Grandstand discussion: "Ghost's Views on The Nature of Christ"
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
Nang
TOL Subscriber
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
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.
It is hard to spell.
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
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
That's pretty close to the Chaldean statement.
That would be another heresy altogether. The Creed makes it clear that the flesh and divine are indivisible.
Brother Ducky
New member
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
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
| 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.
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.
Brother Ducky
New member
Would you please elaborate on your particular understanding on the nature of Christ?
Peace,
Rick
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
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