HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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.

With respect to what is in the pregnant womb, I never questioned that there could be movement of that that is not the pregnant woman's own bodily movements. (There is no mother unless she already has a child - certainly not the case for either Elizabeth or Mary in the passages being considered.)
I do not know what you are trying to say - did I ever deny the movement indicated in either verse 41 or 44? That there was movement, and it was not Elizabeth's movement - I never denied that.

I do say the fetus is in pretty much constant movement - I am told that is necessary for muscular and skeletal development. It is (was)not Elizabeth's body - she was host to parasite-like flesh that was not her own flesh (had different DNA).

 

[St_Worm2]

So is that exegesis or eisegesis?

Hi Philip, in Douglas' case, it has consistently been eisegesis (as I'm sure you're already aware), because in all of his threads and posts, he bends/intentionally misinterprets the word of God in one vain attempt after another to make it fit his singular presupposition (that a baby growing in his/her mother's womb is neither alive, nor a person).

Without his presupposition, his interpretation of the verses in Luke 1 would no doubt be the same as ours/the church's.
Douglas, it's impressive (in a way) that you never say "uncle"

(but I think some of your newer arguments in this particular thread have truly reached an all-time low).

Yours and His,
David

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Hi Philip, in Douglas' case, it has consistently been eisegesis (as I'm sure you're already aware), because in all of his threads and posts, he bends/intentionally misinterprets the word of God in one vain attempt after another to make it fit his singular presupposition (that a baby growing in his/her mother's womb is neither alive, nor a person).

Without his presupposition, his interpretation of the verses in Luke 1 would no doubt be the same as ours/the church's.
Douglas, it's impressive (in a way) that you never say "uncle"

(but I think your arguments in this particular thread have truly reached an all-time low, even for you).

Yours and His,
David

Come on David, I certainly do not deny that what is in the pregnant womb is alive (unless and until it stops being so).
So you think it is my call to more strictly conform to Scripture that is off base, unlike the high-flown FABLES CONCOCTED BY SOMEONE LIKE AMBROSE?

 

[redleghunter]

Yes. Christianity went astray from Christ.

Where did Christianity go wrong on this specific subject of the Incarnation?

 

[redleghunter]

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.

How can you come to that conclusion after I posted the plain reading of the passage in question?

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?

 

[redleghunter]

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 we 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.

I thought we were sticking with the plain Scriptures here.

Was Jesus Christ Truly God and Truly human at conception or not? It's a straight forward question.

If not when did His divine nature meet the human nature?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Where did Christianity go wrong on this specific subject of the Incarnation?

Many things.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I thought we were sticking with the plain Scriptures here.

Was Jesus Christ Truly God and Truly human at conception or not? It's a straight forward question.

If not when did His divine nature meet the human nature?

Of course not "truly God and truly human" at conception.
I think it is rather blasphemous to suggest THE LORD JESUS CHRIST SON OF GOD was ever some invisible single cell without even any flesh and blood.
I think I have explicitly rejected such an idea at least a couple of times.

The full humanity of the fully God SON first existed when there was any such thing - at birth.
One reason we make so much of the birth of Christ, I would suggest.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Of course not "truly God and truly human" at conception.
I think it is rather blasphemous to suggest THE LORD JESUS CHRIST SON OF GOD was ever some invisible single cell without even any flesh and blood.
I think I have explicitly rejected such an idea at least a couple of times.

The full humanity of the fully God SON first existed when there was any such thing - at birth.
One reason we make so much of the birth of Christ, I would suggest.

If the Lord Jesus Christ was not Jesus at the moment of his conception then did the Holy Spirit conceive in the womb of Mary a non being with no actual human existence? In what sense is it blasphemous to say Jesus existed like we all existed at one point of time as a fetus?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

If the Lord Jesus Christ was not Jesus at the moment of his conception then did the Holy Spirit conceive in the womb of Mary a non being with no actual human existence? In what sense is it blasphemous to say Jesus existed like we all existed at one point of time as a fetus?

WE never exist as fetuses in the sense of being human beings in a womb, imho. In other words, there is no "we all existed" in wombs. We are created in wombs - we come into existence when we have been made, and that includes the very immense transformations of birth.

Yes non-beings in the sense of animal beings, there is no animal being, no human animal being in any womb - therefore Jesus (as a real person) did not exist before birth. No one, no being member of the species, no "who" ever exists in a womb.

It certainly is to make (characterize) Jesus as lower than all the animals if we want to insist HE existed in a womb. (I am talking real animals - not just conceived animals before there is any flesh and blood, before there is actually an animal.)

It matters quite a bit how precise we are in indicating all this.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

WE never exist as fetuses in the sense of being human beings in a womb, imho. In other words, there is no "we all existed" in wombs. We are created in wombs - we come into existence when we have been made, and that includes the very immense transformations of birth.

Yes non-beings in the sense of animal beings, there is no animal being, no human animal being in any womb - therefore Jesus (as a real person) did not exist before birth. No one, no being member of the species, no "who" ever exists in a womb.

It certainly is to make (characterize) Jesus as lower than all the animals if we want to insist HE existed in a womb. (I am talking real animals - not just conceived animals before there is any flesh and blood, before there is actually an animal.)

It matters quite a bit how precise we are in indicating all this.

I do not understand how you make the move from us beginning to exist at conception (which we obviously do for without being conceived we would not exist) to then move on to distinguishing that from our birth. You seem to believe that the flesh is more important in determining humanity than a micro cellular existence yet babies clearly have flesh bodies before birth. At what point do we move from non person hood to person hood? Why treat the kind of flesh we have outside of the womb to being substantially different than the kind of flesh we have while in the womb? Doesn't it make more sense that when we think of flesh we think of our entire material existence from conception to death? Your theology would introduce immense problems on our material existence as if it is not real until a certain point and I see no basis for saying that it should be limited to after birth.

 

[Philip_B]

WE never exist as fetuses in the sense of being human beings in a womb, imho. In other words, there is no "we all existed" in wombs. We are created in wombs - we come into existence when we have been made, and that includes the very immense transformations of birth.

No one would accuse you of having humble opinions. It seems as if you suggest we are merely potential human being until be leave the womb. Life in the womb it would seem mirrors something of our experience in life moving from dependence to independence only to recognise our absolute dependence. We begin our journey as a zygote, and that zygote retains all the information that has been provided by the gametes that have joined to form the zygote. Quite we we draw the lines I am not a clinician, but we move through zygote to embryo to fetus to unborn child to birth. Whilst it may suite your interpretation to ignore this, I think it is important that we do.

Yes non-beings in the sense of animal beings, there is no animal being, no human animal being in any womb - therefore Jesus (as a real person) did not exist before birth. No one, no being member of the species, no "who" ever exists in a womb.

The reason you want to argue that way may well be because you have an objective you want your reasoning to reach. Coincidentally, whilst I am absolutely not simplistic on this, I don't accept your proposition.

It certainly is to make (characterize) Jesus as lower than all the animals if we want to insist HE existed in a womb. (I am talking real animals - not just conceived animals before there is any flesh and blood, before there is actually an animal.)

I think you miss the strength of vulnerability.

It matters quite a bit how precise we are in indicating all this.

Yes it does. That is why it is important not to use your conclusion as your premise.

 

[Jack Isaacks]

Many things.

Please be SPECIFIC, giving time and place and by whom some of these "many things" went astray from Christ, and where you got the notion they could be recovered only 1500 years or so later.

BTW, I used to be a BAptist, but I got saved became Orthodox. And the son of the Baptist minister who baptized me is now a Roman Catholic.

About the leaping of the unborn St. John the Forerunner iin ST. Elizabeth's womb, the real miracle is that Elizabeth recognized the significance of this. Obviously it was revealed to her by the Holy Spirit.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Please be SPECIFIC, giving time and place and by whom some of these "many things" went astray from Christ, and where you got the notion they could be recovered only 1500 years or so later.

BTW, I used to be a BAptist, but I got saved became Orthodox. And the son of the Baptist minister who baptized me is now a Roman Catholic.

About the leaping of the unborn St. John the Forerunner iin ST. Elizabeth's womb, the real miracle is that Elizabeth recognized the significance of this. Obviously it was revealed to her by the Holy Spirit.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Each church has its share of distance from true Jesus

 

[Philip_B]

Each church has its share of distance from trueJesus

That may be because it takes people to form a Church.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

That may be because it takes people to form a Church.

Yes. People who don't care about Jesus.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes. People who don't care about Jesus.

The Early Church didn't care about Jesus?

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

The Early Church didn't care about Jesus?

I don't know. I didn't live then. Maybe.

 

[PanDeVida]

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?

Douglas, Re: your title: "HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT"?

Douglas, this type of question of yours, you are actually questioning Jesus Christ, that he lied regarding "the gates of hell shall not prevail over it". The Church in its Teachings can never Be Corrupt!

However, Jesus Christ left His Church that He founded on Rock into the hands of Men, aka Apostles and their successors by the laying on of hands. How many mistakes/sins did St. Peter the first Pope do? How many mistakes/sins did the rest of the Apostles do? What SIN did Judas the betrayer do? And Yet the Church still stands for over 2000 years and counting.

The truth is no matter these mistakes/sins the Church it's self can NEVER be corrupt IN ITS TEACHINGS!

Jesus Christ never stated that the Church founded on rock shall not be attacked, however, the attacks shall not prevail: I'm sure you have read, Jesus Christ say: "IF THEY HAVE PERSECUTED ME, THEY WILL PERSECUTE YOU ALSO"... Men can fall away never the Church's Teaching.

Douglas, you stated: "This appears to me to be going WAY BEYOND ANYTHING IN SCRIPTURE, a preach getting carried away with preaching." Life and Truth does not END at The Book of Revelations/Bible. Remember Jesus Christ did not establish a Christian Bible founded on Rock, However Christ established One CHURCH FOUNDED ON ROCK!

Though The Church and the Gospel go hand and hand an inseparable from one another, HOWEVER, the greater of the two is the the CHURCH FOUNDED ON ROCK!

Douglas, I can hear you now and many other here, stating: what the church is greater than the bible, how dare he. Ok, let me prove it to you:

Can the Bible ALONE baptize any one of itself? - Can the Bible ALONE Marry a couple? -

Can the Bible ALONE bring about successors of the Apostles, or is it by the Laying on of hands that bring about Successor to the Apostles? -

Can the Bible ALONE Forgive or Retain Sins? - Can the Bible ALONE Bind or Loose anything in Heaven or on Earth? -

Can the Bible ALONE, transform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, at the Consecration of the Mass? -

Can the Bible preach to you, without the correct interpretation of the Church? - etc... etc... etc...?

Douglas, WELL, can the Bible Alone do any of the above Alone WITHOUT the Church??? Truth is, it is the Church founded on ROCK, that makes Scripture come ALIVE!!!

Douglas, who should we listen to? Should we listen to You or should we listen to St. Ambrose, and the rest of the early Church fathers, close to the time of Christ Himself, who teaches truth???

I will listen to Ambrose and to all the early Church Fathers, not to one you who comes in his own opinions that came over 2000 years later, who has been influenced by the reformation. Ambrose was not influence by the reformation, since there was not! Ambrose in His preaching was influenced by the Holy Spirit. Amen Do not take this away from the Holy Spirit!

Douglas, 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?

Douglas, it seems EXTREME to you because you are no where near the GRACE that St. Ambrose has been given/blessed to receive from above, nor will you ever have, unless you enter the true Church founded on Rock.

 

[Philip_B]

I don't know. I didn't live then. Maybe.

It is patently clear that the Apostolic Church did care about Jesus. Period. It is also quite clear that the Church continues to care about Jesus. Period.