One on One: Ghost's Views of The Nature of Christ

[ghost]

AMR... You have had 3 full days to respond to my post concerning the nature of Jesus and what you claim I teach. If you are putting together another long, drawn out, tiresome, so-called "exegesis", you are wasting your time. This debate is supposed to be a discussion between me and you, not between me and Maurice A. Robinson, William Gouge, Fr. Antoni Marcelli, or anyone else.

Either you know what you believe or you don't. Either you can defend what you believe from the Bible or you cannot. Either you can make it simple enough for anyone to understand it, or you won't. There are theological formulas from all sides of all the debates that have been manipulated and re-constructed over the last 2000 years by various so-called students of the Bible. There is no need for us to re-hash old debates.

Stop all the nonsense and get to the point.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ghost,

TOL one-on-ones have a two-week time limit. I will meet that limit.

The topic requires care and fearfulness, as we are discussing sacred matters related to our Lord, and I will take the necessary time to craft my responses accordingly. While you wait, perhaps you can answer the questions I posed above:

Ghost, as a self-professed teacher of Scripture, do you believe that exegesis requires those of us that teach Scripture possess a sound knowledge and consideration of the underlying ancient Biblical languages?

Ghost, do you believe that when one is engaged in a formal theological discussion, such as this one-on-one, that proper exegesis is an essential aspect to make one’s points clear and to illuminate the Scripture being discussed?

Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?

AMR

[ghost]

Ghost, as a self-professed teacher of Scripture, do you believe that exegesis requires those of us that teach Scripture possess a sound knowledge and consideration of the underlying ancient Biblical languages?

No

Ghost, do you believe that when one is engaged in a formal theological discussion, such as this one-on-one, that proper exegesis is an essential aspect to make one’s points clear and to illuminate the Scripture being discussed?

No

Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?

Which Greek translation should we all be using?

If all this other crap is what you wanted to debate, then perhaps you should have not have switched it to Apollinarianism.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No

Sigh.

No

Sigh.

Which Greek translation should we all be using?

Take your pick from English bibles you use. Given you are quoting the NASB then I assume NA27/UBS4 would work for you. :squint: My personal favorites are from the Byzantine manuscripts, but I have no issue with using the NA27/UBS4.

If all this other crap is what you wanted to debate, then perhaps you should have not have switched it to Apollinarianism.

Ghost, if you don't want to drive the discussion off the rails then perhaps you should try to restrain your off-topic histrionics a wee bit, as they tend to start some arguments that one must not let pass unnoticed.

You have laid plenty of pipe to rationalize your potential indignant exit, declaration of victory, etc., even before the discussion began. And you continue to do so. I get it. We all see it, so just consider that effort completed and stand down while awaiting my response.

AMR

[ghost]

Ghost, if you don't want to drive the discussion off the rails then perhaps you should try to restrain your off-topic histrionics a wee bit, as they tend to start some arguments that one must not let pass unnoticed.

How can you even say that with a straight face? What a hypocrite.

[ghost]

5 days and counting

[Ask Mr. Religion]

5 days and counting

Why not spend the time reviewing the content more closely, Ghost?

I will come back around to the discussion soon enough. I tend to let important topics on sacred matters such as these simmer subconsciously for a wee bit. And when I am inwardly provoked I will be able write them up in short order.

AMR

[ghost]

Why not spend the time reviewing the content more closely, Ghost?

I'm still awaiting a question (per the rules of the One on One) that I can answer which is in context to your claim that I teach that Jesus was an illusion and did not come in the flesh.

I will come back around to the discussion soon enough. I tend to let important topics on sacred matters such as these simmer subconsciously for a wee bit. And when I am inwardly provoked I will be able write them up in short order.

You have had my response for 5 days now. Surely, you are "provoked" enough to come up with a single question.

[ghost]

7 full days and counting

Can we change this to a "one on none"?

Perhaps the debating nature, mind and soul of AMR has abandoned him.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Surrejoinder to the remainder of Ghost’s response – Part 1

Docetism and why Ghost needs to own the label and all that it implies


Wading through ad hominems once more

Ghost’s use of light here, in a passage that does not even use the Greek word for “light”, misses the full import of the term, ἀπαύγασμα, as I have discussed in my exegesis of the text, which Ghost refuses to read.

Is it your conclusion that Jesus is not the light because the "Greek word" for radiance literally means "brightness" or "splendor" rather than "light"? So you have the fact that God is light being separated from His radiance, yet people are anti-Christ gnostics for comparing soul and spirit? You sir are a clown. I'm sorry, I have no Greek word for clown.

Note: For those that have been reading this thread or having had experience dealing with Sozo/Mystery/Door/Ghost, it is clear that reasoned rebuttal is beyond his reach in any discussion wherein he is being directly challenged. Instead one must wade through a thicket of public negative personalizations that are frequently accompanied by vulgarity-laced private communications behind the scenes. Ghost’s personal ego radar remains always set on its highest settings, where every comment triggers a Brobdingnagian negative attack.

Ghost,

As you can read from the quoted comment above, I simply stated you missed “the full import of the term, ἀπαύγασμα”, given your refusal to read the exegesis of the Hebrews passage. Importing your usual infelicities is unnecessary and unneeded in a discussion such as this one.

Moving on to the more substantive matters before us…


Ghost’s Trichotomous Views of Man

AMR must take a wild leap into your imagination, and try and make his reader believe and accept the idea that anyone who denies Calvinism's view that Jesus has two natures, two minds, and two spirits/souls is preaching a false Jesus who did not come in the flesh.

From AMR's double-minded theory, if you claim that Jesus was born of a woman (the virgin Mary), walked with His disciples, performed miracles, died on a cross for our sins, was buried in a tomb, was raised from the dead, and you don't believe that Jesus had two natures, two minds, and two spirits/souls, then you are antichrist .

AMR will attempt to propose and accuse myself (and all of you) that we fall short of believing in the Jesus of the Bible because we hold the view that man is a body, a soul, and a spirit (trichotomy), and not just a body and a soul (spirit) (dichotomy). This is his well hidden "rabbit trail".

Nevertheless, for the sake of this discussion, we will appeal to AMR's dichotomous view, and assume that man is only a body and soul (spirit). Either way, Jesus did not have two minds or souls (spirits).

Let the reader understand: Dichotomists believe that the words "spirit" and "soul" are used interchangeably with no distinction (despite versus like Hebrews 4:12; 1 Thes 5:23). However, let us not slip into one of AMR's bunny holes, lest we run into Nang.

If you can demonstrate, versus merely asserting, the Reformed view holds that Jesus Christ possessed two souls and/or two minds, please do so. You are clearly uninformed about the view of the Christian church, Protestant or not, on this matter.

Ghost, your trichotomous views are not a rabbit trail, but part and parcel related to the many heresies in your belief system and this erroneous view warrants some comment.

Indeed, the trichotomous view you hold is nothing more than a launchpad for numerous Gnostic influences. The Christian church widely denounces this view. We are necessarily a body—the physical aspect of our nature—and a soul/spirit (both words are synonymous)—the immaterial aspect described in the Scriptures as either soul or spirit. A human being does not have a body and a soul, but is a body and a soul, neither of which alone make up the whole person. The material and the immaterial combine to create a single entity.

John condemned the Antichrist spirit of these Gnostic impulses in 1 John 4. John also condemned Ghost’s docetic notions in the prologue to his Gospel that hold a truly divine Jesus Christ was a mere appearance of a fully human person, versus the divine Logos who took on a human nature.

Our bodies are not some appendage, a prison of the soul, as the Platonic underpinnings of trichotomous views will lead to. Everywhere we read in the Scripture, we read of any dissolution of the body and separation of the body and the soul/spirit, as an evil, resulting from the wages of sin and a retribution.


Scripture stands against Ghost’s trichotomous views:

1. Man has a dichotomous physical and an immaterial composition: body and soul, flesh and spirit, both terms, body/flesh and soul/spirit, being interchangeably used by our Lord (Matthew 10:28; Matthew 26:41).

2. The soul/spirit is immaterial (Luke 24:39).

3. The soul/spirit is within us (1 Cor. 2:11).

4. Sanctification is purifying ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1).

5. A body without a soul/spirit is dead (James 2:26).

6. The soul/spirit leaves the body at death (Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:46; John 19:30 and Acts 7:59).

7. Scripture often refers to the soul as the life constituted in the body in many ways (Matthew 6:25; 10:39;16:25-26; 20:28; Luke 14:26; John 10:11-18; Acts 15:26; 20:10; Philippians 2:30; 1 John 3:16).

8. The synonymous use of soul and spirit, as well as the use of spirit as a synonym for the person (Matthew 12:18; Luke 12:19; Acts 2:27, 41, 43, 3:23; Romans 2:9; 3:11; Hebrews 10:38; James 1:21;5:20; 1 Peter 1:9; 2:25), coupled with the above should, by the very frequencies of the use of soul as spirit in Scripture, lead one to properly conclude they are used to identify the distinguishing component of the human person.


Where Ghost’s trichotomous views ultimately lead

Unfortunately, we have the minority view of Ghost and others, that the body means the material part of man’s nature, the soul as a principle of animal life, and the spirit as a God related aspect of rationality and the immortal element in man. With this view, Ghost frequently argues that the body is bad, and its flesh makes us sin. So, when we are born again, God gives us some new spirit, or even perhaps creates a new spirit within us. Hence, Ghost’s new life clamoring elsewhere. This is the unperceived logical error of trichotomous views, in that man, a living being of body and soul, is not really saved at all. Instead a different, some sort of newly created man is substituted for him. When this old man is ridden, the saved man left is not the old man that needed to be saved, but simply a new man that never needed saving in the first place! This is the sad reality of the Exchanged Life movement, yet one more of the odd views Ghost retains.

Further, the trichotomous view of Ghost supports his views of a peculiar doctrine of free will. The man is not spiritually dead, only the body, the flesh. Apparently the soul continues to possess the ability, with lots of wooing, to make a decision to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. This permits him the freedom to claim the human will, versus God’s grace, is the real, final, ultimate factor in our eternal destiny.

Unwittingly, Ghost’s trichotomous view also plays nicely into the hands of many within Pentecostalism that views the spirit as some sort of greater element of man’s nature, with glossalgia becoming some sort of appointed means by God to circumvent the lower elements of human nature.

Trichotomous views, also enables the so-called carnal Christian view of sanctification.

Finally, trichotomous views, given their gnostic underpinnings, lead one into all manner of heresy regarding the nature of Jesus Christ, as we will see herein.


Ghost appeals to Scripture for his trichotomous views

Above, Ghost attempts to mount a defense for distinguishing between soul and spirit by citing Hebrews 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. Where is his proper exegesis of these two texts to substantiate these claims? Are we to be given a full treatment of his interpretative analysis of the texts, other than perhaps simply boldfacing the words in the text and declaring it so? I can happily do so to prove my points, and have done so in the past, but given Ghost’s declaration that he will not read my exegesis, let him provide his own. I suspect Ghost will demur with plenty of vitriolic flourish hoping to hide the plain fact that he cannot support his appeals to these Scriptures with exegesis.

So I will spare Ghost the embarrassment by noting from the common sense that God gave us all, that, for example, in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Paul no more argues for the trichotomous view than our Lord argues for a quad view of man in Luke 10:27. Thus, appealing to Hebrews 4:12 is simply a fool’s errand for the trichotomist and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the whole counsel of Scripture on the topic.

Further, Ghost appeals to Hebrews 4:12, but by so doing he also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Greek verb being used for division and the Hebrew parallelism at play here. That verb is always used to give the sense of distributing and dividing up the various aspects of the very same thing (Hebrews 2:4; Luke 11:17-18; Matthew 27:35; John 19:24). A proper reading of Hebrews 4:12 is not that it is separating two things that are distinct, body and soul, but that the word of God, is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. We don’t have here the Word dividing the soul from the spirit, as if they were two different entities. Rather we have in Hebrews 4:12 the Word dividing the soul and spirit in the sense of penetrating our innermost being. Again, appealing to common sense, one wonders why Ghost ignores the word heart in this same verse. By his appeal to this verse, should not man be composed of four parts, body, soul, spirit, heart?

Ghost’s trichotomous views of man cannot be sustained from Scripture. Nevertheless he is invited to demonstrate from exegesis of the two passages he has appealed to, Hebrews 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:23, that this is possible and perhaps edify us all.

In my next post, forthcoming, I will deal directly with Ghost’s full-blown Docetist views, inter alia.

AMR

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Surrejoinder to the remainder of Ghost’s response – Part 2

Ghost’s Misunderstandings of Man…again

..AMR would have you believe that Jesus has two natures. That of man (a recreation of Adam, not the second Adam) and the nature of God. Odd for him to take this view, which would be inconsistent with the impeccability of Christ, since we all know that Adam sinned. Adam was created innocent, but not perfect. Adam sinned. Jesus, the second Adam, is the perfect man, who could not sin, because He has the nature of God. Adam was not God. Jesus is both God and Man. Perfect God and perfect Man. The definition of perfection excludes the possibility of sin.

Notice here that AMR is going to define for you what it means to be fully God and fully man, and then if you do not hold to his version of what it means to be fully man, then you deny the humanity of Jesus. Yet, it is easily proven (especially since AMR holds to the view that all men are totally depraved and by nature children of wrath) that Jesus was not as "fully" a man as the rest of us. Otherwise, AMR has the nature of Jesus being under God's wrath, totally depraved, and in effect, a sinner.

Here, my previous post calling of attention to the dangers of Ghost’s trichotomous views of man is in full display by Ghost’s argument above. Obviously, it is clear than man has been sinful ever since the fall in Eden. Thus, it is quite easy to assume that being sinful is a necessary, essential part of being a human being. This is an erroneous assumption and Ghost takes it up as part of his belief system. Jesus was fully human and yet He did not sin. Jesus’ becoming fully human actually reveals the nature of true humanity. Jesus’ humanity gives us a glimpse of what our humanity would be if our humanity were not tainted with sin. Jesus’ humanity shows us that the problem with our humanity is not that we are human beings, but that we are fallen human beings. Jesus’ human nature demonstrates the potential of humanity as God intended. God’s declaration that creation in all its components, was very good in Genesis is affirmed by Jesus’ sinless humanity.

The commission of sin, and even the ability to sin, are not essential aspects of being human. By appealing to Adam, Ghost ignores that before Adam sinned he was still a human being, thus it is possible to have a human being that does not sin, that is, Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Hebrews 12:23 teaches against Ghost’s views. While sin may characterize this fallen world, it does not characterize the next, so sinfulness is not an essential attribute of humanity.

Christians understand Jesus Christ never sinned, never succumbing to temptation, having evil thoughts, desires, or words. Scripture attests to these facts (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22; and 1 John 3:5). It is equally true that Jesus Christ was not even capable of sinning. He was also fully God, the Second Person of the Trinity, and God cannot sin, as this would be contrary to His very nature, e.g., 1 Peter 1:16. The three Persons of the Trinity have been and always will be impeccable (e.g., see Habakkuk 1:13; James 1:13; 1 John 1:5).

The belief that Jesus is one person with both divine and human natures, denied by Ghost, has much significance for the possibility of fallen people entering into a relationship with God. Christ must be both fully God and fully man if He is to mediate between God and man, make atonement for sin, and be a sympathetic high priest. Nothing here means that Jesus’ temptation was any less real. Because He was fully human, Jesus recognized the value of things offered to Him, and certainly understood the benefits these things could provide Him. Therefore, Jesus’ obedience and sympathy with us are not lessened in any manner. If one gives this more thought, we find that Jesus’ obedience and sympathy with us is increased—He learned perfectly from the experience, and now responds to us in a way that is perfectly suited to our needs.


Ghost’s Docetism, inter alia

Not everyone will come to the level of understanding of all the issues being discussed in this one-on-one. But Ghost claims to be a teacher of Scripture, so it is important to examine his public statements, especially as they relate to the Person of Jesus Christ, against Scripture. For example, Scripture teaches us:

- Jesus Christ is fully and completely divine
- Jesus Christ is fully and completely human.
- The divine and human natures of Christ are distinct.
- The divine and human natures of Christ are completely united in one person.

Let’s tabulate where Ghost stands to date as relates to the heresies the church has condemned for well over a thousand years. Upon examination of Ghost’s own words, it is clear that he admits the following:

Docetism – Ghost denies the full humanity of Christ
Apollinarianism - Ghost denies the fullness of the humanity of Christ, claiming He possessed no human rational soul
Nestorianism – Ghost denies the unity of the two natures in one person
Eutychianism – Ghost denies the two distinctions of the fully God and fully human natures

Now Ghost will attempt to nuance his views, as he does with every direct confrontation so as to coat himself with Teflon® so no label can apparently stick to him. When often cornered, Ghost retreats behinds these nuances, claiming that he means this or that by some word or phrase of his that has been called into question. Attempting to force Ghost to explain what he means by this or that, generally results in harsh and often vulgar rebuke, with but mere re-assertion of the same words that called him into question in the first place.

Ghost has argued that Docetism is not related to any of the above items. Naturally, he has a nuanced view of all these labels. And in quite a show of emotionalism herein and elsewhere, Ghost has argued I have misrepresented the topic of this debate, claiming his other heretical views are not doceteticly related. Ghost bases his claims in part upon unreliable internet content and the crafting his personal definitions of words commonly understood in theological discourse. He refused my advice given before this discussion to seek out more reputable sources as part of his pre-discussion homework. Unfortunately, Ghost remained penchantly entrenched in his own wisdom, refusing to research the matter more fully, so let’s turn to what the informed have to say on the matter.


What do the experts have to say about Docetism?

Alexandrian or "word-flesh" Christology prioritized the mystical Christ over the historical Jesus, concerned chiefly with the possibilities of union between the divine Logos and human flesh. Tending toward some form of Platonic view of spirit (mind), body, and soul, this "word-flesh" Christology emphasizes the unity of Christ at an extreme level, such that Christ is viewed as a divinized person, while downplaying or even denying his human integrity. This Docetism names a family of heresies that lost the reality of Christ's humanity in the second and third centuries, protecting the divine from suffering or change. In either case the specter of patripassianism (the idea that God directly suffered on the cross) loomed, against which Tertullian notably contended. Meanwhile, Irenaeus led the charge against the gnostic elements that Docetism reflected.

Src: Alexandrian Word-Flesh Christology entry in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Editor, Baker Book House, pg 366

Docetism: (Gk. dokein, “to seem”) The belief that Jesus only seemed or appeared to have a human body and to be a human person. This view was also found during the period of the early church among Gnostics. This view was condemned by Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-c. 107).

Apollinarianism: The view of Apollinarius (c.310-c. 390) that Christ did not assume a full human nature but that in the incarnation the divine Logos took the place of the human soul or psyche.

Src: Docetism and Apollinarianism entries, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms.

Docetism: A term used to refer to a theological perspective among some in the early church who regarded the sufferings and the human aspects of Christ as imaginary or apparent instead of being part of a real incarnation. The combination of the two natures, Son of David and Son of God, affirmed by Paul in Romans 1:3-4 was already under attack in the Johannine community (see 1 John 4:2, 2 John7). Docetic thinking became an integral part of the perspectives of the Gnostics.

Src: Docetism entry, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter Ewell.

Statements with a docetic flavour can be adduced from the thinking the Logos even permeating the body of the man Jesus and thus, the tendency towards Docetism is marked. Later Christological heresies from the School of Alexandria, i.e., Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, and monophysitism, tend towards Docetism.

Src: Christology entry, New Dictionary of Theology, Sinclair Ferguson, David Wright, J. I. Packer.

Docetism lies at hand where a christology claims: Jesus was different from what he seemed to be.

Src: Doketismus'—eine Problemanzeige,, Brox, Norbert. Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte 95 (1984)

Ghost’s accusations and histrionics that he has been treated unfairly are thus laid to rest. He must own the labels history has assigned to his views—an extraordinary collection of heresies in but one man—that his various perspectives are docetic. Ghost must also own the resultant corruption of the foundation of his other views that are built upon his doctetism and its gnostic affinities, such as Exchanged Life/Keswickianism.

Indeed, Ghost’s docetist thinking has devastating effects on the correct view of Christ, salvation, revelation, and creation. Until Ghost can shed himself of these erroneous views of our Lord, anything Ghost has to say on these topics must be viewed with extreme caution, lest one fall into the same heresies Ghost wears proudly and has no hesitation to condemn all others to eternal damnation who disagree with him. Ghost’s views are such that Christ does not represent humanity in His atoning work, nor does Christ show us God in fully human form. Ghost’s view also erodes a Scripturally positive view of creation which leads to either a negative or even an indifferent perspective on life in the body. Ghost’s views import presuppositions about humanity to the Bible and conform biblical teaching to them, rather than allowing Scripture to dictate everything, including the presuppositions. Countless theological errors have occurred by imposing human ideas on the Bible.

As we progress through this discussion, I will prove that Jesus Christ is indeed FULLY MAN, just not as AMR defines it. For I will show that Jesus is the second Adam, the Son of Man, FULLY HUMAN and FULLY GOD, yet without two natures, two minds, two souls/spirits.

AMR has not defined the Person of Jesus Christ, Ghost, the Scripture has and church history affirms the teachings of Scripture. Yes, you can cavil against the church forefathers, or the councils that studied these matters, all the while claiming your sole authority is the Bible and everyone else who, by the way claimed the very same thing, were, well, wrong. No, Ghost, you stand at what can only be called the outer fringes of Christianity, which has labeled your errors accordingly as indicated above. You can refuse the cloak so painted upon you, but it remains so nevertheless. So by all means proceed with your defense from exegesis of Scripture that Jesus Christ possessed no rational human soul, that there were not two natures, distinguished as fully God and fully human in the incarnate Christ, and so on.

We have all been eagerly waiting for your defense. And I will do you the courtesy, that you refuse to extend to me, of actually reading it, too.

Lastly, if you need more time to prepare your defense, I will happily agree to extending the one-on-one beyond its normal two-week deadline, should you request it and Knight approve.

AMR

[ghost]

Lastly, if you need more time to prepare your defense, I will happily agree to extending the one-on-one beyond its normal two-week deadline, should you request it and Knight approve.

Go straight to hell.

YOU took 7 FREAKING days (1 FULL WEEK) to respond to my post, and have still not done so in either one of these pieces of crap you have now posted, and then you act like a you are doing me a favor. FU and your family.

[ghost]

I've just spent the last two day preparing a point by point response to this fraud of a human being, and he cherry picks my posts out of context only to tell his bull s*** lies. You don't get my response. You don't deserve it. You can just continue to swim in your religious cesspool, and boast in your self-deceived accomplishments. I've wasted enough time on worthless scum like you.

[ghost]

It is so blatantly obvious what a bunch of self-deceived fools you are. Instead of recognizing the lies, deception, that AMR has pulled throughout this fiasco, you will all focus your attention on my insults. None of you are any different than the religious people who raised their snotty noses in the air at Jesus, but the stench of your boasting is a dung heap in the nostrils of God.

Hang on to your stupidity, and maybe God will have mercy on you like He does on those who don't know their right hand from their left.