Does a Human Being have a body?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Never said that.

But Elizabeth said the baby leapt in her womb with joy, and she was filled with the Holy Spirit.

At least that's what the Scriptures say. And I believe it.

I too believe Elizabeth said that.

AND THE ANGELS TREMBLE.

By the way, wombs have nothing to do with Holy Spirit or anything spiritual - they are utter flesh.

(Well I am "utter" flesh, yet that's another story.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

A womb is a part of a human body. Human bodies are made of flesh. The Holy Spirit interacts with human beings - who are made of flesh.

There is no necessary disconnect here. Except perhaps to the gnostic heretics.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I too believe Elizabeth said that.

You just don't accept the implications, or think she lied?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You just don't accept the implications, or think she lied?

Might say exaggerations.
Probably both hers and yours.
AND SLOPPY WAYS OF DESCRIBING THINGS THAT ARE "GOOD ENOUGH."

No I don't think she lied, I doubt she was that kind of person at all.

List the supposed implications and I'll deal with them one at a time.
(I suspect NONE of them is a necessary implication ...)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

A womb is a part of a human body. Human bodies are made of flesh. The Holy Spirit interacts with human beings - who are made of flesh.

There is no necessary disconnect here. Except perhaps to the gnostic heretics.

Yes, the Holy Spirit interacts with human beings.
ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION or proof THAT THERE COULD NOT BE A HUMAN BEING IN THE WOMB.
Not even an independent physical body (animal), NOT EVEN PHYSICAL BODILY ACTION let alone spiritual acting. Which is why the bit about "leaping" is so incredible, unbelievable.
NOTHING TO LEAP OVER. Something like that.

WOMBS and their contents are pretty much solid flesh - not room for air for instance, not like a balloon that is filly with air - NOTHING AIRY EVEN.

CERTAINLY NOTHING OF THE HOLY GHOST OR HOLY SPIRIT.
(Except for the very peripheral fact that spirit of some sort of other may have been involved in getting her pregnant.)

So you say "leaping" is always a spirit thing?
That's why the "leaped" suggestion is begging the question. Wherever it came from.

 

[Open Heart]

We are not a species of invisible single cells.

Did I say the cells were invisible?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Did I say the cells were invisible?

You say there are invisible human beings when you say a zygote is a human being.
(Thus showing how ridiculous the idea is!)

(Not to be seen by the naked eye, that is, of course.)

"THE FETUS SPIRIT COMMUNES WITH GOD"? Totally ridiculous.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Might say exaggerations.
Probably both hers and yours.
AND SLOPPY WAYS OF DESCRIBING THINGS THAT ARE "GOOD ENOUGH."

No I don't think she lied, I doubt she was that kind of person at all.

List the supposed implications and I'll deal with them one at a time.
(I suspect NONE of them is a necessary implication ...)

Well, you are the one who said

WHAT IF :
LIZ DID NOT EVEN FEEL, even feel ANYTHING IN HER BELLY
And just made up a story.

Sure sounded like you wanted to say she was lying. Claiming such a thing, and involving the Holy Spirit, when you know you didn't feel any such thing ... is a little more serious than just exaggerating.

But frankly, I believe that she meant exactly what she said and was telling the truth.

If we get to arbitrarily say that so-and-so "just made up a story" when they relate events that happen in Scripture, then you might as well throw the whole thing out, if it's so untrustworthy.

But I don't think it is.

Even if it makes uncomfortable points.

If the child John could leap on the womb for joy at hearing the Virgin Mary speak, his mother filled with the Holy Spirit as a result, and know that Mary was carrying Jesus in her womb, the implication is that John the Baptist was a person.

I've already mentioned that.

Yes, the Holy Spirit interacts with human beings.
ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION or proof THAT THERE COULD NOT BE A HUMAN BEING IN THE WOMB.
Not even an independent physical body (animal), NOT EVEN PHYSICAL BODILY ACTION let alone spiritual acting. Which is why the bit about "leaping" is so incredible, unbelievable.
NOTHING TO LEAP OVER. Something like that.

WOMBS and their contents are pretty much solid flesh - not room for air for instance, not like a balloon that is filly with air - NOTHING AIRY EVEN.

Babies can move in the womb. As you pointed out, she was not full term. No, it is not full of air, it is full of amniotic fluid.

This is faulty reasoning in an attempt to dodge what Scripture says. Again, you deny the words of a woman who - incidentally - was just filled with the Holy Spirit, who gave her supernatural revelation that the Virgin Mary carried Jesus.

CERTAINLY NOTHING OF THE HOLY GHOST OR HOLY SPIRIT.
(Except for the very peripheral fact that spirit of some sort of other may have been involved in getting her pregnant.)

Denial of Scripture again.

So you say

"leaping" is always a spirit thing?
That's why the "leaped" suggestion is begging the question. Wherever it came from.

I said no such thing. Read the Scriptures. Unless again, you think Elizabeth made it up.

Just so you know, I will not be engaging in this silliness back and forth all day. If you choose to reply, I will reply in a day or so. But this is unfruitful as your arguments deny the Scriptures, make false arguments, and set up strawmen from my words which I never said. (Don't ask me where - in the parts I reply to above.)

I'm unsure what the motive for this conversation is. If it is to justify an abortion, it is better that anyone who sins repents and deals with it so they can move on to healing. And my compassion is for any such person. If it is a true lack of understanding then I would suggest accepting what the Scriptures say. But if it is merely a desire to stir up arguments, that is a sport unworthy of a Christian, and grieving to God. Or perhaps it is something else. Be that as it may, I must limit the time spent on causes that risk simply being contentious.

 

[SPF]

First off, great post above this Anastasia. Secondly, Douglas you said:

Yes, the Holy Spirit interacts with human beings.
ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION or proof THAT THERE COULD NOT BE A HUMAN BEING IN THE WOMB.

You actually have it backwards. The fact that John the Baptist DID leap for joy in his mother's womb is an indication that John was a human being in his mother's womb since the Holy Spirit does interact with human beings.

 

[Open Heart]

You say there are invisible human beings when you say a zygote is a human being.

Zygotes are not invisible.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

WHERE ARE THE SUPPOSED "IMPLICATIONS"?
(Here's an implication for you. Something that never really leaps let alone breathes, qualifies to be a human being. Ridiculous.)

Well, you are the one who said

You accused me of possibly not accepting the implications?
SO what are the supposed implications I supposedly may not accept.
Let us see whether they are nonsense - what do you have in mind?

Or put another way, I can't answer the question about whether I accept the implications unless you tell me what those supposedly are.

edit: it is the supposed implications of what Elizabeth claimed in Luke 1:44 that we are talking about.
I have already told you what the actual implications are.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Zygotes are not invisible.

Invisible to the naked eye, my reading tells me.

How often have you seen an individual human cell, seen it to be a cell. Without a microscope.
NEVER, I would venture to say. That is what a zygote is, ONE HUMAN CELL.

I know it sounds incredible, but some people do claim there are such invisible "human beings." Of course they are deluded about what there must be for there to BE even the beginning of a human being body. NO BODY. NO VISIBILITY. VIRTUALLY NOTHING.

 

[Open Heart]

Invisible to the naked eye, my reading tells me.

I don't consider that a significant point. As Dr. Seuss' "Horton Hears a Who" so very simply put's it, "No matter how big or how small, a person is a person after all."

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas said:
CERTAINLY NOTHING OF THE HOLY GHOST OR HOLY SPIRIT.
(Except for the very peripheral fact that spirit of some sort of other may have been involved in getting her pregnant.)

Denial of Scripture again.

No denial of Scripture.
I was here talking of womb and womb contents in general, not of Elizabeth (or Mary) in particular.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I don't consider that a significant point. As Dr. Seuss' "Horton Hears a Who" so very simply put's it, "No matter how big or how small, a person is a person after all."

Yes, if it is ever a person. A PERSON IS A PERSON does not make any useful point, whereas pointing out that some people are trying to claim there are invisible persons is significant, and their idea is of course an insane ridiculous falsehood.

Your little poem in no way proves anything, except that the good Doctor IF he suggested that a human being could be ANY physical size, that is not believable and pretty stupid. A person as big as a mountain or so small as to be invisible, I suspect he never at all had such ridiculousness in mind. And certainly he is NOT SCRIPTURE.

 

[Open Heart]

Yes, if it is ever a person.

Your argument was that it wasn't a person because it was so small that it was invisible. Let's get that one out of the way.

My argument is that it is a human being the moment it has a full set of human chromosomes (or the normal set of human deviations). After all, it's not a chimp or horse or fish. That zygote has ALL the potential of living to a ripe old age.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Your argument was that it wasn't a person because it was so small that it was invisible. Let's get that one out of the way.

Ok, good to see some common sense.

So you accept that a zygote could not possibly be a person. Fine.

I was just responding to the claims you seemed to be making with your Dr. Seuss thing.

 

[SPF]

That is what a zygote is, ONE HUMAN CELL.

I'm surprised at you Douglas. For being so technical and literal in your language, surely you recognize that a zygote only consists of one cell for a very brief period of time before the cells begin to divide.You speak as if the zygote is always just one cell, which is not the case.

Douglas, if it sounds like you are repeating yourself and going around in circles it's because you are. You make a lot of outrageous claims and create your own definition of what a human being is which flies in direct contradiction to the entire scientific community. I still don't know why I should take your opinion over the past 100 years of established science.

You continue to say that in order for a human being to exist that it must exist outside the womb. Yet, I don't see yet why this must be the case. I know you say it a lot, but you don't really provide any scientific reasoning why.

Can you provide a working definition of "body" as you understand the term?

 

[Open Heart]

Ok, good to see some common sense.

So you accept that a zygote could not possibly be a person. Fine.

I was just responding to the claims you seemed to be making with your Dr. Seuss thing.

I stated that your argument that size has no bearing on whether or not a being was a person. A zygote may be a person even though it is invisible to the naked eye. You yourself stated that my argument was true "if it is ever a person." IOW, if it meets other criteria for being a person, then its size is irrelevant, you agreed.

As to the philosophical idea of a person, I don't think we really have a working definition. If we say someone with a heartbeat, there are those adults who have no heart beats but do have brainwaves who we still grant rights to. If we say working brains, there are human vegetables to whom we grant rights. There are humans without limbs, humans without eyes or hearing or immune systems or even a conscience. We grant them all personhood. In the end, a "person" is simply an individual who is a human being. By that definition, even a zygote would be a person.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

First off, great post above this Anastasia. Secondly, Douglas you said:

You actually have it backwards. The fact that John the Baptist DID leap for joy in his mother's womb is an indication that John was a human being in his mother's womb since the Holy Spirit does interact with human beings.

First, there are two questions here.
What of Luke 1 41-44 is anything about the Holy Ghost, and if so what is the interaction, the actual reality of Holy Ghosting?
Is anything other than, "and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost," ACTUALLY about any Holy Ghost?

The Holy Spirit does interact with human beings. (On that we agree.)
What are the necessary features of these interactions?

Guess what, what we don't agree on is whether there is a human being in a womb, or in other words whether fetuses, RAW MEAT as it were, can or would ever "INTERACT" with the Holy Spirit. Even more the other way around, whether such pure flesh can be anything of Holy Spirit. Whether any Holy Ghost might be present therein ... what can we say IS HOLY SPIRIT ?
SPIRIT OF TRUTH i.e. intellectuality ...I'd say there CANNOT BE any Spirit of Truth "goings on" in the womb.
Open question: Are '"human beings" the ONLY thing Holy Spirit deals with?
(I don't think we are told.)