I think this post left out the "my understanding of and speculation on" "Words" verses the understanding of 2000 years of Christian history.
I'm not asking anyone to stick to my words - I'm asking them to stick to the words of Scripture.
Upvote
0
I think this post left out the "my understanding of and speculation on" "Words" verses the understanding of 2000 years of Christian history.
What's wrong with Ambrose presenting a reason why the two events coincided?
I'm not asking anyone to stick to my words - I'm asking them to stick to the words of Scripture.
In discussing Luke 1, and especially Mary’s visit with Elizabeth, a little of the writing of St. Ambrose from the 4th century was shared with me as “TEACHING SINCE EARLY UNITED CHRISTIANITY”:
"The grace of the Holy Spirit does not admit of delays. And Mary’s arrival and the presence of her Son quickly show their effects: As soon as Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting her child leapt in her womb and she was filled with the Holy Spirit.
See the careful distinction in the choice of words. Elizabeth was the first to hear the voice but her son John was the first to feel the effects of grace. She heard as one hears in the natural course of things; he leapt because of the mystery that was there. She sensed the coming of Mary, he the coming of the Lord — the woman knew the woman, the child knew the child. The women speak of grace while inside them grace works on their babies. And by a double miracle the women prophesy under the inspiration of their unborn children.
The infant leapt and the mother was filled with the Spirit. The mother was not filled before her son: her son was filled with the Holy Spirit and in turn filled his mother. John leapt and so did Mary’s spirit. John leapt and filled Elizabeth with the Spirit; but we know that Mary was not filled but her spirit rejoiced. For the Incomprehensible was working incomprehensibly within his mother. Elizabeth had been filled with the Spirit after she conceived, but Mary before, at the moment the angel had come. “Blessed are you,” said Elizabeth, “who believed”.
You too, my people, are blessed, you who have heard and who believe. Every soul that believes — that soul both conceives and gives birth to the Word of God and recognises his works.”
This appears to me to be going WAY BEYOND ANYTHING IN SCRIPTURE - a preacher getting carried away with his preaching. Considering even only the portion I have bolded, is not this the creation of an immense amount of mythology, FABRICATING a story? Not by any means merely recounting and commenting on what we find in God’s Holy Word?
Are such accounts as the above one by Ambrose indeed the position of the early church fathers and pretty well everyone after them? I know little of history and therefore ask those who do, to help determine whether the above has indeed pretty well always been the position of the church.
A friend I talked with today does know some history and referred to Bishop Ambrose as being a mystic and perhaps not all that representative. I suspect from my discussions with others on CF that his going way beyond anything Scripture says (the way it appears to me) is indeed rather indicative of how passages like Luke 1:44 have been generally and almost always treated.
So is something like, “he leapt because of the mystery that was there. She sensed the coming of Mary, he the coming of the Lord — the woman knew the woman, the child knew the child,” is this not EXTREME MYTHOLOGIZING, MAKING UP STORIES?
And is it not how much of Christianity has treated such accounts at those in Luke 1?
No, that is actually inaccurate as many posters have pointed out. What is being asked is that everyone stick to your opinion/understanding of Scriptures.I'm not asking anyone to stick to my words - I'm asking them to stick to the words of Scripture.
Unless Elizabeth says the Baptist jumped because of Joy, attributing the emotions of a person to the unborn. That Scripture she is just using the wrong words. Even though Scripture also says at that point the Holy Spirit us upon her. So a woman currently being inspired quoted in inspired text gives the Baptist a human emotion as the why for the leap meaning something caused the joy and the person felt it and expressed it in the leap.
That is in the Bible as you hold it and in all languages. So how is that not clear. You can't say she is just choosing the wrong word, exaggerating or somethings else. Not if you are saying we only have to use the Bible in exact from with no reasoning, story construction or cause and effect. Even with that most limiting view, and one counter to all criteria of Biblical interpretation, you still come up short.
How can you maintain only Scripture with no reasoning, tying events together or basic cause and effect can be used...that we can only use the exact linguistics...and maintain that there is anything unclear about what Elizabeth says.
She clearly, with the Spirit upon her says the child leaps for joy. The greek has the child as the focus so it is the joy coming from the child linguistically. You have no way around that in your own construction because you can not claim (with any logic) that the greek is not saying that. And you can not claim that Elizabeth is wrong or making poor word choice. Both of those reasons would undermine Scripture in your on construction.
I thought you wanted to stick to the words of Scripture, or was that someone else!?What is really questionable in my view is whether the fetus itself could have any such joy.
Am not sure it is fair to attribute the opinion of 2000 years of Christian teachings and theologians pondering such as representing an opinion someone in this thread is wishing to "force on us" or one they can even say or claim was made up here.What is really questionable in my view is whether the fetus itself could have any such joy.
That is the interpretation you wish to force on us, but if it is in order to prove that there could be that joy in the womb, it is mostly begging the question.
And many have stuck to the plain words in Holy Scriptures:
Luke 1: LEB (Lexham English Bible word for word literal translation)
39 Now in those days Mary set out and traveled with haste into the hill country, to a town of Judah, 40 and entered into the house of Zechariah, and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And it happened that when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby in her womb leaped and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 And she cried out with a loud shout and said,
“Blessed are you among women,
and blessed is the fruit of your womb!
43 And why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy! 45 And blessed is she who believed that there will be a fulfillment to what was spoken to her from the Lord!”
Luke 1 LEB;NASB - The Preface to Luke’s Gospel - Since - Bible Gateway
Here's the interlinear as well:
Luke 1 Interlinear Bible
Mary was not far on with her pregnancy. Probably within the first two weeks. Yet Elizabeth filled with the Holy Spirit calls the fruit of Mary's womb "my Lord" which you don't attribute to a pile of cells. Lord being the Person of Jesus Christ.
Now if the fully God and fully human Person of Christ was not a 'person' at that point in Mary's pregnancy, what nature do you give Him?
I thought you wanted to stick to the words of Scripture, or was that someone else!?
Yes, the "child" or "babe" leaped for joy. (Whatever "leaped" means.)
Yes the joy comes from the "leaping" - the "child" and the "leaping" are pretty much the same thing - as experienced they are one and the same. Is "caused" by it, is not a really far stretch, would seem to be in accord or even dictated by "for," that the joy comes from the "babe movements." Is brought on by them.
So I would say one "least farfetched" conclusion is that movements in Elizabeth's womb are correctly interpreted to have resulted in Elizabeth being joyous.
And she communicated this to Mary. And Mary's soul magnified the Lord - a large element of that could be joy, could account for a fair bit of the joy that was present.
In fact the account changes from the objective tone of a description of what happened (41)to a more subjective one that includes this additional conclusion by Elizabeth that what she experienced was joy from the event happening in her womb.(44)
Major question is, "Who has the joy?" Elizabeth was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" is it not pretty safe to say at least in this context much of that was joy? And similarly with Mary.
What is really questionable in my view is whether the fetus itself could have any such joy.
That is the interpretation you wish to force on us, but if it is in order to prove that there could be that joy in the womb, it is mostly begging the question.
And is it not how much of Christianity has treated such accounts at those in Luke 1?
So is that exegesis or eisegesis?You can interpret it that way - I think my interpretation makes more sense overall.
The translation is that the babe leaped in exhalation. The babe, according to Scripture and the Greek is the one feeling the emotion. Sorry that is basic Greek. There is absolutely no other possible way it goes. You can pretend otherwise but you can not change the language. It is not even a possibility. The language simply does not work any other way. So Scripture in the original language shows the person who was the unborn Baptist felt Joy.
So now you have changed "for joy" to "in exultation" (Not exhalation (sic), presumably)?
I am sure there was plenty of exultation by both Mary and Elizabeth, from the way it all reads.
If what you say about the Greek is correct - and I have little basis on which to question it since I do not know Greek, then I would say Elizabeth in her great exultation got "carried away," somewhat a feature of being filled with the Holy Spirit, it would seem. It is not so much "according to Scripture and the Greek" that the "babe" is "feeling the emotion" - the basic thing is this is a claim of Elizabeth (in her exhaltent frenzy, one might wonder). The "for joy" is added by her, a modification of the original description of the event in 41.
It is according to Elizabeth that the babe "leapt" "in exultation"(whatever that actually means); I still think it could mostly if not entirely be her exultation - would seem there was exultating all round. Anyway it is her claim, and a questionable basis (especially given her overly excited state of mind at that point) on which to base any great anti-abortion edifice.
So, to back up your view...against the view of all historically established Nicene Christianity, your answer is Elizabeth (when filled with the Holy Spirit) chose not the best/accurate wording.
If you are comfortable with that, no degree of debate, Scripture proofs or nearly 2000 years of sermons in agreement across Christianity will convince your otherwise.
At times debate area threads are for lurkers reading as well as for the people debating. I learned that a long time ago on the forums. And I trust the points I have made are clear to anyone reading and they can, compare your points to mine and draw their conclusions accordingly.
I maintain an interpretation of this Scripture that is in line with how it is written, the words used, and teaching since Apostolic times. And I have illustrated that. If desired, there are sermons from various Nicene Christian groups over centuries that agree with my view. So the accusation of fabrication is easily knocked down. And the body of evidence and Scripture commentary speaks clearly to my points for anyone who wants to look. I gladly set my evidence against your opinions on this topic. I think what is ancient and constant and what is innovation is obvious.
As to just one joy, you might want to look at Paul's view of Joy/Exultation of the Holy Spirit. And follow that to how the Joy of the Baptist became Elizabeth's Joy through the Holy Spirit. And look at the earliest sermons of Christianity until now on the subject of Joy/Exultation and the Holy Spirit. Then look at your opening question for the thread. Two (of many) things the Holy Spirit brings in Scripture are Understanding and Joy. So there is a body of interpretation and teaching shared by all Christians on the intersected topic as well.
You are applying a 20th century western cultural filter to the passage that denies the capacity of the unborn child to move separate of the Mother. I am concerned this is leading you to a position that is not what is being declared in the text, for exactly the same things that you opened in criticising Ambrose for.So now you have changed "for joy" to "in exultation" (Not exhalation (sic), presumably)?
I am sure there was plenty of exultation by both Mary and Elizabeth, from the way it all reads.
If what you say about the Greek is correct - and I have little basis on which to question it since I do not know Greek, then I would say Elizabeth in her great exultation got "carried away," somewhat a feature of being filled with the Holy Spirit, it would seem. It is not so much "according to Scripture and the Greek" that the "babe" is "feeling the emotion" - the basic thing is this is a claim of Elizabeth (in her exhaltent frenzy, one might wonder). The "for joy" is added by her, a modification of the original description of the event in 41.
It is according to Elizabeth that the babe "leapt" "in exultation"(whatever that actually means); I still think it could mostly if not entirely be her exultation - would seem there was exultating all round. Anyway it is her claim, and a questionable basis (especially given her overly excited state of mind at that point) on which to base any great anti-abortion edifice.