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

[Brother Ducky]

Ghost,
If I understand you correctly, you do not hold that Jesus had
[1] a human nature and
[2] a divine nature.

If true, whatever else you may or may not be, you certainly place yourself outside of traditional Christianity.

 

[Guyver]

:doh:
Accusing ktoyou of laziness when you didn't even bother to find out who she is :nono: Pathetic.

No, what's pathetic is trying to talk about something you know nothing about.

Do you know the attributes of a sociopath? Do you know what a sociopath is?

If not, then what's the point of your post? If you took the time to look up my point, then you would have to agree that my point stands.

You've been around here long enough for that.

 

[Lon]

Ask Mr. Religion: The subject will be your Docetism, Ghost.

Address this in the One-on-One. It is a waste of space and need only two things: 1) A request for a definition and how specifically it addresses your position (reading a few books isn't a poor suggestion, but simply ask him to clarify what specifically he's calling you on). In other words, ask him to say it without using the word (which would be the definiton).
2) Respond/enjoin the One-on-One

 

[nicholsmom]

No, what's pathetic is trying to talk about something you know nothing about.

From ktoyou's "About Me" tab on her profile page:

Occupation Retired psychologist, ENTJ

Maybe you could read a few of her posts concerning her work in forensic psychology before trying to suggest that she knows nothing of sociopathy

Honestly, it doesn't take much effort to discover these things...

Do you know the attributes of a sociopath? Do you know what a sociopath is?

ktoyou can tell you. It was she to whom you were responding when she asked you if you'd actually met ghost to make the diagnosis.

If not, then what's the point of your post?

It was an attempt to prevent your further embarrassing of yourself for ignorance of the one with whom you're conversing. Sorry I clearly failed :sigh: I do try.

You've been around here long enough for that.

You would think that I would quit trying to keep people from putting their own feet in their mouths, but it's the mother in me, you see.

 

[Guyver]

From ktoyou's "About Me" tab on her profile page:

Occupation Retired psychologist, ENTJ

Maybe you could read a few of her posts concerning her work in forensic psychology before trying to suggest that she knows nothing of sociopathy

Thank you nicholsmom for your kind words, and your attempt to keep me from putting my foot in my mouth.

I've never been to Ktoyou's profile page, so I wasn't aware of the information that you posted.

So, maybe I should be asking this question to Ktoyou, or for anyone else who is somewhat familiar with the topic at hand.

Can you tell me what are some of the primary attributes and behaviors of someone who is a sociopath?

 

[ghost]

Address this in the One-on-One. It is a waste of space and need only two things: 1) A request for a definition and how specifically it addresses your position (reading a few books isn't a poor suggestion, but simply ask him to clarify what specifically he's calling you on). In other words, ask him to say it without using the word (which would be the definiton).
2) Respond/enjoin the One-on-One

I did that Lon, but he ignored my countless requests.

It's impossible for me to read his mind, which is exactly what he was asking me to do. There was no way for me to know what resource he derived his view from, only that he is convinced that only his view is the correct one, but would never tell me what that was. I looked at several sources online, who were all pretty much saying the same thing (including CARM), but he said they were all wrong without telling me what is right. AMR is a schemer. He knew what he was doing, and he doesn't think he owes anyone an explanation.

Please go Here for more details.

 

[ghost]

Ghost,

If Jesus Christ did not possess a human will (along with a godly will), how did He submit His will to the Father's will, throughout His life and death?



"He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.'" Matthew 26:39

This is Scriptural proof that Jesus had a distinct human will from the Father's will, which proved to be in harmony with the will of God at all times and on all points.

But if Jesus submitted His human will to the divine will of the Father, it is evidence He obeyed and submitted from a distinct human nature than the divine in His incarnation.

It was the incarnated existence of the Son of Man who volitionally voiced from His human soul, this petition and plea.

It is a vital truth to note.

Nang

Those are good points, and I have a response, that I intend to incorporate in the discussion as it progresses.

 

[ghost]

Ghost,
If I understand you correctly, you do not hold that Jesus had
[1] a human nature and
[2] a divine nature.

If true, whatever else you may or may not be, you certainly place yourself outside of traditional Christianity.

Please explain what you think "nature" is?

 

[Ktoyou]

Thank you nicholsmom for your kind words, and your attempt to keep me from putting my foot in my mouth.

I've never been to Ktoyou's profile page, so I wasn't aware of the information that you posted.

So, maybe I should be asking this question to Ktoyou, or for anyone else who is somewhat familiar with the topic at hand.

Can you tell me what are some of the primary attributes and behaviors of someone who is a sociopath?

Sure, I will send you the psychoanalytic foundations for the psychopathic deviate, which is the underpinning of the first MMPI SD scale along with its description as a character disorder. Along with this the reasons for change in the 1960s toward the examination of sociological impact on morality, cross-examined with aspects of sociology and the conclusion for typing the wayward, in its many manifestations as Antisocial Personality Disorder, along with the political and forensic reasons to incorporate two different aetiologies of deviancy into one common diagnoses. Along with profile examples of the manifest difference between the psychopathic and sociopathic.

Since this is a forum on theology, you will have to pay my time, which I will wave to a contribution to TOL.

Or go here
Psychopathy vs. sociopathy

Hare writes that the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder."[52]

In the preface to the fifth edition of The Mask of Sanity, Cleckly stated, "... revisions of the nomenclature have been made by the American Psychiatric Association. The classification of psychopathic personality was changed to that of sociopathic personality in 1958", suggesting that he did not recognise any difference between the conditions.

"David T. Lykken proposes psychopathy and sociopathy are two distinct kinds of antisocial personality disorder. He believes psychopaths are born with temperamental differences such as impulsivity, cortical underarousal, and fearlessness that lead them to risk-seeking behavior and an inability to internalize social norms. On the other hand, he claims sociopaths have relatively normal temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence. Both personality disorders are the result of an interaction between genetic predispositions and environmental factors, but psychopathy leans towards the hereditary whereas sociopathy tends towards the environmental."

Keep in mind this David person read my work, and others like me, not the other way around. He also does not mention amorality, which has been observed, yet unfashionable to report today.:chew:

 

[Lon]

I did that Lon, but he ignored my countless requests.

It's impossible for me to read his mind, which is exactly what he was asking me to do. There was no way for me to know what resource he derived his view from, only that he is convinced that only his view is the correct one, but would never tell me what that was. I looked at several sources online, who were all pretty much saying the same thing (including CARM), but he said they were all wrong without telling me what is right. AMR is a schemer. He knew what he was doing, and he doesn't think he owes anyone an explanation.

Please go Here for more details.

This particular is a difficult discussion because we are wading through the very nature of God. The RC calls the trinity a mystery and rightly so for there are aspects that seem beyond our comprehension to attain when we get right down to it. When we are looking at Christ's nature, it can be a confusing subject as well so, for me, any discussion on this particular is win-win. If one is corrected in their thinking, no problem. If one is better able to express their thoughts so that others grasp the matter more clearly, it's a win as well.

I actually had this convo with AMR before you did when AMR addressed Enyart and Lamerson's Battle Royale. In the grandstands I mentioned:

AMRA-BEQ16 - "No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes."

Both a good question and answer here. I'd hope this will get some good meaningful interaction because it is one of the heavy-weight questions in theology needing really clear and thorough discussion. Philippians 2:6-12 comes to the forefront along with the other scriptures AMR cited. This discussion question is in introductory stages in my assessment. Lamerson and Enyart took the discussion here. I didn't see it addressed in depth. Perhaps it isn't necessary. Lamerson answers with a line similarly found in AMR's repsonse. BE skipped it altogether in redress. Perhaps Enyart/Lamerson/AMR are in agreement upon that particular?

The ensuing conversation with Cabinet Maker may help as you and AMR are going through a similar discussion (as well as the links given above). For my part in the conversation, I had adopted a faulty view of Christ's nature from a Professor and was corrected by Nang and AMR. I initially held that God died on the cross because Jesus was God. Here is the thinking behind my correction:
Q1: What is death?
A1: It is separation from life
Q2: Can God die?
A1: If so, He ceases to exist, is separated from life. Logically, it is impossible for God to die. Man's soul is destroyable, God's is not.
:. (therefore) When Christ died on the cross, whatever was human died, whatever was divine could not.
Hence, I came to the correct understanding that the second person in the Trinity could not die. A cross could not kill God.

I'm unsure if that helps, but I would say I could have been accused accordingly by my misheld belief prior to the particular discussion. I don't really look at labels of heresy as much as trying to ascertain specifically what I may hold incorrectly because I'm seeking to be orthodox (correct) and am open to these corrections in light of scriptural truth (not saying you aren't, just how I handle these particulars). BTW, AMR briefly describles his term definitions in the above link.

 

[Lon]

A good treatment for anyone following.

 

[ghost]

This particular is a difficult discussion because we are wading through the very nature of God.

Yes, Jesus has the very nature of God, I agree.

The RC calls the trinity a mystery and rightly so for there are aspects that seem beyond our comprehension to attain when we get right down to it.

And that is why acknowledging that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God is sufficient.

When we are looking at Christ's nature, it can be a confusing subject as well so, for me, any discussion on this particular is win-win.

Anyone who reads their Bible knows that Jesus has the nature of God. It is apparent. The difficulty comes for those who want to prove that Jesus has the nature of man. We know that Jesus has a real human body, born of a woman, so the debate about what the "nature" is might be more appropriate.

If one is corrected in their thinking, no problem. If one is better able to express their thoughts so that others grasp the matter more clearly, it's a win as well.

:up: I think that's possible so that a child can understand it. I am a simple, narrow minded, person. I prefer to strip away all of the unnecessary supposed intellectual chatter, and get to the point.

I had adopted a faulty view of Christ's nature from a Professor and was corrected by Nang and AMR. I initially held that God died on the cross because Jesus was God. Here is the thinking behind my correction:
Q1: What is death?
A1: It is separation from life
Q2: Can God die?
A1: If so, He ceases to exist, is separated from life. Logically, it is impossible for God to die. Man's soul is destroyable, God's is not.
:. (therefore) When Christ died on the cross, whatever was human died, whatever was divine could not.
Hence, I came to the correct understanding that the second person in the Trinity could not die. A cross could not kill God.

Lon, no one ceases to exist. Death is separation from the body. It can also be separation from God. God tasted death through the body of Jesus.

"But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." Heb 2:9

If God did not taste death through His human body, then you have God (who has a mind) departing to leave the Man Jesus to taste death with his mind (a double-minded being). Jesus said that those who believe in Him will never die John 11:26. Are you going to suggest that this was not true for Jesus?

1. Do you believe that when Jesus was resurrected that He was not God in the flesh?

2. If you think Jesus has two natures, where was Jesus (the Man) during those 3 days?

3. Paul says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Was this not true of Jesus?

4. Was God the Son sitting in heaven waiting for Jesus (the Man) to die so that the two of them would be one again?

5. Does the Man, Jesus, still have his own mind, nature, spirit/soul as he sits at the right hand of God?

I have many more questions to ask, but that's a good start.

I'm unsure if that helps, but I would say I could have been accused accordingly by my misheld belief prior to the particular discussion. I don't really look at labels of heresy as much as trying to ascertain specifically what I may hold incorrectly because I'm seeking to be orthodox (correct) and am open to these corrections in light of scriptural truth (not saying you aren't, just how I handle these particulars).

At least between you and AMR you admit you're still learning. :up:

 

[Guyver]

Since this is a forum on theology, you will have to pay my time, which I will wave to a contribution to TOL.

Or go here
Psychopathy vs. sociopathy

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, it failed to answer the question. I asked you to list the key behaviors and attributes of a sociopath.

Instead, you sent me a wiki link on psychopathy?

It seems to me that as a retired professional from the field, you could have selected a more reliable source.

Also, I'm not sure if you are trying to argue that there is no distinction between the two rather than both being a subset of the condition known as APD.

 

[godrulz]

A good treatment for anyone following.

We can only speculate on the exact relationship of two natures in one person, but we all must affirm that Jesus is not just Deity, not just humanity, but the God-Man, one person with two natures, fully God, fully man.

There are incarnational heresies that we must avoid to stay within the above parameters, regardless of imperfect understanding on things not fully revealed in a systematic, definitive way (cf. trinity which is not pure mystery since we do have revelation vs hidden, but finite cannot fully grasp infinite).

I tell JWs (they ask who ran universe while Jesus was dead if Jesus is God...shows wrong concept of death, trinity, incarnation) that God cannot die (in His eternal, uncreated, triune, immortal glory), but the one who died was God (the eternal Word/God made flesh; Deity adding humanity in one person).

 

[Lon]

Lon, no one ceases to exist. Death is separation from the body. It can also be separation from God. God tasted death through the body of Jesus.

Yes, exactly what I thought when I said "Yes" the first time. Check out that link, it may help though it is a bit heady. It describes what scripture must mean and what it cannot by walking through early church heresies.
I believe the Chaldean Creed has it right (AMR's Link).

If God did not taste death through His human body, then you have God (who has a mind) departing to leave the Man Jesus to taste death with his mind (a double-minded being). Jesus said that those who believe in Him will never die John 11:26. Are you going to suggest that this was not true for Jesus?

We have two things here to consider 1) a good and agreed upon definition of death and 2) What it means that God tasted death.
On this latter point, we could speculate but I believe the Early Church had it right that scripture must be express on this and whatever we say must sync. Those bishops were much more committed regarding heresy. They went to war with one another over these matters to the death. They were all in on their commitments so, for me, those coucils are important in wading through this discussion.

1. Do you believe that when Jesus was resurrected that He was not God in the flesh?

Not sure what you are asking here (and I might have to do some homework to answer sufficiently).

2. If you think Jesus has two natures, where was Jesus (the Man) during those 3 days?

As with the first question, this one seems to make a separation that Orthodox believers try to avoid. I.E. AMR's Chaldean link:

...according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten...

Note that the Son is not divided into two distinct persons but subsists as one.

3. Paul says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Was this not true of Jesus?

This would take quite a lot to explain my 'no' answer. It has to do with Jesus' work on the cross and what it effected for this verse to be true.
Briefly, yes for us, no, not for Him.

4. Was God the Son sitting in heaven waiting for Jesus (the Man) to die so that the two of them would be one again?

No, not two separate beings.

5. Does the Man, Jesus, still have his own mind, nature, spirit/soul as he sits at the right hand of God?

From the link I cited:

...when the Divine word became man, He remained one and the same in essence, attributes and personality; in all respects the same as before...

 

[ghost]

Note that the Son is not divided into two distinct persons but subsists as one.

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.

 

[godrulz]

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.

Ghost, toast (clink or burnt) or roast?

We need to avoid the JW illogic due to misunderstanding trinity/incarnation/Deity/humanity/death.

How much of the problem here is semantical/imprecision? Neither of you deny the Trinity/Deity/humanity/death/resurrection of Christ, so there are degrees of 'heresy' (salvific vs debatable).

 

[ghost]

Ghost, toast (clink or burnt) or roast?

We need to avoid the JW illogic due to misunderstanding trinity/incarnation/Deity/humanity/death.

How much of the problem here is semantical/imprecision? Neither of you deny the Trinity/Deity/humanity/death/resurrection of Christ, so there are degrees of 'heresy' (salvific vs debatable).

We also need to avoid claiming that Jesus has two natures, minds, souls/spirits.

I use to say that Jesus was not fully human/man, because of all the false teaching I had to counter that redefined the man He is. It was wrong for me to phrase it as such, but I did so to counter the "two-nature, two soul/spirit, double-minded Jesus. Jesus is the perfect man with God's nature, who had to learn to speak, to walk, etc.

 

[godrulz]

We also need to avoid claiming that Jesus has two natures, minds, souls/spirits.

I use to say that Jesus was not fully human/man, because of all the false teaching I had to counter that redefined the man He is. It was wrong for me to phrase it as such, but I did so to counter the "two-nature, two soul/spirit, double-minded Jesus. Jesus is the perfect man with God's nature, who had to learn to speak, to walk, etc.

You are right that how we define 'nature' may be part of the problem. AMR is right to insist on accepted definitions, not your personal one that is not standard/technical (how many debates go south over this issue with you?).

One person with two natures is defensible. Some other details like two wills is debatable in my mind. None of us say that Jesus is schizo/multiple personality, but we simply don't have clear revelation on how Deity/humanity relate in the unique (monogenes) person of Christ during the incarnation. Do we die on this hill and shed blood with brethren like we would with a JW over the Deity of Christ?

 

[Ktoyou]

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, it failed to answer the question. I asked you to list the key behaviors and attributes of a sociopath.

Instead, you sent me a wiki link on psychopathy?

It seems to me that as a retired professional from the field, you could have selected a more reliable source.

Also, I'm not sure if you are trying to argue that there is no distinction between the two rather than both being a subset of the condition known as APD.

You are a first rate idiot! I send you this:

"David T. Lykken proposes psychopathy and sociopathy are two distinct kinds of antisocial personality disorder. He believes psychopaths are born with temperamental differences such as impulsivity, cortical underarousal, and fearlessness that lead them to risk-seeking behavior and an inability to internalize social norms. On the other hand, he claims sociopaths have relatively normal temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and extremely low or extremely high intelligence. Both personality disorders are the result of an interaction between genetic predispositions and environmental factors, but psychopathy leans towards the hereditary whereas sociopathy tends towards the environmental."

Then you cannot see it addresses sociopaths? What you what is for me to give you, for free, information you have no right to request. If you are so interested in the topic, go to a psychological forum, I'm sure there are some out there.:listen::dunce: Do NOT ask me about this again!