One on One: Ghost's Views of The Nature of Christ

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I want to thank Ghost, also known here at TOL as Sozo, Mystery, or Door, for agreeing to this discussion.

We have both agreed to these rules per Ghost's request:

1. One question at a time
2. We don't move to a new question, until the first question is settled that we are either in agreement or immovable
3. I [Ghost] do not have to answer questions from anyone else
4. Neither party is allowed to post a link
5. You [AMR] can quote my posts from the one on one. Not posts from previous discussions. This is a debate about your claim that I teach a heresy. You must prove it from the Bible, and my words in the one on one.​

In his many personas in these forums Ghost has taken it upon himself to proclaim a peculiar brand of theology, based upon his interpretations of Scripture, and has felt no hesitation to condemn those that disagree with his views as lost, hell-bound, and sin-bent. I wanted to engage Ghost specifically because I believe his views about Jesus Christ are not warranted from Scripture, therefore, a great deal of what he has to say needs to be carefully moderated in light of what I view are his errors. For me there are only two important questions in life, “Who is God?” and “Who is Jesus Christ?”. By getting the answers to these questions wrong one is in danger of creating an intellectual idol then going off and worshiping it at one’s mortal and perhaps even eternal peril.

Apollinaris of Laodicea, influenced by Plato’s trichotomous view of man (body/flesh, soul, spirit), believed that Divine Logos, God the Son, had assumed a human body and taken the place of the human soul. Apollinarianism, a form of Docetism, thus believes Jesus Christ possessed but one nature, and no human soul.

It may come as a surprise to some, as we will see in this discussion, that Ghost adopts the basic Apollinarian position, including its underlying Platonic tri-partite view of man. Ghost denies that Jesus Christ possessed a human soul, and Ghost denies Jesus Christ possessed a human nature. In fact, Ghost will argue, as he has in the past, that in order for Jesus Christ to have a human soul, Christ would have had to have two minds, two wills, and two sets of emotions, as well as two identities.

My position in this discussion will be, from the perspective of the Incarnation, that which has not been assumed has not been saved. Therefore, when discussing the Incarnate Jesus Christ, I will argue from the Scriptures that I will pose to Ghost to interpret, followed by my own, that the Person of Jesus Christ possessed two natures, fully-God and fully-Man, and a human soul. This union of the divine with the human in the Person of Jesus Christ is such that it cannot be separated, confused, mixed, or divided.

With that background in mind, per the rules for the discussion, set by Ghost, we now begin.

Ghost,

In the following verse we read:

Hebrews 1:3 (NASB)
1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Can you provide your interpretation of this passage from Scripture, particularly as it relates to the nature of the Jesus Christ?

AMR

 

[ghost]

Hebrews 1:3 (NASB)
1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

I am responding to your questions under protest, as you changed the subject of the discussion from what we agreed upon.
You need to apologize for your error or intentional deception.


The "He" in the verse in question is referring to Jesus, and as your opening post rightfully suggests, it is essential that we conclude who Jesus is.
I fully admit that I do not believe that Jesus had two natures, two minds, or two Spirits (which to your understanding is the same as two souls since you believe that man is a dichotomy).


Jesus is the radiance of His (God's) glory.

That is, Jesus is the light of God that comes into the world and reveals to us all that God is (His glory). In other words, God Himself has come among men as the light of the world John 9:5 so that we might see and know God. He has done this in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the eternal God, and has come in the likeness of sinful flesh to be the offering for sin Romans 8:3.

Jesus is the exact representation (image) of His (God's) nature.

The exact representation or image is actually one word charaktér which is where we get the word "character" from. Jesus is God manifested in the flesh 1 Timothy 3:16. They have the exact same nature. There is no difference in the nature of God and the nature of Jesus. They are of the same substance, same essence. If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father John 14:9. They are eternally the same. Jesus, being manifested in the flesh, has the same nature as the Father. The person of Jesus Christ is God in human flesh.

Jesus upholds all things by the word of His power


I have no idea how AMR will interpret the word "all" here, so I'm going to use it the way I believe it was intended by the writer.

All things were created by Him (Jesus) and for Him (Jesus) Col 1:16-17. He created the worlds by speaking, and He holds all things together by his word. This same Jesus who walks among men in human flesh is the same Jesus who created all things, and who holds all things together. The writer of Hebrews wants to solidify in our minds that this same Jesus is the eternal God who said "let there be light" Gen 1:3.

Jesus made purification of sins

This is an essential point to our discussion. The writer of Hebrews is telling us that the same Jesus who is the eternal God, and who has come in the likeness of sinful flesh, in the appearance of a man Phil 2:8, and is the same nature as the Father, is the same Jesus who died on the cross. When Jesus died on the cross, it was God who died on the cross. How do we know this? Because as Paul tells us "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting their trespasses against them" 2 Corinthians 5:19. If God did not die on the cross, then God was not in Christ at the moment when the world was being reconciled. You might ask "how can God die?". If you understand what death is, then you can understand how God died for our sins. Jesus said that those who believe in Him will never die John 11:26, yet we all taste death. That is, our bodies die, but our spirit does not die. We are a new creation 2 Corinthians 5:17, having been made alive in the spirit Rom 8:10. God tasted death in the person of Jesus Christ Hebrews 2:9. He died for our sins on the cross. He (God the Son) made purification for our sins.

Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Having made purification for our sins, the same Jesus who died on the cross, is the same Jesus who sat down at the right hand of God Hebrews 10:12



This is all I will say on this for now, even though I have a great deal more to say later. But, for now, I will allow AMR to respond to the text, and to explain any differences he sees with the text or my understanding of it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Response to Protests from Ghost

Response to Protests from Ghost

Ghost Protests

I am responding to your questions under protest, as you changed the subject of the discussion from what we agreed upon.
You need to apologize for your error or intentional deception.

Ghost,

Recall from the chat discussion on the evening of 2/1/2011, I listed three things worthy of discussion as I see two of them as heterodoxy: your Docetism and Exchanged Life views. The third was your gross misunderstandings of Calvinism.

Following this chatbox discussion, you asked me to pick one of the topics, and I did—your Docetism, which is nothing more than Ghost’s Views on the Nature of Christ. I have the PM stating this clearly to which you agreed, and which Knight was copied on, and can produce it for those that need to see it for themselves.

That you do not understand the connection between Docetism and the Apollinarianism views you espouse, or that these views go directly to your views on the nature of Christ is irrelevant. As I clearly told you in the chatbox discussion, stop looking at error-ridden Wikipedia articles and find some scholarly books to do your homework about what persons mean when they say “Docetism” in theological discussions. Had you done so, you would have found the topic Docetism relates to the views of the “nature of Christ” and means subjects such as Christ’s divinity, manhood, incarnation, Personhood, essence, substance, etc. Within this spectrum of topics men from history have adopted various views about these topics, men whose views have often become immortalized eponymous -isms, e.g., Apollinaris—Apollinarianism, Arius—Arianism, etc.

So, the plain fact is that “Ghost’s Views on the Nature of Christ”, which clearly includes previously defined labels, are what we are discussing. I have categorized your views on this subject as they have been so categorized for over 1700 years.

Lest anyone doubt my agenda, let me make it very clear. You, Ghost, are not some new believer or shrinking violet, but one who has declared himself to a teacher of Scripture and prolific arbiter of the destiny of others. I am not obliged to treat you with the same gentility I would someone of a lesser claim to their abilities. Rather, per Scripture, I am going to be holding you to a higher standard, being very direct with you. And, per the rules you insisted upon, I will be using your own views along with my responses to those views, to demonstrate my position from the Scripture we are discussing, that you need to accept that you possess some seriously aberrant views concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. In other words, it is my specific intent, from Scripture, to expose these views of yours (Sozo/Mystery/Door/Ghost) to the light of day. This is in order that the unsuspecting or weaker-brethren can at least be more fully informed and that others that may view your self-proclaimed authoritative teachings of Scripture are perhaps buying into a house (Ghostism) built upon a theological foundation of sand.

It is clear you welcome the label Exchanged Lifer, so perhaps by the time this discussion ends, you will also welcome the label Docetist and/or Apollinarian and all the import these labels include.

I fully realize you nuance nearly every theological view, effectively creating a belief system that can be euphemistically called Ghostism. Nevertheless, these many nuances of yours, which you often appeal to in order to attempt to distance yourself from the plain facts when someone attaches a label to them, do not separate you from the categories defined. Your quibbles about how much of a Docetist or Apollinarian you may be are nothing more than the inconsequential quibbles of the wee bit pregnant.

We both agreed to this topic and your rules and I intend to hold up my end and I fully expect you to do the same.

As will be shown in my forthcoming response related to the text from Hebrews, your own words already admit what I have sought to achieve, and your protests, while duly noted, are without merit.

Stay tuned.

AMR

 

[ghost]

Moved Here

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ghost Reacts

Ghost Reacts

Ghost,

- We are discussing your views of the nature of Christ.
- We will be using verses I select for you to interpret along those lines.
- I will respond to your interpretations with my own.
- We will go back and forth, discussing these interpretations until we reach agreement or impasse.
- Then I will post another verse, and go through the same steps above.

These are the rules you agreed to.

Rather than hide behind cryptic games of twenty questions used by others, I even extended you the courtesy of laying out my agenda for this one-on-one in my opening post. This way you know very clearly where I am coming from.

I then proceeded with the discussion, per the rules, of asking you to provide an explanation of text from Scripture. You have responded, but are apparently incapable of resisting the need to complain and lay some pipe in hopes of providing you a face-saving exit down the road.

You can deny all of what I have claimed as your views before we have even proceeded. In fact, you could have stated, in response to my opening post, that you disagree with my assertions and will demonstrate as much in your own posts. Instead you inject a new element to the discussion, protesting about how badly you are being treated, that is plainly unwarranted.

So why not ratchet the theatrics down a notch or two so we can proceed and I need not stop working on my response just to chase you down all the rabbit holes you are digging?

AMR

 

[ghost]

Moved Here

 

[ghost]

:yawn:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR Interprets Hebrews 1:3

AMR Interprets Hebrews 1:3

My response to the Hebrews passage will comprise two parts. The first is my interpretation of the passage. The second will be my response to Ghost’s interpretation taking into account what I have written. It would be helpful to the discussion, Ghost, if you refrain from responding until I have responded to your interpretation of the passage.

The passage we are discussing is:

Hebrews 1:3 (NASB)
1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,


A Brief Summary

From the phrase the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, we see the Son revealing in His person, and not merely in His words, the reality of God, who continues to sustain His creation and the ordering of the events of history by the same word of His power that had brought everything into existence in the first place.

From Scripture we know that the object of divine revelation has always been fellowship between God and mankind and we now see Hebrews making things clear that the Son’s role was to provide purification of sins. This passage anticipates the argument we will later read in Hebrews 2:14-18 and in following passages. These passages speak of the need for the Son to share our humanity, suffering and dying, so that He fulfills the high-priestly role of atoning for our sins. God’s final word to us is not merely the perfect revelation of His character in Jesus Christ, but also Christ’s saving work, thus making it possible for mankind to enjoy everything promised by God for His people in these last days (verse 2).

The sequel to Jesus Christ’s atoning work was His sitting down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (see Psalm 110:1). So important is the heavenly enthronement of the Son of God that the writer of Hebrews in this passage does not mention of the resurrection and ascension that made it possible. Instead, as the introduction of Hebrews comes to a close, the writer telegraphs that he is about to tease out the implications of the enthronement of Jesus Christ.


The Form of the Opening of Hebrews

Verse three from Hebrews Chapter 1 forms a portion of a chiastic form of the opening first four verses:

A
ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας … ἐν τοῖς προφήταις … ἐλάλησεν … ἐν υἱῷ
“God spoke to the fathers … through the prophets … he has spoken … by his Son” (v. 1–2a)

B
ὅν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων
“Whom he appointed heir of everything” (v.2b)

C
δι' οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας
“and who yet is the one through whom he created the world” (v. 2c)

C’
ὅς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα … καὶ χαρακτὴρ … φέρων τε τὰ πάντα
“This Son, although the radiance … and exact representation … and although sustaining the universe” (v. 3a–b)​

B’
καθαρισμὸν … ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξια
“yet made purification for sins and then sat down at the right hand” (v. 3c)​

A’
τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ’ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα.
“having been exalted as far above the angels as the name which he has inherited is superior to theirs.” (v. 4)

The statements (A A’) of the chiasm shown above are a framing that clearly state
the theme of supreme revelation through the Son. We find in the core of the chiasm from the beginning of Hebrews (B C C’ B’) one Jesus Christ described as the royal Son, the divine Wisdom (the radiance ἀπαύγασμα, a hapax legomenon), and the royal Priest.

Note the abrupt change in subject in the middle of the sentence (from God, verses 1–2, to the Son, verse 3). While it is only in the third relative clause that we see the Son as the subject, and the relative pronoun is set out in the nominative case, the presence of the personal pronoun in the expression χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, “exact representation of his nature,” ties verse 3 to its antecedent supplied by the opening verse of Hebrews, i. e., God.

The opening paragraph of Hebrews introduces the superiority of God’s Son to all other previous modes of revelation as the theme of the book. We see strongly emphatic expressions of this theme in the first and last verses of the opening four verses, a contrast between the revelation delivered by the Son to that delivered through men and angels. Note also that the theocentric view of the writer of Hebrews is in plain view in the opening verses, wherein the reader is confronted immediately with the God who has intervened in the history of mankind with His sovereign word addressed to mankind.

Yet, we also see that God’s ultimate word was spoken through One who is to be distinguished from all others by reason of that One’s unique relationship He sustains to God. The opening paragraph of Hebrews contains seven predicates, which explore the divine Son’s character in terms of expectations that have been prompted by Psalm 2 and Psalm 110 reflections. In His person the Son unites the attributes and the privileges of the royal Son, wisdom of God and royal priest. As a result, He is qualified uniquely to the one that God will have spoken His final word.

The second portion of the opening paragraph, verses 3-4, develop the three predications that were introduced in the opening two verses of Hebrews where we have read the Son’s revelation (verse 2a), the Son’s status as heir (verse 2b), and the Son’s role in creation (verse 2c). Note that the ordering of these elements are now set up logically as one of Son (verse 3a), creation (verse 3b) and inheritance (verse 4).


A Deeper Look at Hebrews 1:3

3a ὅς ὤν ἀπαύγασμα … καὶ χαρακτὴρ, “ And He is the radiance … and the exact representation.”

As indicated by the relative pronoun in the nominative case, the Son is the subject of the statements that follow in verses 3–4. The arrangement of the two members in the first declaration of the first clause in a synonomous parallelism is an intentional arrangement, intending to mean the same thing. Just as δόξα and ὑπόστασις are synonymous to the degree that God’s glory is His nature, so also the same function of the Son is expressed by ἀπαύγασμα and χαρακτήρ”

The term χαρακτήρ occurs only in this verse in the New Testament, and is thus yet another New Testament hapax legomenon. In verse 3a, the writer of Hebrews employs this word in order to convey as strongly as possible that in the person of Jesus Christ, a perfect, visible expression of the reality of God has been provided, the vivid form of a hidden substance, that the substance of the Father is in a manner literally engraved on the Son. Thus the common analogy often drawn here is the imprinting of the image on a coin, as in the imprinting of Caeser’s image on the Roman coins.

The description of Jesus as ἀπαύγασμα, the radiance of God is a remarkable fact yet, in the passage is the entire statement has been made subservient to Jesus’ divine priesthood. While Jesus Christ is the radiance of His glory, ὅς ὤν ἀπαύγασμα…, He is so much greater than the angels (Hebrews 1:4) as Jesus Christ has inherited (verse 4) a more excellent name as our High Priest (ἀρχιερεύς).


3b φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, “upholds all things by the word of His power.”

Here we find the description of the Son of God in His pre-existence, logically being followed by the description of His relationship to creation. Note that the providential government of creation is ascribed to the Son of God. Note also that this is the function of God himself! As the pre-creation wisdom of God, the Son of God not only is the embodiment of God’s glory, but is also revealing this fact in His sustaining of all creation, bearing them to their appointed end by His omnipotent word.

The assignment of the creative dimensions to the work of the Son of God is prompted, from the full reading of Hebrews, by the total view the writer had of the Son’s transcendent dignity. Only one who reveals God as fully and completely as the Son did must share in the divine government of the universe.


3c καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος, “had made purification of sins.”

Here we find in the confession of verse 3 Christ’s person and worth in His pre-existence, His incarnation, and His exaltation. Significantly, we read here the Son’s ministry described in reference to Jesus Christ’s achievement in the direction of the later discussion in Hebrews of His priesthood and His sacrifice. The effect of Christ’s death is cleansing (καθαρισμόν) from sins, where sin is in view as a defilement needing purging. This can be understood from καθαρίζειν and the cognates thereof which relate to removal of sin, either in association with the altar (see, for example, Exodus 29:37; 30:10) or in association with the people (see Leviticus 16:30).

Israel’s uncleanness was acknowledged before God at the altar. The people of Israel had to be cleansed from this defilement by the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrificial animal. This blood covered and obliterated their sins upon the altar (see Exodus 30:10 and forward, καθαρισμός. See also Leviticus 16:30, where purification of the people was accomplished by blood as an act of expiation. A barrier was erected to the approach of God by sin’s defilement that had to be removed. It is clear that the writer of Hebrews is drawing upon the conceptualizations I have described here for interpreting the death of Christ when one views Chapters 9 and 10 of Hebrews, where we find these categories of defilement and the need for purging as underlying foundations. In fact, the six other occurrences of καθαρίζειν and its cognates only appear in these chapters (see Hebrews 9:13, 14, 22, 23; 10:2, 22).

The writer of Hebrews states, καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος, “having made purification for sins.” Here the aorist participle designates that the purification is a definite act performed once and for all. Moreover, from the middle voice of the passage, it is shown that the Son made purification for sins in Himself, which clearly relates the act of purification to His sacrifice. Thus, by this one action of Jesus Christ, sin’s defilement was forever removed. Digging deeper into the Greek here, the genitive τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος must be necessarily construed as objective, which implies that the sins were purged by the death of the Son. We also note that Hebrews 1:3 does not explicitly state Jesus Christ as priest. Yet, from this clause and the discussion I have set forth, the writer of Hebrews implies that the unique Son is also a priest.


3c continued ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, “He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

Each participle clause of Hebrews 1:3 depends upon the finite ἐκάθισεν, which is grammatically providing the main assertions of verses 3 and 4. In particular, the preceding clause establishes as temporally sequential the acts of purifying and sitting (made purification for sins and then sat down). From the two clauses in verse 3c, we see announced the major themes of the writer of Hebrews Christology: sacrifice and exaltation. This enthronement at God’s right hand clearly conveys to the contemporary readers of Hebrews the royal power of the Son and His unequally glory. It would seem to me that this well understood view by the people of the time might explain the writers little direct appeal to the resurrection of Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 13:20 and forward), since the allusion to being at God’s right hand was inclusively referencing Jesus Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and continued exaltation.

The word majesty, μεγαλωσύνη, is an expansive expression for God in this passage, as well as in Hebrews 8:1. This helps to teach the reader of the Son’s incomparable glory while concurrently confirming God’s eternal majesty. Jesus Christ’s enthronement “at the right hand of the Majesty on high” does not compromise the rank and rule of God the Father, while asserting the ultimate exaltation of the Son. The on high, ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, helps the reader by emphasis of the heavenly sphere of the exaltation of Christ, while increasing the spatial aspect of this image; see for example, ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, “in heaven,” in Hebrews 8:1.

EDIT (as suggested by godrulz :wave:

References consulted:
1. TDNT on the word, ἀπαύγασμα to confirm my interpretation as relates to my use of the "Wisdom of God"
2. UBS4/NA27
3. The Greek New Testament for Beginning Readers: The Byzantine Greek Text & Verb Parsing
Maurice A. Robinson
4. Cyclopedic Index contained in the NKJV Open Bible for topical Scripture references related to topics above for subsequent citations
5. A commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews, William Gouge. Available to check against anything I have written here. Nothing from the work was used in the above. Instead this volume was used primarily to validate my own interpretations given above for proper orthodoxy. I am not inclined to be leading anyone into heterodoxy if I can help it.
6. Notes from my classes with Fr. Antoni Marcelli, my fifth-year Advanced Greek teacher, may he rest in peace.
7. Personal notes from my personal studies of the New Testament, notebook 2, Hebrews 1-6.

AMR

 

[ghost]

It would be helpful to the discussion, Ghost, if you refrain from responding until I have responded to your interpretation of the passage.

No problem, I'm not even going to take the time to read your interpretation.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Responses to Ghost’s Understandings of the Passage

Responses to Ghost’s Understandings of the Passage

Response to Ghost’s Understandings of Hebrews 1:3

Note: Ghost’s understandings of the various portions of the text are rendered with no accompanying reasonable exegesis. In order to not read into what Ghost writes, this necessitates that I make general comments and will likely have to ask questions about the words that he is using to describe his understandings of the passages. Ghost’s responses are nothing more than “I believe the text says this or that”, versus an expectation in a discussion such as this of some attempt to properly exegete the text. This one-on-one is a wonderful opportunity for Ghost, who claims to be a studied teacher of Scripture, to demonstrate such and silence his critics. What I am seeing in his comments below is disappointing from one who claims to be a teacher of Scripture. His burden here is to demonstrate his understandings are from sound exegesis. Perhaps he has done so from his studies. If so, demonstrating that he has should be an relatively easy feat. He is clearly not meeting that burden to date.

The "He" in the verse in question is referring to Jesus, and as your opening post rightfully suggests, it is essential that we conclude who Jesus is.
I fully admit that I do not believe that Jesus had two natures, two minds, or two Spirits (which to your understanding is the same as two souls since you believe that man is a dichotomy).

Here Ghost admits to the Docetist view of the time of John, a view John writes against in 2 John 1:7:

2 John 1:7 (NASB)
1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Specifically, the intent of 2 John 1:7 was to denounce the Docetism heresy of the era, which denied the actual full humanity of Jesus Christ.

The early Docetists claimed Jesus only appeared to be human, as if He were a existing in a mere biological suit, or worse, a mere illusion. Since the time of John, the term Docetist is applied to those whose Christology claims Jesus was different from what He seemed to be. In the quote above, Ghost denies the full humanity of Jesus Christ, claiming He possessed no rational human soul, and no dual natures, fully God and fully man.

Thus Ghost also falls into the Apollinarian camp that denied Jesus Christ possessed a rational human soul. Apollinarianism is nothing more than one evolution of the Docetism that John was concerned about. Both these views find their roots in Gnosticism, which took a page from Plato’s tri-partite view of man.

Now Ghost has made quite a big deal about his perceived view of being mislead about the topic of this one-on-one discussion. Underlying his rhetoric is a lack of a more thorough understanding about the historical contexts of the various books of Scripture. This sort of knowledge does not come from reading introductions to the books of Scripture in study bibles or simple treatments found on the internet or lay-related books. Had he done the homework I recommended before this discussion started, he would know about the views of Docetism that plagued the early church at the time of John’s Epistle. Ghost would also know why our discussion here is about his Docetism and all that term necessarily entails, e.g., Apollinarianism, Gnosticism, etc.

From my interpretation of Hebrews 1:3, which Ghost admits he will not read, if Christ did not possess a fully human nature (and a fully divine nature), He would not be qualified as our High Priest before the Father (see Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:15-16; 5:2, 7-9).

Specific Responses to Ghost’s Understandings of the Passage

Jesus is the radiance of His (God's) glory.

That is, Jesus is the light of God that comes into the world and reveals to us all that God is (His glory). In other words, God Himself has come among men as the light of the world John 9:5 so that we might see and know God. He has done this in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the eternal God, and has come in the likeness of sinful flesh to be the offering for sin Romans 8:3.

Ghost’s use of light here, in a passage that does not even use the Greek word for “light”, misses the full import of the term, ἀπαύγασμα, as I have discussed in my exegesis of the text, which Ghost refuses to read.

Ghost’s “…come in the likeness of sinful flesh” goes beyond the text we are discussing and, given his Docetism and Apollinarianism, incorporates what we will later see as many related misunderstandings of flesh by Ghost. The Docetist presuppositions of Ghost taint his statements related to “sinful flesh”, so we must carefully tease out what Ghost really means when he uses the words. Thus we will deal with this when the Scripture in discussion warrants.

Jesus is the exact representation (image) of His (God's) nature.

The exact representation or image is actually one word charaktér which is where we get the word "character" from. Jesus is God manifested in the flesh 1 Timothy 3:16. They have the exact same nature. There is no difference in the nature of God and the nature of Jesus. They are of the same substance, same essence. If you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father John 14:9. They are eternally the same. Jesus, being manifested in the flesh, has the same nature as the Father. The person of Jesus Christ is God in human flesh.

“manifested in the flesh” – see my reply immediately above

Ghost is too imprecise with There is no difference in the nature of God and the nature of Jesus. This needs to be qualified more carefully, as in When considering their divinity, there is no difference in the nature of God and the nature of Jesus.

Jesus upholds all things by the word of His power


I have no idea how AMR will interpret the word "all" here, so I'm going to use it the way I believe it was intended by the writer.

All things were created by Him (Jesus) and for Him (Jesus) Col 1:16-17. He created the worlds by speaking, and He holds all things together by his word. This same Jesus who walks among men in human flesh is the same Jesus who created all things, and who holds all things together. The writer of Hebrews wants to solidify in our minds that this same Jesus is the eternal God who said "let there be light" Gen 1:3.

“in human flesh” – see my reply to the opening clause from Ghost

Jesus made purification of sins

This is an essential point to our discussion. The writer of Hebrews is telling us that the same Jesus who is the eternal God, and who has come in the likeness of sinful flesh, in the appearance of a man Phil 2:8, and is the same nature as the Father, is the same Jesus who died on the cross. When Jesus died on the cross, it was God who died on the cross. How do we know this? Because as Paul tells us "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting their trespasses against them" 2 Corinthians 5:19. If God did not die on the cross, then God was not in Christ at the moment when the world was being reconciled. You might ask "how can God die?". If you understand what death is, then you can understand how God died for our sins. Jesus said that those who believe in Him will never die John 11:26, yet we all taste death. That is, our bodies die, but our spirit does not die. We are a new creation 2 Corinthians 5:17, having been made alive in the spirit Rom 8:10. God tasted death in the person of Jesus Christ Hebrews 2:9. He died for our sins on the cross. He (God the Son) made purification for our sins.

“likeness of sinful flesh, in the appearance of a man” – see my reply to the opening clause from Ghost. We will be discussing Philippians 2:8 soon enough, too.

As my interpretation of this aspect of Hebrews 1:3 shows, the clause is specifically about the priestly role of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.

The remainder of Ghost’s waxing eloquent about the death of Jesus Christ is a rabbit trail indicative of His Docetist views. When we speak of God “dying” on the cross, we must be precise, otherwise there will be those immature in the faith that might assume by “death” the divine is extinguished, or that the Trinity is somehow missing one of its members, or that the Son of God is no longer upholding the universe (shown from exegesis Hebrews 1:3 clearly teaches), as He was even when walking the earth. The “death” here is the separation of the soul from the body, which has returned to its earthly origin. This is the death we all will experience in our earthly existence. Yet, from Ghost’s own words, he denies Jesus Christ possessed a rational human soul, so who can we know what he even means by “death”? Then again, Ghost has not read my exegesis of the passage. Rather than follow Ghost down these sort of rabbit holes, I will soon come to a point where such a discussion is directly relevant to a passage being discussed.

Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Having made purification for our sins, the same Jesus who died on the cross, is the same Jesus who sat down at the right hand of God Hebrews 10:12

Unfortunately, Ghost’s simple statement misses much of the full import of this clause as my exegesis shows. He needs to read it.

AMR

 

[ghost]

Response to Ghost’s Understandings of Hebrews 1:3

Note: Ghost’s understandings of the various portions of the text are rendered with no accompanying reasonable exegesis.

Translation: I, AMR, use a lot of big words and other theological gobbledygook to astound the readers and make myself have the appearance of someone who knows what he is talking about.

In order to not read into what Ghost writes, this necessitates that I make general comments and will likely have to ask questions about the words that he is using to describe his understandings of the passages.

Translation: I, AMR, am so brainwashed by my religious cult, that I cannot carry on a normal conversation with anyone.

Ghost’s responses are nothing more than “I believe the text says this or that”, versus an expectation in a discussion such as this of some attempt to properly exegete the text.

Translation: God has made the Bible so complex that only those who are predestined and chosen are elected to understand and explain it.

This one-on-one is a wonderful opportunity for Ghost, who claims to be a studied teacher of Scripture, to demonstrate such and silence his critics.

Thankfully, those who can read, will see through your pseudo intellectual facade, and remain true to the simplicity of the Gospel, and not Calvinism's distortion of it.

What I am seeing in his comments below is disappointing from one who claims to be a teacher of Scripture.

Unlike you, I'm not here to boast in my flesh and attempt to impress people with my many words, but rather to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

His burden here is to demonstrate his understandings are from sound exegesis.

And just as you have redefined the word "docetism" you have now redefined the word "exegesis". Unless these words mean what AMR says they mean, then we all fall short of his glory.

Perhaps he has done so from his studies. If so, demonstrating that he has should be an relatively easy feat. He is clearly not meeting that burden to date.

Translation: Unless ghost uses long drawn out impressive sentences that communicate simple truths (and tosses in a bunch of Greek letters to appear intellectual) than he does not fulfill the burden of my Law for eloquence and sophistication. :bow: AMR

I fully admit that I do not believe that Jesus had two natures, two minds, or two Spirits (which to your understanding is the same as two souls since you believe that man is a dichotomy).

Here Ghost admits to the Docetist view of the time of John, a view John writes against in 2 John 1:7:

2 John 1:7 (NASB)
1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

AMR must take a wild leap into your imagination, and try and make his reader believe and accept the idea that anyone who denies Calvinism's view that Jesus has two natures, two minds, and two spirits/souls is preaching a false Jesus who did not come in the flesh.

From AMR's double-minded theory, if you claim that Jesus was born of a woman (the virgin Mary), walked with His disciples, performed miracles, died on a cross for our sins, was buried in a tomb, was raised from the dead, and you don't believe that Jesus had two natures, two minds, and two spirits/souls, then you are antichrist .

AMR will attempt to propose and accuse myself (and all of you) that we fall short of believing in the Jesus of the Bible because we hold the view that man is a body, a soul, and a spirit (trichotomy), and not just a body and a soul (spirit) (dichotomy). This is his well hidden "rabbit trail".

Nevertheless, for the sake of this discussion, we will appeal to AMR's dichotomous view, and assume that man is only a body and soul (spirit). Either way, Jesus did not have two minds or souls (spirits).
Let the reader understand: Dichotomists believe that the words "spirit" and "soul" are used interchangeably with no distinction (despite versus like Hebrews 4:12; 1 Thes 5:23). However, let us not slip into one of AMR's bunny holes, lest we run into Nang.

Specifically, the intent of 2 John 1:7 was to denounce the Docetism heresy of the era, which denied the actual full humanity of Jesus Christ.

The heresies of Docetism and Gnosticim are fully defeated in 1 John 1:1-2

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us"

The early Docetists claimed Jesus only appeared to be human, as if He were a existing in a mere biological suit, or worse, a mere illusion.

Yep. that is what they taught, and THIS discussion was agreed to because AMR has been accusing me for a long time on this site that I have been claiming that Jesus was just a mere illusion.

Since the time of John, the term Docetist is applied to those whose Christology claims Jesus was different from what He seemed to be.

Jesus is exactly who He, not only seemed to be, but wholly who the Bible claims Him to be - God in the flesh.

In the quote above, Ghost denies the full humanity of Jesus Christ, claiming He possessed no rational human soul, and no dual natures, fully God and fully man.

Notice here that AMR is going to define for you what it means to be fully God and fully man, and then if you do not hold to his version of what it means to be fully man, then you deny the humanity of Jesus. Yet, it is easily proven (especially since AMR holds to the view that all men are totally depraved and by nature children of wrath) that Jesus was not as "fully" a man as the rest of us. Otherwise, AMR has the nature of Jesus being under God's wrath, totally depraved, and in effect, a sinner.


As we progress through this discussion, I will prove that Jesus Christ is indeed FULLY MAN, just not as AMR defines it. For I will show that Jesus is the second Adam, the Son of Man, FULLY HUMAN and FULLY GOD, yet without two natures, two minds, two souls/spirits. He is God, manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), who was found in the appearance of a man (Philippians 2:8), in a body prepared for Him (Hebrews 10:5), in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin (Romans 8:3; 1 John 3:5), and is the exact representation of the nature of God (Hebrews 1:3)..

Thus Ghost also falls into the Apollinarian camp that denied Jesus Christ possessed a rational human soul. Apollinarianism is nothing more than one evolution of the Docetism that John was concerned about.

AMR attempts to create an affiliation between these two all on his own, because he was caught making the error of accusing me of Docetism, and then realized his mistake, and had to manufacture a way out.

Both these views find their roots in Gnosticism, which took a page from Plato’s tri-partite view of man.

There you have it. If you justly or unjustly believe that man has both a spirit and a soul, you are a "gnostic"

Now Ghost has made quite a big deal about his perceived view of being mislead about the topic of this one-on-one discussion.

I don't like being lied to, and plain and simple you lied.

Underlying his rhetoric is a lack of a more thorough understanding about the historical contexts of the various books of Scripture.

I see, not only is the Bible inspired by God, but also the books that reveal the history of the Bible that YOU have personally canonized.

This sort of knowledge does not come from reading introductions to the books of Scripture in study bibles or simple treatments found on the internet or lay-related books.

Knowledge comes from the Greek word gnosis. Are you a Gnostic? What is wrong with just reading the Bible?

Had he done the homework I recommended before this discussion started, he would know about the views of Docetism that plagued the early church at the time of John’s Epistle.

Translation: If ghost had read the books I've canonized as addendums to the Bible, he would agree with me, and not those other writers who have not read my canonized books.

Ghost would also know why our discussion here is about his Docetism and all that term necessarily entails, e.g., Apollinarianism, Gnosticism, etc.

AMR attempts again to justify his deception. Research it yourselves. There is no affiliation between Docetism and Apolloniarianism, anymore than there is an affiliation between Mormons and Jehovah's Witness. It's true that they are both in error, but that is the only connection. Though he could accuse me of teaching Apolloinarianism, he doesn't fully understand what I believe, and that I am not in complete agreement with it's tenants. Regardless, AMR, can't defeat the truth, so he must put me in a box and beat the box.

From my interpretation of Hebrews 1:3, which Ghost admits he will not read, if Christ did not possess a fully human nature (and a fully divine nature), He would not be qualified as our High Priest before the Father (see Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:15-16; 5:2, 7-9).

This is not a discussion where you are here to convince me of your views. I could care less what you believe. The onus is on you to prove that I teach Docetism, that is, that I believe Jesus did not come in the flesh and was an illusion.

Specific Responses to Ghost’s Understandings of the Passage

Jesus is the radiance of His (God's) glory.

That is, Jesus is the light of God that comes into the world and reveals to us all that God is (His glory). In other words, God Himself has come among men as the light of the world John 9:5 so that we might see and know God. He has done this in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the eternal God, and has come in the likeness of sinful flesh to be the offering for sin Romans 8:3.

Ghost’s use of light here, in a passage that does not even use the Greek word for “light”, misses the full import of the term, ἀπαύγασμα, as I have discussed in my exegesis of the text, which Ghost refuses to read.

Is it your conclusion that Jesus is not the light because the "Greek word" for radiance literally means "brightness" or "splendor" rather than "light"? So you have the fact that God is light being separated from His radiance, yet people are anti-Christ gnostics for comparing soul and spirit? You sir are a clown. I'm sorry, I have no Greek word for clown.

Ghost’s “…come in the likeness of sinful flesh” goes beyond the text we are discussing and, given his Docetism and Apollinarianism, incorporates what we will later see as many related misunderstandings of flesh by Ghost.

I'm giddy with excitement just thinking about your various definitions of the word "flesh". (Please be sure to put up some more of those fancy Greek letters for us).

The Docetist presuppositions of Ghost taint his statements related to “sinful flesh”, so we must carefully tease out what Ghost really means when he uses the words. Thus we will deal with this when the Scripture in discussion warrants.

I'll stand on record that Jesus is of the same flesh (sarx) that I am, yet He is without sin.

“manifested in the flesh” – see my reply immediately above

God was made known through Jesus

Ghost is too imprecise with There is no difference in the nature of God and the nature of Jesus. This needs to be qualified more carefully, as in When considering their divinity, there is no difference in the nature of God and the nature of Jesus.

Agree or disagree, I don't care. The nature of Jesus and the nature of God is the same. Jesus is God who has a fully human body, one soul/spirit, one mind. He was made to be just like us, though I can see why you want to make him double-minded, because that is what you are.

As my interpretation of this aspect of Hebrews 1:3 shows, the clause is specifically about the priestly role of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.

Jesus is our high priest because He was made to be just like us. He is the Son of Man, because He is fully man. The man Christ Jesus is a man with one body, one spirit/soul, and one mind. The image of the invisible God, having His nature.

AMR would have you believe that Jesus has two natures. That of man (a recreation of Adam, not the second Adam) and the nature of God. Odd for him to take this view, which would be inconsistent with the impeccability of Christ, since we all know that Adam sinned. Adam was created innocent, but not perfect. Adam sinned. Jesus, the second Adam, is the perfect man, who could not sin, because He has the nature of God. Adam was not God. Jesus is both God and Man. Perfect God and perfect Man. The definition of perfection excludes the possibility of sin.

This also puts an end to the foolishness of those who claim that original sin is a myth because Jesus has to be a sinner or He is not a man (Finney). It removes the false belief that Jesus was born innocent and could have sinned, but "chose" not to.

Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of God, and He who is born of God cannot sin.

"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:9

Jesus made purification of sins

This is an essential point to our discussion. The writer of Hebrews is telling us that the same Jesus who is the eternal God, and who has come in the likeness of sinful flesh, in the appearance of a man Phil 2:8, and is the same nature as the Father, is the same Jesus who died on the cross. When Jesus died on the cross, it was God who died on the cross. How do we know this? Because as Paul tells us "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not counting their trespasses against them" 2 Corinthians 5:19. If God did not die on the cross, then God was not in Christ at the moment when the world was being reconciled. You might ask "how can God die?". If you understand what death is, then you can understand how God died for our sins. Jesus said that those who believe in Him will never die John 11:26, yet we all taste death. That is, our bodies die, but our spirit does not die. We are a new creation 2 Corinthians 5:17, having been made alive in the spirit Rom 8:10. God tasted death in the person of Jesus Christ Hebrews 2:9. He died for our sins on the cross. He (God the Son) made purification for our sins.

The remainder of Ghost’s waxing eloquent about the death of Jesus Christ is a rabbit trail indicative of His Docetist views.

Interesting, AMR wants to tell you that you and I hold to a "Docetist" view because we believe that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself". Is this because AMR's reformed view interprets the word "world" to mean only those who are saved and that Jesus did not die for the sins of the whole world? 1 John 2:2. If you research Docetism you will find that they teach that God was not in Christ at the moment the world was being reconciled. They, like AMR deny that God the Son died for our sins. If you research AMR's posts, he makes it quite clear that God the Son did not die on the cross, but rather it was Jesus the man who died. AMR accuses me and others of teaching the very thing that he teaches. However, we are not having this discussion to force AMR to defend his abhorrent beliefs. We are here to prove only one thing, that I do not teach Docetism, even if AMR does.

When we speak of God “dying” on the cross, we must be precise, otherwise there will be those immature in the faith that might assume by “death” the divine is extinguished, or that the Trinity is somehow missing one of its members, or that the Son of God is no longer upholding the universe (shown from exegesis Hebrews 1:3 clearly teaches), as He was even when walking the earth. The “death” here is the separation of the soul from the body, which has returned to its earthly origin. This is the death we all will experience in our earthly existence.

AMR has just created for himself quite a conundrum. Out of one of his minds he claims that God the Son was not the One who died on the cross, but rather the Son of Man. AMR attempts to prove that Jesus the Man out of His mind called out "It is Finished" while God the Son with His mind watched from wherever He went (a double-minded Jesus). We also have Jesus the Man and His soul/spirit remaining in the body of Jesus prior to His death, while the soul/spirit of the Son of God departed (a double-souled/spirit Jesus). With His other mind he claims that death is the separation of the soul/spirit from the body (this one is true). However, if only the Son of Man was left hanging on the cross, then God was not in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself at the moment when the world was being reconciled.

"The Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost took the last train for the coast the day that Jesus died" :guitar:

Yet, from Ghost’s own words, he denies Jesus Christ possessed a rational human soul, so who can we know what he even means by “death”?

Death is separation (as I have declared on this site hundreds of times over the last 9 years).

Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

Having made purification for our sins, the same Jesus who died on the cross, is the same Jesus who sat down at the right hand of God Hebrews 10:12

Unfortunately, Ghost’s simple statement misses much of the full import of this clause as my exegesis shows. He needs to read it.

I read you loud and clear

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ghost,

Just wanted to acknowledge that I have read your post and will respond to it soon. Thank you for the detail and the associated proper use of the quote function that will make responding easier, too! :thumb:

AMR

 

[ghost]

Ghost,

Just wanted to acknowledge that I have read your post and will respond to it soon. Thank you for the detail and the associated proper use of the quote function that will make responding easier, too! :thumb:

AMR

No problem. We have wavered from the rules a great deal, but I'm sort of okay with that.

Initially, I wanted you to post a text, and then ask one question at a time in regard to that text.

For example: You might have asked me: "How do you understand the word radiance in this verse?" That way, we find out where we are in agreement, and where we are not. Otherwise, we just keep talking past each other, and bringing up things that don't serve a great deal of purpose.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

When all else fails...

When all else fails...

Otherwise, we just keep talking past each other, and bringing up things that don't serve a great deal of purpose.

Indeed. Let’s look at this aspect a bit.

I will divide my response to Ghost’s latest into a two separate posts to keep them from running too long. My first response dispenses with Ghost’s usual histrionics when he feels he is cornered follows:

Translation: I, AMR, use a lot of big words and other theological gobbledygook to astound the readers and make myself have the appearance of someone who knows what he is talking about.

Translation: I, AMR, am so brainwashed by my religious cult, that I cannot carry on a normal conversation with anyone.

Translation: God has made the Bible so complex that only those who are predestined and chosen are elected to understand and explain it.

Thankfully, those who can read, will see through your pseudo intellectual facade, and remain true to the simplicity of the Gospel, and not Calvinism's distortion of it.

Unlike you, I'm not here to boast in my flesh and attempt to impress people with my many words, but rather to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Translation: Unless ghost uses long drawn out impressive sentences that communicate simple truths (and tosses in a bunch of Greek letters to appear intellectual) than he does not fulfill the burden of my Law for eloquence and sophistication.

I see, not only is the Bible inspired by God, but also the books that reveal the history of the Bible that YOU have personally canonized.

Knowledge comes from the Greek word gnosis. Are you a Gnostic? What is wrong with just reading the Bible?

Translation: If ghost had read the books I've canonized as addendums to the Bible, he would agree with me, and not those other writers who have not read my canonized books.

From his embarrassing collection of responses shown above, Ghost apparently believes that,

1. any attempt to properly exegete the Scripture passages we are discussing is an exercise in vanity or intellectualism;
2. using a proper theological vocabulary for theological discussions is “gobbledygook”;
3. appealing to the underlying Greek texts of the New Testament is puffery, all the while making a weak appeal to the Greek when it suits his histrionic purposes;
4. extra-biblical resources serve no useful purpose in understanding historical, cultural, or grammatical contexts of Scripture; and
5. when all these feeble attempts at distraction fail, resorting to the Calvinism label will hopefully move the spotlight from his own inadequacies to date to peripheral matters that emotionally appeal to the crowd.

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?

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?

Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?


My next post, forthcoming, will address the following remainders of Ghost’s response along this line of thought:

Docetism and why Ghost needs to own the label and all that it implies

AMR

 

[ghost]

From his embarrassing collection of responses shown above

I don't feel the least bit sorry that you've been embarrassed by my responses.

1. any attempt to properly exegete the Scripture passages we are discussing is an exercise in vanity or intellectualism;

2. using a proper theological vocabulary for theological discussions is “gobbledygook”;Show me where Jesus used a bunch of gobbledygook like you do to make a simple point.

3. appealing to the underlying Greek texts of the New Testament is puffery, all the while making a weak appeal to the Greek when it suits his histrionic purposes;Like the self-righteous
4. extra-biblical resources serve no useful purpose in understanding historical, cultural, or grammatical contexts of Scripture; and
5. when all these feeble attempts at distraction fail, resorting to the Calvinism label will hopefully move the spotlight from his own inadequacies to date to peripheral matters that emotionally appeal to the crowd.

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?

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?

Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?

Translation: My pride has been hurt by your unwillingness to read my interpretation of the text, because I feel the need to convince you to be a Calvinist. :baby:

You abandoned the rules of the one on one from your very first post (I suppose I should have put the rules in Greek), and I've allowed it, simply because it appears that the only people who are getting a thrill from this discussion are you and Nang. I've decided that your lack of integrity and deceptive practices will continue whether I complain or not to others on this site.

The ONLY reason for this one on one is for you to prove that I hold to the views of the Docetists. Have fun trying.

 

[ghost]

AMR... You have had 3 full days to respond to my post concerning the nature of Jesus and what you claim I teach. If you are putting together another long, drawn out, tiresome, so-called "exegesis", you are wasting your time. This debate is supposed to be a discussion between me and you, not between me and Maurice A. Robinson, William Gouge, Fr. Antoni Marcelli, or anyone else.

Either you know what you believe or you don't. Either you can defend what you believe from the Bible or you cannot. Either you can make it simple enough for anyone to understand it, or you won't. There are theological formulas from all sides of all the debates that have been manipulated and re-constructed over the last 2000 years by various so-called students of the Bible. There is no need for us to re-hash old debates.

Stop all the nonsense and get to the point.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Ghost,

TOL one-on-ones have a two-week time limit. I will meet that limit.

The topic requires care and fearfulness, as we are discussing sacred matters related to our Lord, and I will take the necessary time to craft my responses accordingly. While you wait, perhaps you can answer the questions I posed above:

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?

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?

Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?

AMR

 

[ghost]

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?

No

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?

No

Ghost, perhaps you think formal exegesis is interpreting English translations only? Why? If so, then which English translation should we all be using?

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. :chuckle:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No

Sigh.

No

Sigh.

Which Greek translation should we all be using?

Take your pick from English bibles you use. Given you are quoting the NASB then I assume NA27/UBS4 would work for you. :squint: My personal favorites are from the Byzantine manuscripts, but I have no issue with using the NA27/UBS4.

If all this other crap is what you wanted to debate, then perhaps you should have not have switched it to Apollinarianism. :chuckle:

Ghost, if you don't want to drive the discussion off the rails then perhaps you should try to restrain your off-topic histrionics a wee bit, as they tend to start some arguments that one must not let pass unnoticed.

You have laid plenty of pipe to rationalize your potential indignant exit, declaration of victory, etc., even before the discussion began. And you continue to do so. I get it. We all see it, so just consider that effort completed and stand down while awaiting my response.

AMR

 

[ghost]

Ghost, if you don't want to drive the discussion off the rails then perhaps you should try to restrain your off-topic histrionics a wee bit, as they tend to start some arguments that one must not let pass unnoticed.

:rotfl: How can you even say that with a straight face? What a hypocrite. :loser: