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

Status
Not open for further replies.

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
If everyone agrees that nature does not entail physical characteristicss then ghost is a monophysite. So am I. What is wrong with that?
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
If everyone agrees that nature does not entail physical characteristicss then ghost is a monophysite. So am I. What is wrong with that?

Quite a lot . . .

But then neither you nor ghost seem open to learning from others, so what can be done or said to correct your view?

Nang
 

Lon

Well-known member
Then you disagree with AMR's claim that God did not die on the cross? You cannot say that Jesus is one person, and then also say that God was not in Christ when Jesus died. That is a contradiction.
Again, could a cross kill God? It wasn't on here, so I'd recommend starting a thread "Did God die on the Cross?"
Last year the Lutheran church discussed this topic at length to hammer out their view on the matter.
You'll get a good discussion going but do continue your one on one with AMR. It will only clarify discussion and He's better prepared for this particular discussion than I, having read all the books and gone through these indepth classes.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Again, could a cross kill God? It wasn't on here, so I'd recommend starting a thread "Did God die on the Cross?"
Last year the Lutheran church discussed this topic at length to hammer out their view on the matter.
You'll get a good discussion going but do continue your one on one with AMR. It will only clarify discussion and He's better prepared for this particular discussion than I, having read all the books and gone through these indepth classes.

JWs argue that Jesus is not God because who would run the universe if God was dead on the cross?! This is dumb and reflects zip understanding of trinity, Deity, incarnation, humanity, death.

The eternal, invisible, infinite God did not die in total on the cross (He is spirit and immortal).

We know that Jesus is not just spirit-Deity nor solely mortal humanity. He is God-Man, fully God, fully man (Deity/humanity in one person=unique). Deity cannot die without adding humanity (nor can the Father be hungry, thirsty, limited, weak without incarnating). Only the Word/Son became flesh, not the entire triune Godhead. The fulness of Deity is in Christ, but the Father and Holy Spirit did not assume flesh, so they did not die as humans. Mormon concepts of physical gods (Father included) are false, but the incarnation is true.

We can say that the One who died on the cross is God, but we should mean that this is the Son incarnate, not the triune God in total. The Father and Son are in relationship, but they are not the same personal distinction.

There is no reason to avoid two nature talk if we understand it correctly. I am still not sold on traditional two will talk though.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Again, could a cross kill God? It wasn't on here, so I'd recommend starting a thread "Did God die on the Cross?"
Last year the Lutheran church discussed this topic at length to hammer out their view on the matter.
You'll get a good discussion going but do continue your one on one with AMR. It will only clarify discussion and He's better prepared for this particular discussion than I, having read all the books and gone through these indepth classes.
Oops, AMR corrected me here. There was a previous discussion of the same (which also gives further context for Ghost and AMR's One on One).
 

Lon

Well-known member
We can say that the One who died on the cross is God, but we should mean that this is the Son incarnate, not the triune God in total. The Father and Son are in relationship, but they are not the same personal distinction.
That's pretty close to the Chaldean statement.
There is no reason to avoid two nature talk if we understand it correctly. I am still not sold on traditional two will talk though.
That would be another heresy altogether. The Creed makes it clear that the flesh and divine are indivisible.
 

Brother Ducky

New member
Please explain what you think "nature" is?

Ghost,
Sorry for the delay. I have been away from serious TOLing for a few days.

For the sake of discussion, I will roughly define "nature" as:

The qualities and characteristics that something what it is, and not something else.

I could elaborate or quote but I hope this will suffice for now.

Basicly, traditional Creedal Christianity has held that Jesus had everything to be "man" and everything to be "God."

Peace,
Rick
 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
Romans 5 says all who are in adam are condemned. 1 Corinthians 15 say all who are in adam die. The 2 nature crowd insists that Jesus was fully man in every conceivable way. If that is true then romans 5 and 1 corinthians 15 applies to Jesus as well and Jesus was born condemned and was appointed to die as all men are.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Romans 5 says all who are in adam are condemned. 1 Corinthians 15 say all who are in adam die. The 2 nature crowd insists that Jesus was fully man in every conceivable way. If that is true then romans 5 and 1 corinthians 15 applies to Jesus as well and Jesus was born condemned and was appointed to die as all men are.

How can the last (second) Adam be IN the first Adam?

Jesus Christ did not suffer death because of His humanity; He suffered death substitutionally for His people, in His humanity.

IOW's Jesus died Nang's death, not His own.

Nang
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Romans 5 says all who are in adam are condemned. 1 Corinthians 15 say all who are in adam die. The 2 nature crowd insists that Jesus was fully man in every conceivable way. If that is true then romans 5 and 1 corinthians 15 applies to Jesus as well and Jesus was born condemned and was appointed to die as all men are.

Physical death/depravity is genetic, but it is not moral. Sinners, redeemed saints, sinless Jesus all die physically secondary to the Fall.

Moral depravity is volitional, not genetic. Jesus is sinless and lacks moral depravity, unlike all of us.

You beg the question assuming your interpretation of Rom. 5 is infallible and that 'original sin' is truth, not tradition. The perfect humanity of Jesus is another matter distinct from moral depravity. The virgin conception relates to Deity becoming man, not the impeccability/sinlessness of Christ.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I find it amusing (?) that ghost is yelling at AMR to get to the point of the One on One while he refuses to engage the point of the One on One by posting biblical reasons for why he denies the two natures of Christ.

Nang
 

ghost

New member
Hall of Fame
I find it amusing (?) that ghost is yelling at AMR to get to the point of the One on One while he refuses to engage the point of the One on One by posting biblical reasons for why he denies the two natures of Christ.

Nang
What the hell are you talking about? The onus is on AMR to prove that I teach Docetism. He is to provide Biblical text and ask me questions regarding that text. He is not supposed to be telling us what he believes. He is supposed to proving what he claims I believe. I responded to the text, and to his questions about that very same text. All AMR has done is attempt to tell us what his views are, and critique my communication skills that don't meet his standards.

This is supposed to be a discussion, not me trying to defend what i believe by writing a thesis on the subject. So, you can stop with your lies, deception, and acts of witchcraft.
 

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
Physical death/depravity is
genetic, but it is not moral.
Sinners, redeemed saints,
sinless Jesus all die
physically secondary to the
Fall.
Moral depravity is
volitional, not genetic.
Jesus is sinless and lacks
moral depravity, unlike all
of us.
You beg the question
assuming your
interpretation of Rom. 5 is
infallible and that 'original
sin' is truth, not tradition.
The perfect humanity of
Jesus is another matter
distinct from moral
depravity. The virgin
conception relates to Deity
becoming man, not the
impeccability/sinlessness
of Christ.-----godrulz. How does this aimless rambling essay even come close to refuting a single point I made?
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
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?



Originally Posted by Ghost: No




Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
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?



Originally Posted by Ghost: No




Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?



Originally Posted by Ghost: 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.




Hmmm.. It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible. This is either a very concerning attitude on Ghost's part or its just Ghost being flippant. I am guessing it is the latter. Ghost has a tendency to become very flippant with people he does not care for and this seems to be the case here.
 

ghost

New member
Hall of Fame
Hmmm.. It appears as though Ghost does not believe that a person needs to have sound knowledge of biblical principles to either teach the bible or to hold a discussion with people about the meaning of the bible.
It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
It appears that you cannot read, and are in fact a liar and a slanderer. I never implied or said anything close to your false accusation.
So it wasn't you that typed "no" to the questions AMR asked you? Wow. You must have a Ghost writer working for you.
 

graceandpeace

New member
So it wasn't you that typed "no" to the questions AMR asked you? Wow. You must have a Ghost writer working for you.

In mho...people's intents can be misconstrued.

I don't believe Jesus had two nature's either....and, I also do not believe you have to interpret the bible knowing greek.

Languages and words..words and languages...a word does not change meanings; due to it being in a different language; and this is what Ghost is meaning, in mho..and, I agree with that concept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top