HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Patristic interpretation was often not beholden to the historical literal context of the Word like modern biblical studies are. There was a belief that there were multiple layers to scripture and the idea was to get to the most sacred understanding of it. This I believe was based on what the New Testament does with regards to the Old Testament. For instance Saint Paul goes beyond the mere historical context of the Genesis account of Sarah and Haggai and infers from it a principle of two peoples, one who is faithful and the other who is not.

"One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children." Ga 4:23–25.

Notice how Paul interprets the genesis story to apply it to his own time. If we were going to judge Paul by our modern hermeneutical standards then he is clearly being a bad exegete by thinking up something the Author of Genesis likely never intended. I think others here have done a good job in defending Saint Ambrose. While he does go beyond the literal meaning of the text does he contradict it? I think the answer is no and to suggest he should be held to a standard of biblical interpretation that not even biblical authors were held to is hypocritical.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What's wrong with Ambrose presenting a reason why the two events coincided?

It is made up - not actually in Scripture. And yet supposed to be treated as though Word of God.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm not asking anyone to stick to my words - I'm asking them to stick to the words of Scripture.

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?

 

[Philip_B]

Luke 1:39-45
In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leapt in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leapt for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.’​

I think in fairness to Ambrose the account in the Gospel invites the question. My understanding is that the references is generally understood to relate the quickening of the Baptist to the visitation of Elizabeth by Mary, mother of the Lord. It seems apparent in the passage that Elizabeth sees this as more than a coincidence, and attributes causality. I think the passage bears testament to the role of Mary as the Theotokos (the God bearer). I think the idea of John leaping in the womb at the near presence of Jesus foreshadows what will happen later when Jesus come close at the River Jordan when he cries 'Behold the Lamb of God - Behold him who takes away the sin of the world'.

The very words of Elizabeth suggest that she had perceived something beyond the ordinary cousin visit and she calls Mary the Mother of the Lord, before Christmas. The presence of the Holy Spirit here, as in the Annunciation, and as in the Baptism of Jesus all point us in the direction of a physical story with more that physical aspects. I believe this is a passage which can tell us more that just an account, for example, it may be an indicator of human life in the womb and help us for better informed decisions about the abortion debate.

I think we can demonstrate and accept that Ambrose was not a post modernist, and he was not a Sola Scriptura person either, and we see in his writing a great insight as to how he had come to understand the gospel narrative. I think Ambrose brings to the passage a warmth and poetry that is not unhelpful. I don't think we need Ambrose to labour a theological point here, however, I think the Gospel passage does it quite well for us, all on its own.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

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?

Yes. Christianity went astray from Christ.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I'm not asking anyone to stick to my words - I'm asking them to stick to the words of Scripture.

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.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

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.

 

[Philip_B]

What is really questionable in my view is whether the fetus itself could have any such joy.

I thought you wanted to stick to the words of Scripture, or was that someone else!?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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.

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.

So we have this vague idea present with some posters of a soul which is perhaps nothing more than "self". A soul viewed perhaps as a complex combo product of our mind, our will and all that biological processes of our physical brain, and which they want to view as mostly absent in the womb and not "present" until we are breathing. Am absolutely certain someone who has no concept of or belief in an actual spirit that is a human soul, also would not understand/comprehend the idea of a fetus having joy, or laughing or learning or being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, or being moved by the same Spirit. It sort of follows from essentially saying we have no souls to speak of that are independent/separable from our physical body/product of our brain.

I agree those things would be very questionable in such a view and also irrational to attempt to force such a view on Christianity. Irrational because it makes no sense, or maybe nonsense, of a spirituality in humans and any rational thought of an afterlife.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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 would say she did refer to the "pile of cells," i.e. what was there, as "My Lord." But not really, in that it had to be pretty much all in anticipation. You are right - if she was sensible at all, and when "filled with the Holy Ghost" one would hope that was the case (although we know at Pentecost those filled with the Holy Ghost were accused of having been drinking), she would not be applying that label to that. She undoubtedly rejoices in being the first to apply that label to what would be - Mary becoming a mother. A very very special mother.

I think it is rather ridiculous to suggest there is a "fully human" person of any sort, let alone GOD PERSON, not having any "breath of life, not having any light, any vision, any voice, any eating, any digesting, etc. etc.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I thought you wanted to stick to the words of Scripture, or was that someone else!?

You can interpret it that way - I think my interpretation makes more sense overall.

 

[Davidnic]

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.

You place a great deal of personal opinions that do not agree with the language used. Who has the joy is not even linguistically in dispute. 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. It is not the case of leaped because the mother felt joy or it was just movement. You have zero linguistic argument on this. And that is not an opinion. That is black and white how the language works. Another thing...the word used here for Babe is the one used for a child born as well. So you have that to contend with as well. Scripture makes no difference between the Baptist here and the born Christ Child in Luke 2:12. Unborn and newborn in Scripture are referred to with the same word. And it is not like other words did not exist.

So again, you say it is unclear and that other things are more likely. But everything is against that view. From the Greek language to the constant interpretation of this passage you are refuted again and again.

And it also goes deeper. In the ancient world it was Christianity that made the revelation that children are people (unborn and born). Christianity, when pagan faith referred to the unborn as things, referred to them as people. The reason you have to manipulate Scripture and pretend it says things other than it does, accuse the Early Church of corruption and all of this...is because the argument you are making is a Pagan argument. You are trying to use Scripture to make one of the arguments Divine Revelation in Scripture was given to refute. And did refute.

You should read When Children Became People by Odd Bakke. It gives an in depth look at the impact Christianity had on the errors that pagans had about the unborn. And how it was Christianity that revealed the Truth to the world in so many ways. And the person-hood of the unborn was tied to that.

This is why your argument can not gain any traction against the history of Christian interpretation of this Scripture or the facts of the language used. It was inherently the point of the Revelation that this was the language inspired. So trying to spin, ignore or rewrite the rules of Greek syntax does not work.

Look at how the Pagans viewed the unborn, and how the Ancient Christians did. Look at how language changed because of Christians and their Scripture. This Scripture included.

Your question was has the Church always been corrupt. The answer is no. No it has not. It was the force that brushed aside the errors like saying the unborn were not people or were objects or things or proto-people. Again, this is just history. This is just fact. Not my facts. Just fact. Do the research. Read the old pagan views and see when they changed. Look at how the ancient Church viewed this topic. Look at how society changed as Christianity changed with by the unrelenting force of the Truth you now try to rewrite.

Sorry but it is basic history that this all happened. Volumes of books address it. Read Bakke's book. Find others. But I promise at every turn what you are trying to prove (that the unborn are not people) will run into a wall. You might not accept it but Scripture, history and all research attests to it. Your option is simply that Scripture and all Early Christians were wrong for you to be right. But these constant attempts to dodge the clear language and history of the belief are only proving your point in error again and again.

 

[Davidnic]

Douglas, can you read Greek? I do not mean in a concordance (although that suffices to prove you wrong) but do you read Greek. Because I can not see how you do and make the claim that the language means anything close to what you are thinking it could mean. I am not being difficult but it just does not mean anything other than the babe was the one who felt the joy and leaped because of it. This is why the ancient Church is in accord on this passage and differs with you. It is clear. Crystal clear in the language. There is no room for a different linguistic structure on it.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

And is it not how much of Christianity has treated such accounts at those in Luke 1?

No, it is not.

\\This appears to me to be going WAY BEYOND ANYTHING IN SCRIPTURE - a preacher getting carried away with his preaching. \\

Of course, protestant and especially pentecostal preachers NEVER do this, do they?

BTW, how many works of ST. Ambrose of Milan have you read?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

 

[Philip_B]

You can interpret it that way - I think my interpretation makes more sense overall.

So is that exegesis or eisegesis?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

 

[Davidnic]

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 Elizabeth is wrong...Scripture chose the wrong word because you do not like it. It is her claim. He claim in inspired Scripture. You see how in order to support what you want desperately to believe you have to undermine Scripture. The measure you personally chose as the only acceptable one that we were not allowed to go beyond at all. But aren't you going beyond it by claiming that and Inspired woman recorded by an Inspired writer...was her modification.

Your assertion does not even stand up to your own chosen measure. And I did not just now add exultation. The Greek is translated both ways, Joy/Exultation. We were actually at this point yesterday post 32 in the other thread:

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 have some full circle. And back to the wall you keep hitting. That for you to be right God's Inspired Word must be wrong.

 

[Davidnic]

Well I work overnight, so it is time for me to get to bed. Goodnight all. May the Lord bless all of you.

 

[Philip_B]

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.

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.