Grandstand discussion: "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ"

[andyc]

Okay, to get things rolling here, we need to know whether or not there will actually be a one-on-one. We wait with great curiosity to see if the opening post receives an answer. Stay tuned!

Well basically ghost is paranoid of AMR's intellect. And instead of actually defending himself against AMR's accusations by spending some time reading up on the the things he's being accused of and thinking about how his views may differ, he's simply denying the claims by attacking AMR's character and motives.
Ghost feels free to constantly attack Calvinism whenever he feels like it, but then he throws his toys out of the stroller when he's challenged.

[ghost]

Here is the chatbox discussion, and proof that AMR is a liar. You must read from the bottom up, as that is how the chatbox is constructed.


Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, I have not. I will post it in the one-on-one when it is set up when I do choose it. Relax now. The terms have been agreed to, so wait for Knight to establish the thread.
ghost X: Have you chosen the text yet?
ghost X: We'll see won't we?
ghost X: I'm talking to YOU (AMR), you dimwit. You're such a flake.
Ask Mr. Religion: See, Ghost, you are all wrapped around the axle about man's words, but the plain fact is, as will be shown in the one-on-one, that your interpretation of Scripture is, well, wrong. Scripture will rebuke you and I pray you accept the correction.
ghost X: Not only that, but why should we believe one definition over another?
ghost X: It is very telling that you miss the point. Which version agrees with YOU? You claim that there are various definitions of the term, so how am I supposed to know which one is the one you think I believe?
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you are the one posting any link you can google. Odd, that is. You are talking to yourself now, no?
ghost X: We will debate the Bible or there will be no debate. I'm not debating the opinions of men. My opinions are worthless, and so are yours.
ghost X: So CARM is wrong? How am I supposed to know which view is the one that agrees with you? Now you know why I'm restricting the debate to the Bible.
Ask Mr. Religion: Find some scholarly books, Ghost. Do your homework.
ghost X: Here
ghost X: Okay Here
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you need to rely upon more scholarly references. Wiki is not one. Carry on, though!
Ask Mr. Religion: PM sent to Knight, Ghost. Check your mailbox.
ghost X: AMR is going to attempt to prove that I believe This
ghost X: He doesn't know who you are, so maybe we should discuss you. Perhaps we could rectify that.
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost, if you don't know who Jesus Christ is, then little else you have to say is of no significance, so this is the right topic to discuss.
ghost X: Why are you asking me to be "patient", am I not as patient as God has dcreed me to be? Do you have a problem with God's decrees?
Ask Mr. Religion: I am PMing Knight and you will be included so that we are all in agreement on the rules you have.
ghost X: You mean your double-minded Jesus. That's fine.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, I am trying to get my ill wife all settled for bed, so try being a wee bit more patient.
Ask Mr. Religion: The subject will be your Docetism, Ghost.
ghost X: Okay, so you don't have a topic in mind yet?
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost I will pick from among the verses you have used. Not a problem.
ghost X: Which subject AMR? I'm letting you pick that too. I think it's only fair that I know what the subject is the same time you do.
kmoney: See ya tomorrow, TOL.
kmoney:
ghost X: Please note everyone: I've let AMR pick any text in the Bible he "chooses"
ghost X: Surely there is some text in the Bible that I've used that you think was evidence that I believe those things or some text that you think I don't understand about Calvinism. Pick the text.
Ask Mr. Religion: OK, Ghost. I will get it all arranged and make the first post telling you the Scripture verse. Stay tuned.
ghost X: I'm waiting
ghost X: Pick one and then tell me which text you want to use to prove that I teach those false doctrines. Or tell me which text you want to use to defend Calvinism.
Nang: Trad: Stay out for awhile. Enter your opinions and thoughts later.
Ask Mr. Religion: Pick one Ghost.
Ask Mr. Religion: Your Docetism, Keswickianism, or your misunderstandings of Calvinism.
Ask Mr. Religion: Trad, click the X in your posts here and they are deleted.
ghost X: What are we discussing?
ghost X: AMR won't debate anything without the Westminister Confession to back him up.
Ask Mr. Religion: OK, ghost. I will get this set up. Note that your rule 3 is not applicable for one-on-ones. It will be just you and me.
kmoney: Take your quibbles somewhere else.
kmoney: Guys, the chatbox is for lovers, not fighters.
Nang: Trad: You have no dog in this fight.
Nang: Butt out, Trad.
ghost X: That's the way he likes it.
ghost X: The third link is you pretending I backed out. You are a fraud.
ghost X: Your second link is YOU backing out. LIAR.
ghost X: The rules in my post from you first link.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: your running- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...20#post2518220
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: the offer- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...70#post2518170
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: the thread- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...47#post2516847
ghost X: Fine, we go by the rules I suggested in our previous discussion about this. Verse by verse, and no going forward until we either agree or come to an impasse.
Ask Mr. Religion: No so, Ghost. You know this. Like I said, pick one of the topics I suggested and we will find where our exegesis leads us. Put up, or at least stop wiggling.
ghost X: Nonsense. They know better. I offered to debate you one on one, but you refused, having rejected a verse by verse exegesis of the Bible in favor of your cut and paste opinions
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, what folks can see is a man doing all he can to avoid a direct confrontation where you would have to defend yourself.
ghost X: Calvinism is an anti-Christ religion, made up of Hitleresque superiortists
ghost X: And like I told you and all the TOL idiots who listen to you, all they have to do is look at that link to see that I have never come close to teaching anything "Keswick". You are confused and stupid.
Ask Mr. Religion: That said, Ghost, I suggest you stick to wailing about topics you don't know, like Calvinism. There's a one-on-one you might consider!
ghost X: If you want to debate someone who believes in all the crap, talk to andyc. He's an expert on claiming that the Holy Spirit gives him the power to stop coveting, and claims he never does.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you just don't get it. What you write about and declare is part and parcel Keswickianism. Deny it all you want. You need to own it. You want to rehabilitate yourself? Like I said, the one-on-one room is open.
ghost X: What? You idiot. The Keswick movement and the "Higher Life" movement are virtually the same. That was the point. Are you drunk, stupid, or both? I NEVER said anything close to there being no connection to Higher life and Keswick. LIAR.
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost, you should beg off an actual direct encounter given this recent spate of posts. It would not be an equitable match.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost should have read the wiki item more carefully. It is dripping with Keswick references and he claims the Higher Life has no connections to it. A hoot!
ghost X: Wesley, like you, is a heretic. I reject a "second work of grace" or his "sinless perfection" nonsense. Go talk to the Nazarene church
bybee: This is not a good way to defend open-theism.
ghost X: I defend the truth on this site every day, dimwit. I just don't respond to your plagerized cut-n-paste 10 page long posts.
Ask Mr. Religion: Again, shall I assume you unwilling to defend your views?
ghost X: You're a moron. You have no case. Go play with your witch friend.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, click the Holiness link in that article and you will see how foolish you are sounding. You will have to do better to shake the Keswickian label. And especially avoid wiki items.
ghost X: Like I've said befiore, you are a liar and a fraud.
ghost X: I do not believe in any "second experiences". You cannot find a single post where I have ever made any such claim.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you can rely on that item if you want. It actually is an item that helps make my case. It is clear you don't know what you have fell into as a belief system.
ghost X: If you don't like my assessment of your corrupt theology, respond to the post which accurately defines it.
ghost X: Get over yourself, pervert. All anyone has to do is go Here and they will laugh at your suggestion that I believe in anything that resmbles "Keswick"
Ask Mr. Religion: So, shall I assume you unwilling and/or unable to withstand serious scrutiny of your odd views, preferring to linger in the crowds versus stepping into the ring with an able opponent?
Ask Mr. Religion: If you want to attempt to prove you are not a Keswickian then that sounds like a good topic for the one-on-one, no?
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you are conceding already? That was fast.
Ask Mr. Religion: If you want to discuss Calvinism and seek to show it to erroneous that works for me.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, there is this: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...40#post2597840 or your Docetism or your Keswickianism. So many choices, so pick the one you feel you have an advantage with defending. You are a gold mine of unorthodoxy.
Ask Mr. Religion: The one-on-one forum is very vacant, Ghost. Anytime you are ready to stand still long enough to come under scrutiny with no option to make drive-by posts, I'll be waiting.

[godrulz]

It's a creed. Show where in the scripture it is.

Here is my creed on the subject:

John 1: 1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.



Why do we need artificial creeds when we have the written Word?

Jn. 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11

[bybee]

Boring, isn't it?

You are not boring! Your behavior can be quite reprehensible at times, yet, in the main, theologically, I am with you.
I wonder, in passing, why you are so angry?
Your sense of humor is quite endearing, otherwise, I'd simply have to ignore you as a great parochial clod!
On occasion you can be quite insouciant.
Do carry on in your own inimitable fashion.

[Sherman]

Jn. 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11

Godrulz,

Those verses do not prove the bizarre theology of Man and Jesus having two spirits.

The Two spirits idea is greek in origin from Plato. It doesn't come from the bible.

[bybee]

Godrulz,

Those verses do not prove the bizarre theology of Man and Jesus having two spirits.

The Two spirits idea is greek in origin from Plato. It doesn't come from the bible.

With respect Inzl, I don't believe I have ever read Godrulz stating that there are two spirits?

[CabinetMaker]

Here is the chatbox discussion, and proof that AMR is a liar. You must read from the bottom up, as that is how the chatbox is constructed.


Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, I have not. I will post it in the one-on-one when it is set up when I do choose it. Relax now. The terms have been agreed to, so wait for Knight to establish the thread.
ghost X: Have you chosen the text yet?
ghost X: We'll see won't we?
ghost X: I'm talking to YOU (AMR), you dimwit. You're such a flake.
Ask Mr. Religion: See, Ghost, you are all wrapped around the axle about man's words, but the plain fact is, as will be shown in the one-on-one, that your interpretation of Scripture is, well, wrong. Scripture will rebuke you and I pray you accept the correction.
ghost X: Not only that, but why should we believe one definition over another?
ghost X: It is very telling that you miss the point. Which version agrees with YOU? You claim that there are various definitions of the term, so how am I supposed to know which one is the one you think I believe?
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you are the one posting any link you can google. Odd, that is. You are talking to yourself now, no?
ghost X: We will debate the Bible or there will be no debate. I'm not debating the opinions of men. My opinions are worthless, and so are yours.
ghost X: So CARM is wrong? How am I supposed to know which view is the one that agrees with you? Now you know why I'm restricting the debate to the Bible.
Ask Mr. Religion: Find some scholarly books, Ghost. Do your homework.
ghost X: Here
ghost X: Okay Here
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you need to rely upon more scholarly references. Wiki is not one. Carry on, though!
Ask Mr. Religion: PM sent to Knight, Ghost. Check your mailbox.
ghost X: AMR is going to attempt to prove that I believe This
ghost X: He doesn't know who you are, so maybe we should discuss you. Perhaps we could rectify that.
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost, if you don't know who Jesus Christ is, then little else you have to say is of no significance, so this is the right topic to discuss.
ghost X: Why are you asking me to be "patient", am I not as patient as God has dcreed me to be? Do you have a problem with God's decrees?
Ask Mr. Religion: I am PMing Knight and you will be included so that we are all in agreement on the rules you have.
ghost X: You mean your double-minded Jesus. That's fine.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, I am trying to get my ill wife all settled for bed, so try being a wee bit more patient.
Ask Mr. Religion: The subject will be your Docetism, Ghost.
ghost X: Okay, so you don't have a topic in mind yet?
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost I will pick from among the verses you have used. Not a problem.
ghost X: Which subject AMR? I'm letting you pick that too. I think it's only fair that I know what the subject is the same time you do.
kmoney: See ya tomorrow, TOL.
kmoney:
ghost X: Please note everyone: I've let AMR pick any text in the Bible he "chooses"
ghost X: Surely there is some text in the Bible that I've used that you think was evidence that I believe those things or some text that you think I don't understand about Calvinism. Pick the text.
Ask Mr. Religion: OK, Ghost. I will get it all arranged and make the first post telling you the Scripture verse. Stay tuned.
ghost X: I'm waiting
ghost X: Pick one and then tell me which text you want to use to prove that I teach those false doctrines. Or tell me which text you want to use to defend Calvinism.
Nang: Trad: Stay out for awhile. Enter your opinions and thoughts later.
Ask Mr. Religion: Pick one Ghost.
Ask Mr. Religion: Your Docetism, Keswickianism, or your misunderstandings of Calvinism.
Ask Mr. Religion: Trad, click the X in your posts here and they are deleted.
ghost X: What are we discussing?
ghost X: AMR won't debate anything without the Westminister Confession to back him up.
Ask Mr. Religion: OK, ghost. I will get this set up. Note that your rule 3 is not applicable for one-on-ones. It will be just you and me.
kmoney: Take your quibbles somewhere else.
kmoney: Guys, the chatbox is for lovers, not fighters.
Nang: Trad: You have no dog in this fight.
Nang: Butt out, Trad.
ghost X: That's the way he likes it.
ghost X: The third link is you pretending I backed out. You are a fraud.
ghost X: Your second link is YOU backing out. LIAR.
ghost X: The rules in my post from you first link.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: your running- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...20#post2518220
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: the offer- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...70#post2518170
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost: the thread- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...47#post2516847
ghost X: Fine, we go by the rules I suggested in our previous discussion about this. Verse by verse, and no going forward until we either agree or come to an impasse.
Ask Mr. Religion: No so, Ghost. You know this. Like I said, pick one of the topics I suggested and we will find where our exegesis leads us. Put up, or at least stop wiggling.
ghost X: Nonsense. They know better. I offered to debate you one on one, but you refused, having rejected a verse by verse exegesis of the Bible in favor of your cut and paste opinions
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, what folks can see is a man doing all he can to avoid a direct confrontation where you would have to defend yourself.
ghost X: Calvinism is an anti-Christ religion, made up of Hitleresque superiortists
ghost X: And like I told you and all the TOL idiots who listen to you, all they have to do is look at that link to see that I have never come close to teaching anything "Keswick". You are confused and stupid.
Ask Mr. Religion: That said, Ghost, I suggest you stick to wailing about topics you don't know, like Calvinism. There's a one-on-one you might consider!
ghost X: If you want to debate someone who believes in all the crap, talk to andyc. He's an expert on claiming that the Holy Spirit gives him the power to stop coveting, and claims he never does.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you just don't get it. What you write about and declare is part and parcel Keswickianism. Deny it all you want. You need to own it. You want to rehabilitate yourself? Like I said, the one-on-one room is open.
ghost X: What? You idiot. The Keswick movement and the "Higher Life" movement are virtually the same. That was the point. Are you drunk, stupid, or both? I NEVER said anything close to there being no connection to Higher life and Keswick. LIAR.
Ask Mr. Religion: Yes, Ghost, you should beg off an actual direct encounter given this recent spate of posts. It would not be an equitable match.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost should have read the wiki item more carefully. It is dripping with Keswick references and he claims the Higher Life has no connections to it. A hoot!
ghost X: Wesley, like you, is a heretic. I reject a "second work of grace" or his "sinless perfection" nonsense. Go talk to the Nazarene church
bybee: This is not a good way to defend open-theism.
ghost X: I defend the truth on this site every day, dimwit. I just don't respond to your plagerized cut-n-paste 10 page long posts.
Ask Mr. Religion: Again, shall I assume you unwilling to defend your views?
ghost X: You're a moron. You have no case. Go play with your witch friend.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, click the Holiness link in that article and you will see how foolish you are sounding. You will have to do better to shake the Keswickian label. And especially avoid wiki items.
ghost X: Like I've said befiore, you are a liar and a fraud.
ghost X: I do not believe in any "second experiences". You cannot find a single post where I have ever made any such claim.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you can rely on that item if you want. It actually is an item that helps make my case. It is clear you don't know what you have fell into as a belief system.
ghost X: If you don't like my assessment of your corrupt theology, respond to the post which accurately defines it.
ghost X: Get over yourself, pervert. All anyone has to do is go Here and they will laugh at your suggestion that I believe in anything that resmbles "Keswick"
Ask Mr. Religion: So, shall I assume you unwilling and/or unable to withstand serious scrutiny of your odd views, preferring to linger in the crowds versus stepping into the ring with an able opponent?
Ask Mr. Religion: If you want to attempt to prove you are not a Keswickian then that sounds like a good topic for the one-on-one, no?
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, you are conceding already? That was fast.
Ask Mr. Religion: If you want to discuss Calvinism and seek to show it to erroneous that works for me.
Ask Mr. Religion: Ghost, there is this: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...40#post2597840 or your Docetism or your Keswickianism. So many choices, so pick the one you feel you have an advantage with defending. You are a gold mine of unorthodoxy.
Ask Mr. Religion: The one-on-one forum is very vacant, Ghost. Anytime you are ready to stand still long enough to come under scrutiny with no option to make drive-by posts, I'll be waiting.

Looks more like a temper-tantrum on your part more than anything else. But I would expect nothing less given your propensity to quibble over they way a person says something.

None the less, thanks for responding to the OP in the one-on-one and for asking Knight to move a few posts out of the one-on-one.

[ghost]

Looks more like a temper-tantrum on your part more than anything else. But I would expect nothing less given your propensity to quibble over they way a person says something.

None the less, thanks for responding to the OP in the one-on-one and for asking Knight to move a few posts out of the one-on-one.

The post proves that AMR never mentioned Apolloinarianism, which is what he chose to accuse me of teaching in the one on one. The post you quoted discusses ONLY Keswick, Docetism or Calvinism.

In the chatbox AMR chose to discuss Docetism READ THE POST, IDIOT. He has not done that. That is what we agreed to.

What's amazing to me is how many of you people on TOL side with messengers instead of the truth. I find that very interesting considering that you all put such an emphasis on character, and then you prove yourselves to have none.

[CabinetMaker]

The post proves that AMR never mentioned Apolloinarianism, which is what he chose to accuse me of teaching in the one on one. The post you quoted discusses ONLY Keswick, Docetism or Calvinism.

In the chatbox AMR chose to discuss Docetism READ THE POST, IDIOT. He has not done that. That is what we agreed to.

What's amazing to me is how many of you people on TOL side with messengers instead of the truth. I find that very interesting considering that you all put such an emphasis on character, and then you prove yourselves to have none.

I am very interested in the truth. I think that Calvinism is a distortion of the truth of the truth. I think that some of your interpretations of the gospel are also distortions of the truth. I think that the one-on-one will be an interesting discussion but I seriously doubt it will end in a definitive statement of what the truth really is.

That is just my opinion because I am also rather sure that some of my understanding regarding the truth of the Gospel is also distorted. There is no single man nor organized religion on Earth today that has perfect understanding of the truth. To claim otherwise is foolishness.

[nicholsmom]

The post proves that AMR never mentioned Apolloinarianism, which is what he chose to accuse me of teaching in the one on one. The post you quoted discusses ONLY Keswick, Docetism or Calvinism.

In the chatbox AMR chose to discuss Docetism READ THE POST, IDIOT. He has not done that. That is what we agreed to.

But you did protest, ghost. You claimed that you are no Docetist, in so many words. So I think it's rather generous of AMR to focus the one-on-one on the core of the Docetism heresy which, as I read it (though I'm no theologian) is the same as the core of the Apolllinarian heresy and the reason that Docetism is related to, or draws its heretical teachings from Apollinarianism.

So, partly because you hate the theological labels, partly because you, like any individual, cannot be fully pigeon-holed (are not in total agreement with any one theology or doctrine but your own), AMR has reduced the argument to the one heresy common to these two that you seem to share.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. Are you or are you not willing to discuss this one aspect of Docetism (the nature of Christ)? If you are, then stop all the posturing, admit that the nature of Christ is certainly an aspect of Docetism which you are willing to discuss as it relates to your own view of the nature of Christ, and get on with it.

[nicholsmom]

Steko--Even the Chalcedonian creed really does not say all the weird stuff that is in AMR's post about Jesus and Man having two spirits. That is what gives me heartburn. It just sounds very bizarre to me.

I have no problem with Jesus being Son of God and Son of Man.

How can He do that? There are only two ways that I can see for Him to be both god and man:
1) half God, half man
2) fully God, fully man - which is a supernatural paradox, that is, only possible for God

Do you see another way?

[ghost]

But you did protest, ghost. You claimed that you are no Docetist, in so many words. So I think it's rather generous of AMR to focus the one-on-one on the core of the Docetism heresy which, as I read it (though I'm no theologian) is the same as the core of the Apolllinarian heresy and the reason that Docetism is related to, or draws its heretical teachings from Apollinarianism.

There is absolutely no affiliation between Apollinarianism and Docetism. They are not even close. Again, it would be like him accusing me of being a Mormon, and then accusing me of being a Jehovah's Witness. The similarities on lie in the fact that they both teach a false idea about the identity of Jesus.

It simply amazes me how ignorant everyone on this site is.

So, partly because you hate the theological labels, partly because you, like any individual, cannot be fully pigeon-holed (are not in total agreement with any one theology or doctrine but your own), AMR has reduced the argument to the one heresy common to these two that you seem to share.

That's not even close to what happened. AMR changed the subject.

All he had to do is say... "I want to discuss your beliefs about the nature of Jesus. That you teach that Jesus does not have two natures". He did not do that. He has accused me of two beliefs (Docetism and the Keswick movement) in which I have no affiliation. He makes those two accusations in nearly every post where he speaks to me or about me. He offered to prove that I teach those things in light of my denials. I agreed and even gave him the choice to discuss either one in a One on One debate.

He then started the debate accusing me of something completely unrelated. And no one on this site has the integrity or intelligence to hold him accountable.

Are you or are you not willing to discuss this one aspect of Docetism (the nature of Christ)?

Absolutely! But, that is not what he is discussing. He changed the subject. How dense are you?

[graceandpeace]

I am very interested in the truth. I think that Calvinism is a distortion of the truth of the truth. I think that some of your interpretations of the gospel are also distortions of the truth. I think that the one-on-one will be an interesting discussion but I seriously doubt it will end in a definitive statement of what the truth really is.

That is just my opinion because I am also rather sure that some of my understanding regarding the truth of the Gospel is also distorted. There is no single man nor organized religion on Earth today that has perfect understanding of the truth. To claim otherwise is foolishness.

I agree, and it is pride in man that would claim otherwise. Knowledge puffeth up, everyone wants to believe that their form of 'knowledge' of the gospel is THE TRUTH; and then they want to judge the others outside of their form of truth as unsaved.. I think Jesus has a different idea......instead of judging us by knowledge, He judges our hearts...as we see written. Sincerity goes a long way with God, for love covers the multitude of sin...if we simply believe in Jesus Christ and that He died for our sins...and, was raised the third day; to glory, in order to make the way open for us, too. (He never lost the power to take His life back again...for He was God, in whom all power dwelled...this to me means, He could never of sinned.) Even in His fully man, state, what man seems to forget, is that at the SAME time, He was FULLY GOD. God cannot sin, and God cannot be tempted with sin.

Most of the time, those whom uphold 'knowledge' as the way to be saved; miss the forest for the trees...I know, I once did it, too.

There comes a time in a person's walk with God that you ultimately have to admit you do not know it all, and it is then you can find peace, among men.

Let God judge, I say; and stop making His simple and basic message such a hard thing to figure out.

Men and their creeds...that judge sincere hearts as outside of the faith that saves....get's on me nerves....

[ghost]

From Here

Docetism, (from Greek dokein, “to seem”), Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one. Though its incipient forms are alluded to in the New Testament, such as in the Letters of John (e.g., 1 John 4:1–3; 2 John 7), Docetism became more fully developed as an important doctrinal position of Gnosticism, a religious dualist system of belief arising in the 2nd century ad which held that matter was evil and the spirit good and claimed that salvation was attained only through esoteric knowledge, or gnosis. The heresy developed from speculations about the imperfection or essential impurity of matter. More thoroughgoing Docetists asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances. They consequently denied Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension into heaven. Milder Docetists attributed to Christ an ethereal and heavenly body but disagreed on the degree to which it shared the real actions and sufferings of Christ. Docetism was attacked by all opponents of Gnosticism, especially by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century.

Here is one definition of Docetism, which is inline with many other definitions as I will take the next several days to provide to all of you morons.

AMR accused me of teaching these false doctrines. I agreed to defend myself against his accusation that I teach these false doctrines. He changed the subject, and no one on this site has the integrity to hold him accountable.

[Sherman]

How can He do that? There are only two ways that I can see for Him to be both god and man:
1) half God, half man
2) fully God, fully man - which is a supernatural paradox, that is, only possible for God

Do you see another way?

Number one is just bone headed. 2 is correct. Have two souls is not a perquisite for 2 to be correct. That is just bizarre human reasoning. People need to stop trying to anyalize God and just take His word for what it says.

Here is my belief--Jesus is God incarnate. He did not have a human sin nature.