Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open View and Monophysitism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dialogos
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    There is a reason I had you on ignore; it is your obstinate nature of arrogance and stubborn refusal to be open to the possibility you might be wrong. Because of those your beliefs cannot be challenged and therefore cannot be tested so as to possibly be made stronger when you are right or corrected when you are wrong.

    Goodbye.
    Hasta.

    If you refuse to listen to reason, you can stay a heretic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    There is a reason I had you on ignore; it is your obstinate nature of arrogance and stubborn refusal to be open to the possibility you might be wrong. Because of those your beliefs cannot be challenged and therefore cannot be tested so as to possibly be made stronger when you are right or corrected when you are wrong.

    Goodbye.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dialogos
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    I never said that I thought it was funny.

    And denying the deity of Christ is heresy.
    Yes it is the Arian Heresy.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Misunderstanding the meaning of "human" to mean "having a human nature" is not.
    That's not a misunderstanding, its biblical anthropology. In addition to being common sense.

    If a being does not have a human nature, they aren't human.

    That you would continue to dispute this makes you profoundly obstinate, profoundly confused, or profoundly ignorant and perhaps it is all three.

    Arguing that being human does not necessitate a human nature is perhaps one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever encountered on TOL.

    The "nature" of a being is its very essence. It is what makes a duck a duck, a dog a dog, a bird a bird, a fish a fish and a lamb a lamb.

    The "nature" of a being is the very essence of that being. When God created Adam, the characteristics that set Adam apart from the rest of creation constituted Adam's human nature.

    So, if you are going to argue that Jesus didn't have a human nature, then you are going to have to argue that there was at least one human characteristic that Adam had the moment after God created Adam that Jesus did not have the moment after He was born.

    So what is that human characteristic?

    Second, it is clear that Jesus possessed a human nature because God is not limited to physical form. God is invisible (Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17), God is not limited to a specific geographic location (1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:24). The Man Jesus Christ, on the other hand, could be contained by the temple and was in fact inside the temple on multiple occasions. Jesus, the Man, did not fill the entire earth. Furthermore, Jesus is not invisible and could be seen by everyone.

    Thirdly, the human nature of Jesus is essential to the Resurrection.
    Jesus, the man, had a human spirit (Luke 23:46). It departed from His human body when He died. Jesus' human body was buried and was resurrected (the reunification of Jesus' human soul with His glorified body which ascended into heaven in Acts 1.)

    During those three days when the body of Christ was in the grave, the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity was not incomplete, was it? The Divine Nature of God the Son was not dead in any sense , Christ was not dead, in any respect, in regard to His divine nature, for t is not part of the divine nature to dwell bodily.

    But the humanity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God was incomplete. The human nature of Jesus Christ was dead, for Jesus soul was separated from His body, and it is part of the human nature to dwell in the body.


    Now, if He Jesus did not have a human nature, then Jesus had no need of that physical body. God doesn't need a body, its not part of His nature to exist in physical form. But the Man Jesus Christ had a human nature and part of our human nature is to exist in physical form and we are, in some sense, incomplete until we are reunited with our bodies in the resurrection.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by Dialogos View Post
    Corrected an error?

    Refusing to accept the humanity of Christ is not like missing the capital of a state on a geography test. Monophysitism is a heresy!

    You correct errors, you repent from heresy.

    Are you admitting that you held to a heretical position and are now repenting of that heresy?


    Oh, now I get it....



    Lighthouse the clown was just having fun with Christology.



    I, for one, don't think it is amusing to clown around with the nature of Jesus Christ and if you think that heresy is funny then I have serious concerns for you.


    What is wrong with you that you think heresy is funny?
    I never said that I thought it was funny.

    And denying the deity of Christ is heresy. Misunderstanding the meaning of "human" to mean "having a human nature" is not. After all, you're guilty of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dialogos
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    You need to learn to pay attention to what is going on around you. Partially I corrected an error,
    Corrected an error?

    Refusing to accept the humanity of Christ is not like missing the capital of a state on a geography test. Monophysitism is a heresy!

    You correct errors, you repent from heresy.

    Are you admitting that you held to a heretical position and are now repenting of that heresy?

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    and partially I'm playing games with you.
    Oh, now I get it....



    Lighthouse the clown was just having fun with Christology.



    I, for one, don't think it is amusing to clown around with the nature of Jesus Christ and if you think that heresy is funny then I have serious concerns for you.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    What is wrong with your brain that you keep missing this?
    What is wrong with you that you think heresy is funny?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by Dialogos View Post
    FYI,

    Lighthouse needs to take a little time and do some study before he can add anything of value to this conversation.

    Lighthouse, there is nothing wrong with taking a little time to get grounded in sound doctrine, there is everything wrong with pretending that it doesn't matter and continuing to advocate heresy here, or anywhere.

    Do yourself and others a favor and get clear on what you believe about Christ.

    The following is from this discussion:
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...07#post4031707


    Are you serious?

    You categorically denied the Humanity of Christ in post #7 of this thread.

    I've highlighted your heresy.



    Now you say:






    Do you have a different Christology every week?

    Seriously, you contradict yourself on essential Christian doctrine every three days now?

    Why don't you figure out what you actually believe and then you will have something to contribute of theological substance.

    Until then, all you are doing is breeding confusion for yourself and for others.
    You need to learn to pay attention to what is going on around you. Partially I corrected an error, and partially I'm playing games with you. I've already basically told you this and yet you still don't get it. What is wrong with your brain that you keep missing this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dialogos
    replied
    FYI,

    Lighthouse needs to take a little time and do some study before he can add anything of value to this conversation.

    Lighthouse, there is nothing wrong with taking a little time to get grounded in sound doctrine, there is everything wrong with pretending that it doesn't matter and continuing to advocate heresy here, or anywhere.

    Do yourself and others a favor and get clear on what you believe about Christ.

    The following is from this discussion:
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...07#post4031707

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Did I deny His humanity?
    Are you serious?

    You categorically denied the Humanity of Christ in post #7 of this thread.
    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Jesus is God, and Jesus is Man. Jesus is not human.
    I've highlighted your heresy.



    Now you say:
    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Jesus is human. What of it?




    Do you have a different Christology every week?

    Seriously, you contradict yourself on essential Christian doctrine every three days now?

    Why don't you figure out what you actually believe and then you will have something to contribute of theological substance.

    Until then, all you are doing is breeding confusion for yourself and for others.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dialogos
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Being a human being does not necessitate a human nature.


    You're a clown.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by Dialogos View Post
    Without evidence.

    Just read 1 Tim 2:5

    For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men (ἀνθρώπων), the man ( ἄνθρωπος) Christ Jesus, (1Ti 2:5 ESV)

    Here it is in Greek.

    εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,

    The word "men" is the plural of the Greek word ἄνθρωπος, and Jesus is referred to, in the word of God, as ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, (the man Christ Jesus).

    The very same Greek word that is used to describe the human beings that Christ has become the mediator of, is used to describe Christ!!!!!!

    Its painfully obvious in the Greek. Either Jesus is not the mediator between God and humans or Jesus is a human because the same word is used to describe both the humans Christ mediates and Christ Himself.

    That's why the New English Translation translates the verse the way it does.

    I find it interesting that you are willing to ignore the translation of those Greek scholars in order to trust your own depraved intuitions on the matter.

    If I were you, I wouldn't disregard those who have studied this far in excess of your ability to understand the Greek language, you are on dangerous ground.


    I don't need to assume about your ignorance regarding Greek. You have demonstrated it on this thread. That's not an insult, its just an observation. If you want to learn you will have to humble yourself and actually consider the input of those who know more than you.

    We will see how quickly you are able to see truth and respond to it. If I were you, I wouldn't trust so heavily on my own intuitions so far those intuitions have only led you to heresy.

    You are lost.

    You are on your way to hell.

    You need to repent of this heresy and come to know the true Christ who is fully God and fully human.


    This is nonsense and is just as stupid as claiming that being a duck does not equate to having a duck nature.



    If having a "duck nature" doesn't make you a duck, I don't know what would.


    No you don't. One cannot be "fully man" without possessing a human nature.
    Being a human being does not necessitate a human nature. And you have failed to prove it is necessary to the state of being human. But having a human nature certainly does make you a human.

    And if you haven't figured out you're being trolled by now you need to take a break. You really need to relax.
    Last edited by Lighthouse; September 2nd, 2015, 03:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dialogos
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    You have given me man's definition, and then insisted that God defines "man" as "human being, with a human nature" without any evidence.
    Without evidence.

    Just read 1 Tim 2:5

    For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men (ἀνθρώπων), the man ( ἄνθρωπος) Christ Jesus, (1Ti 2:5 ESV)

    Here it is in Greek.

    εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,

    The word "men" is the plural of the Greek word ἄνθρωπος, and Jesus is referred to, in the word of God, as ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, (the man Christ Jesus).

    The very same Greek word that is used to describe the human beings that Christ has become the mediator of, is used to describe Christ!!!!!!

    Its painfully obvious in the Greek. Either Jesus is not the mediator between God and humans or Jesus is a human because the same word is used to describe both the humans Christ mediates and Christ Himself.

    That's why the New English Translation translates the verse the way it does.

    I find it interesting that you are willing to ignore the translation of those Greek scholars in order to trust your own depraved intuitions on the matter.

    If I were you, I wouldn't disregard those who have studied this far in excess of your ability to understand the Greek language, you are on dangerous ground.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    You really shouldn't assume. Especially in underestimating my ability to learn, quickly.
    I don't need to assume about your ignorance regarding Greek. You have demonstrated it on this thread. That's not an insult, its just an observation. If you want to learn you will have to humble yourself and actually consider the input of those who know more than you.

    We will see how quickly you are able to see truth and respond to it. If I were you, I wouldn't trust so heavily on my own intuitions so far those intuitions have only led you to heresy.

    You are lost.

    You are on your way to hell.

    You need to repent of this heresy and come to know the true Christ who is fully God and fully human.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    FYI: "human being" does not equate to having a human nature.
    This is nonsense and is just as stupid as claiming that being a duck does not equate to having a duck nature.



    If having a "duck nature" doesn't make you a duck, I don't know what would.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Also, I still believe Jesus was fully God and fully man.
    No you don't. One cannot be "fully man" without possessing a human nature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by Dialogos View Post
    In english...

    Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Oxford dictionaries, Cambridge dictionaries online, TheFreeDictionary.com, yourdictionary.com,Macmillan Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, etc...

    They all define man as an adult male human being.

    But wait! That's not all folks...

    Friberg's Greek Lexicon, The United Bible Societies Greek Dictionary, Thayer's Greek Dictionary and BDAG, all define ανθρωπος as a "human being."

    And most importantly, God defines ανθρωπος as a human being because every single time it is used in the Greek NT in the singular it refers to a male human being and every single time it is used in the plural it refers to either a group of male human beings or to a mixed group of male and female human beings.

    There isn't a single instance in the entire NT where ανθρωπος is employed to refer to a non-human and I challenge you to find a single instance in which it doesn't.
    You have given me man's definition, and then insisted that God defines "man" as "human being, with a human nature" without any evidence.

    Because the men who worked on these sources actually know Greek whereas you are ignorant of the original languages of the bible.
    You really shouldn't assume. Especially in underestimating my ability to learn, quickly.

    FYI: "human being" does not equate to having a human nature.

    Also, I still believe Jesus was fully God and fully man.

    Irrelevant.

    Your erroneous argument was that a human nature was synonymous with a sinful nature.

    Adam clearly disproves this assumption as Adam's human nature was not sinful until the fall. An honest man would just admit he erred and learn something.
    Thanks to Adam it is synonymous, until one is saved.

    Now you are just backtracking.
    If you say so.

    These are your words, Lighthouse.

    Admit you were wrong and learn something.
    Wrong about what?

    Ok, then you tell us, what kind of being does being a man make someone?

    Are you a man?

    Does that make you a monkey?...a donkey?...a pig?

    What kind of species does being a man make you?
    A human being.

    You're a heretic and you need to repent.
    Or maybe you're just not paying enough attention.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dialogos
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Whose definition?
    In english...

    Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Oxford dictionaries, Cambridge dictionaries online, TheFreeDictionary.com, yourdictionary.com,Macmillan Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, etc...

    They all define man as an adult male human being.

    But wait! That's not all folks...

    Friberg's Greek Lexicon, The United Bible Societies Greek Dictionary, Thayer's Greek Dictionary and BDAG, all define ανθρωπος as a "human being."

    And most importantly, God defines ανθρωπος as a human being because every single time it is used in the Greek NT in the singular it refers to a male human being and every single time it is used in the plural it refers to either a group of male human beings or to a mixed group of male and female human beings.

    There isn't a single instance in the entire NT where ανθρωπος is employed to refer to a non-human and I challenge you to find a single instance in which it doesn't.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse

    What's the NET?
    The New English Translation, a translation from a group of Greek scholars out of Dallas Theological Seminary including Dan Wallace who has authored koine Greek textbooks used in seminaries around the world.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    And why am I supposed to accept this?
    Because the men who worked on these sources actually know Greek whereas you are ignorant of the original languages of the bible.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Adam wasn't divine.
    Irrelevant.

    Your erroneous argument was that a human nature was synonymous with a sinful nature.

    Adam clearly disproves this assumption as Adam's human nature was not sinful until the fall. An honest man would just admit he erred and learn something.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    I didn't say it was synonymous. I'm human, but I've been set free from sin and made righteous [not necessarily in that order.
    Now you are just backtracking.

    These are your words, Lighthouse.
    Originally posted by Lighthouse, 8/29, 8:14 PM

    Human nature is a sinful nature.
    Admit you were wrong and learn something.


    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    You still haven't shown that being a man makes Him human, or gives Him a human nature.
    Ok, then you tell us, what kind of being does being a man make someone?

    Are you a man?

    Does that make you a monkey?...a donkey?...a pig?

    What kind of species does being a man make you?

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    You're too easy.
    You're a heretic and you need to repent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lighthouse
    replied
    Originally posted by Dialogos View Post


    Nope.

    Being a man (ανθροπος) is, by definition, a human male.
    Whose definition?

    Consequently the NET translates 1 Tim 2:5 as follows.

    "For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, (1Timothy 2:5 NET)"
    What's the NET?

    Look it up in any Greek lexicon you like.

    I'll give you two:

    Gingrich's Greek Lexicon:
    Ανθροπος: human being, person;

    The United Bible Societies Greek Lexicon
    Ανθροπος: man, human being, person,
    And why am I supposed to accept this?


    Wrong again.

    Adam had a human nature from the very moment God breathed life into him. His nature was not corrupted by sin until the fall.

    Gen 1:27-31

    God looked upon His creation, including Adam, a human being with a human nature, and said it was very good.

    It was the fall that corrupted the human nature. Adam was not created a sinner.

    Incidentally, the parity between Adam and Christ is essential to Paul's argument in Romans 5:19

    "For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Ανθροπος) many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one Man (Ανθροπος) many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:19 NET, Greek explanations added)"

    Through the transgression of the first man came the imputation of sin and through the obedience of the God-Man came the imputation of righteousness.
    Adam wasn't divine.

    Lighthouse, you aren't thinking clearly about this. Being human is not synonymous with being sinful. Adam was not created a sinner, but he was created a human.
    I didn't say it was synonymous. I'm human, but I've been set free from sin and made righteous [not necessarily in that order].

    Yes, because Jesus was the Only Perfect Human that ever lived. He did what Adam did not, He lived a human life in perfect obedience to God.
    You still haven't shown that being a man makes Him human, or gives Him a human nature.

    This is a foolish statement that has tragic consequences.

    Yes.

    Yes,

    No, and this proves that you are not a Christian, you are a heretic and a non-believer.

    Lighthouse, your responses here grieve me. I hope you will look past our past disagreements and heed my warnings to repent of this heresy.
    You're too easy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ask Mr. Religion
    replied
    Originally posted by Dialogos View Post

    Adam had a human nature from the very moment God breathed life into him. His nature was not corrupted by sin until the fall.
    Yes!

    This is the root of the matter and the cause of much confusion by those that loosely toss about "the flesh" or "body, mind, spirit" on matters of Biblical anthropology. Folks like LH, sozo, etc., have trichotomous views and this leads them down the slippery slope of all manners of error.



    In my experience over the years, "trichotomy" has become a shibboleth of sorts in identifying forthcoming error in the doctrinal views of those that claimed man was tri-partite. Riddlebarger's 1995 paper has proven quite prescient.

    AMR

    Leave a comment:


  • Dialogos
    replied
    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    No argument there.

    To say He has a human nature because He is a Man is an assumption.


    Nope.

    Being a man (ανθροπος) is, by definition, a human male.

    Consequently the NET translates 1 Tim 2:5 as follows.

    "For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, (1Timothy 2:5 NET)"


    Look it up in any Greek lexicon you like.

    I'll give you two:

    Gingrich's Greek Lexicon:
    Ανθροπος: human being, person;

    The United Bible Societies Greek Lexicon
    Ανθροπος: man, human being, person,

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Human nature is a sinful nature.

    Wrong again.

    Adam had a human nature from the very moment God breathed life into him. His nature was not corrupted by sin until the fall.

    Gen 1:27-31

    God looked upon His creation, including Adam, a human being with a human nature, and said it was very good.

    It was the fall that corrupted the human nature. Adam was not created a sinner.

    Incidentally, the parity between Adam and Christ is essential to Paul's argument in Romans 5:19

    "For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Ανθροπος) many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one Man (Ανθροπος) many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:19 NET, Greek explanations added)"

    Through the transgression of the first man came the imputation of sin and through the obedience of the God-Man came the imputation of righteousness.


    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Are you saying Jesus had a sinful nature? Of course you're not.
    Lighthouse, you aren't thinking clearly about this. Being human is not synonymous with being sinful. Adam was not created a sinner, but he was created a human.
    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    And the Bible tells us that Jesus was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in actual sinful flesh. [Romans 8:3]
    Yes, because Jesus was the Only Perfect Human that ever lived. He did what Adam did not, He lived a human life in perfect obedience to God.


    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Jesus does not have to be human to be a Man.
    This is a foolish statement that has tragic consequences.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Jesus is God,
    Yes.

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    and Jesus is Man.
    Yes,

    Originally posted by Lighthouse
    Jesus is not human.
    No, and this proves that you are not a Christian, you are a heretic and a non-believer.

    Lighthouse, your responses here grieve me. I hope you will look past our past disagreements and heed my warnings to repent of this heresy.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X