Bad form Nang, you opened the door to a sidebar with your post above. Now your angry it's getting derailed? :idunno:
Grandstand discussion: "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ"
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
Bad form Nang, you opened the door to a sidebar with your post above. Now your angry it's getting derailed? :idunno:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Inzl,
Your attempt to engage me in a debate about the creeds, violates the purpose of this thread and this particular forum.
Such amounts to hi-jacking.
You deserved to be reported and if Knight issues you an infraction, you deserve that, too, IMO.
And your complaint prolongs the hi-jacking.
Please cease and desist.
Nang
Uh-oh, now you've done it! Watch out for the flying butt-monkeys! :shocked:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
You are correct.
I should have never responded to her opinion in the first place.
I apologize for that, but the report was warranted.
Nang
"Jesus Christ Himself claimed to be the "Son of God," as well as the "Son of Man," if you require scriptural proofs"
These statements do not prove the bizarre theology in AMR's post.
We'll see how the debate between Ghost and AMR pans out. I think Ghost will win.
These statements do not prove the bizarre theology in AMR's post.
We'll see how the debate between Ghost and AMR pans out. I think Ghost will win.
The early Creeds were developed when not everybody had regular access to the written Word and not everyone could even read. Believers needed a concise, to the point statement concerning the essentials of what comprised their faith.
The word Creed comes from the Latin verb 'credo' which means 'I believe'. What is the gist of what one believes? I could say "I believe the following:" and then begin to quote the Bible verbatim from Genesis to Revelation, which is not likely or even practical. Or, one could say "I believe/credo and quote ICo 15:3-8 which is believed to originate from a very early 'creed' among the believers of that time.
During certain periods in early church history believers were being severely persecuted and killed for their faith and they needed something that could be committed to memory and held on to. Also, there were 'creedal confessions' or statements of faith that were recited when being received as a new believer among the ranks.
Whether one deems some of the creeds to be in harmony with scripture or not, each one must decide, but if one does agree with Nicea or Chalcedon, for example, they are very carefully worded formulas which help one think through what the limits are when speaking of the truths pertaining to GOD and the incarnation.
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.
I have no problem with Jesus being Son of God and Son of Man.
:up:
Why wouldn't you root for the truth?
Do you see this as some sort of sporting event?
(1 Tim 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
As we see, the above verse proves you wrong.
Or maybe you can explain the geneology of Jesus in Matthew 1?
This one on one will be really easy for AMR.
andyc
New member
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.
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 :rotfl:
ghost X: Okay Here :rotfl:
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 :rotfl:
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.
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 :rotfl:
ghost X: Okay Here :rotfl:
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 :rotfl:
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.
Last edited:
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.
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?
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.
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
New member
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.
- Status