The answer
The Lord Christ is the only one who has a unity of the divine nature and the human nature. If this same union of the divine nature with the human were to happen to all believers, then what difference would there be between any human being and Christ?
There are two ways of attacking Christ's divinity: one is by belittling the importance of Christ and reducing Him to the level of ordinary human beings, as the Arians did, and the other is by raising people to the same level as Christ, which is referred to as defying the human being, in the kind of way that you have described in your question.
In both cases the outcome is the same: that Christ and human beings are placed on the same footing.
The Church cannot possess all that was Christ's, because the word 'all' would have to mean His divinity too. Christ gave the Church His love, but He did not, and does not, give His glory to another.
Theological terms always need to be used very precisely.
And what is this about a human being changed into a 'burning bush'? If that were to happen then the prophets would have to stand humbly before him to listen to the voice of God, just as Moses did (Ex. 3)! Human beings were not changed on the day of Pentecost into gods, and the divine incarnation which was Christ's alone, did not happen to them either.
As far as the phrase 'the divine nature was none other than the mystical body of Christ', is concerned, these are either the words of Eutyches, in which the dimension of Christ's humanity is lost, or they are supposed to mean that the divine nature was the same as the human, in which case there could be no divinity!
So what is this mystical body of Christ? Is it supposed to mean the Church?
The Church cannot be the divine nature. Nor can the Church be the body of Christ, which He instructed to be taken and eaten in the Eucharist. In the divine Mass we do not eat the Church! There is a confusion here between the body which Christ took from the Virgin Mary, and the Church when it is referred to as the 'body' of Christ.
Is this body, the body which in the sacrament of the Eucharist the Lord instructed us to take and eat? If this were so, this body could not be the divine nature, otherwise we would be going back to the ideas of Eutyches! We say in the Liturgy, "This is the life-giving body which Your Only Son received from our lady and Queen of us all the pure St Mary.. and He made it one with His divinity."
Here too, an important question stands out, which is: were the words spoken on the day of Pentecost about the third person of the Holy Trinity (ie. the Holy Spirit), or the second, namely the Son, who was incarnated for our sake, and who said: "Take, eat, this is My body"? And what has the sacrament of the Eucharist got to do with the day of Pentecost on which the Holy Spirit descended like tongues of fire?
In your question there still remain some points which need to be explained:
a) Was what happened on the day of Pentecost, a descent or a union? The Bible speaks unequivocally about the descent
of the Holy Spirit. And the Lord Jesus Christ said: "you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. " (Acts 1:8)
b) Was the burning bush a symbol of the divine incarnation, or was it a symbol of the day of Pentecost? And was the nature, purpose and results of what happened in the divine incarnation, what the disciples experienced on the day of Pentecost, such that one could say that the purpose behind the divine incarnation had reached its peak on the day of Pentecost?
c) And did the third Person of the Holy Trinity become incarnated in mankind on the day of Pentecost, by descending upon those present, or uniting with them, according to what you have read?
[ 18 ]
Thrice-Blessed Pope Shenouda III of Blessed Memory