model of the incarnation, as articulated in philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview

and various reasonable faith podcast episodes, posits that

the divine logos replaces Jesus' human soul, uniting with a human body to form his human

nature. This raises a challenge for me. If the soul is the primary element that constitutes

human nature, as your anthropology indicates,

and Jesus possesses a divine logos rather than a human soul.

How can he be considered truly human in a way comparable to us?

It seems that, within your framework, Jesus might lack the critical component of human nature, namely a human soul.

Could you please clarify how you reconcile these two positions? Specifically, how does Jesus' possession

of a divine soul, rather than a human one, enable him to be truly man, given that you identify

the soul as the fundamental essence of human

nature.

Thank you for your time and for shedding light on this important question.

...