Yah, just BEAR FALSE WITNESS against me! (A few dozen more times perhaps?) Smear without naming.
Upvote
0
HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?
- Thread starter Douglas Hendrickson
- Start date
Yah, just BEAR FALSE WITNESS against me! (A few dozen more times perhaps?) Smear without naming.
Why not talk about what Saint Ambrose said, which is the subject of the OP?
Just trying to "get the goods" (bads) on me? Are you being paid to do so?
Upvote
0
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
How are you differentiating from Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Ghost and Scripture inspired? That seems a very personally advantageous distinction. And a really fine hair to split to justify your point.
In your original thread you asked about the action of the Holy Spirit on the Baptist and the factual answer based in Scripture did not please you. Paul often ties the Holy Ghost to Joy. Joy flowing from the Holy Ghost. Scripture says the forerunner will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before his birth. That is fulfilled in the leap. He is filled with the Holy Spirit and the joy overflows and fills his mother, who then with the Spirit upon her attests to the joy of the Baptist. All of this shows the personhood in the womb.
You are reluctant to accept the clarity because it disagrees with what you want to believe. Just as when the Apostles get the Holy Ghost there is joy. The cause of the Holy Spirit coming over Elizabeth is the Holy Spirit and the Joy in the Baptist that overflows. This is not some verbal acrobatics. It is the chain of events and the Greek. It is not a leap that is the normal movement of the unborn.
We have been over this again and again. You are not going to find the answer you want because the answer you want is not the Truth.
Again and again multiple people in this thread have pointed to constant teaching and the unified view of Scripture across all our divided groups. Back to our oldest records of explanations on this verse and related Scripture it is all in unity.
So do you personally get to decide when someone in Scripture, overcome by the Spirit, is modifying events. Just because you do not want God's Truth to be True and plain here will never ever change what the Scripture is. It will also not change that to hold that the unborn is not a person is a pagan view that was countered and opposed by Christianity. The historical record is clear on that too.
So for you to be right Elizabeth have to overcome the Truth brought by the Spirit and modify the facts. All of Christianity united and divided since ancient times has to be in error or corrupt. And the historical record of the view of what a person is that was one of the defining marks of the Early Christians vs the Pagan neighbors...has to be wrong for the Christians but right for the Pagans.
And given all that you still try to justify you being right and all of that being wrong. And you would not even want to get into the Hebrew views from the Mishnaic era of the fetuses singing and praising God in their mother's wombs as they crossed the red sea. Christianity, drawing from the seeds God planted with the Israelites, changed the worlds view on the unborn. It was only as we began to reject God more and more that the pagan view started to become strong again. As we push our culture into a post Christian era, the old errors resurface. From the unborn being not a person to the old Gnostic errors and more. We see it in our entire culture. Don't buy into it.
We see in Scripture God preparing people for the Truth of person-hood and being made in His Image. This culminates, like all of Divine Revelation, with Christ. And part of that is clear in this story with the Baptist.
In your original thread you asked about the action of the Holy Spirit on the Baptist and the factual answer based in Scripture did not please you. Paul often ties the Holy Ghost to Joy. Joy flowing from the Holy Ghost. Scripture says the forerunner will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before his birth. That is fulfilled in the leap. He is filled with the Holy Spirit and the joy overflows and fills his mother, who then with the Spirit upon her attests to the joy of the Baptist. All of this shows the personhood in the womb.
You are reluctant to accept the clarity because it disagrees with what you want to believe. Just as when the Apostles get the Holy Ghost there is joy. The cause of the Holy Spirit coming over Elizabeth is the Holy Spirit and the Joy in the Baptist that overflows. This is not some verbal acrobatics. It is the chain of events and the Greek. It is not a leap that is the normal movement of the unborn.
We have been over this again and again. You are not going to find the answer you want because the answer you want is not the Truth.
Again and again multiple people in this thread have pointed to constant teaching and the unified view of Scripture across all our divided groups. Back to our oldest records of explanations on this verse and related Scripture it is all in unity.
So do you personally get to decide when someone in Scripture, overcome by the Spirit, is modifying events. Just because you do not want God's Truth to be True and plain here will never ever change what the Scripture is. It will also not change that to hold that the unborn is not a person is a pagan view that was countered and opposed by Christianity. The historical record is clear on that too.
So for you to be right Elizabeth have to overcome the Truth brought by the Spirit and modify the facts. All of Christianity united and divided since ancient times has to be in error or corrupt. And the historical record of the view of what a person is that was one of the defining marks of the Early Christians vs the Pagan neighbors...has to be wrong for the Christians but right for the Pagans.
And given all that you still try to justify you being right and all of that being wrong. And you would not even want to get into the Hebrew views from the Mishnaic era of the fetuses singing and praising God in their mother's wombs as they crossed the red sea. Christianity, drawing from the seeds God planted with the Israelites, changed the worlds view on the unborn. It was only as we began to reject God more and more that the pagan view started to become strong again. As we push our culture into a post Christian era, the old errors resurface. From the unborn being not a person to the old Gnostic errors and more. We see it in our entire culture. Don't buy into it.
We see in Scripture God preparing people for the Truth of person-hood and being made in His Image. This culminates, like all of Divine Revelation, with Christ. And part of that is clear in this story with the Baptist.
Upvote
0
- Aug 8, 2004
- 11,336
- 1,728
- 64
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
LOL, posts offered previously where God is imagined to have "elements" (and this is just one expression of many offered in 800+ posts that is contrary to the Trinity Doctrine) then it is confirmed again here in this thread as something not denied and supposedly my claim that there is a non-Trinity Doctrine belief here is somehow bearing false witness.
OK [if that was claimed to be a smear], please explain how the idea that God has "elements" is compatible with the Trinity Doctrine.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Aug 8, 2004
- 11,336
- 1,728
- 64
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Actually it is apparent there is no desire expressed in the OP to understand what Saint Ambrose said or what almost 2000 years of Christianity have taught. Anymore than in nearly 900 posts we can see a desire to promote/defend the Trinity Doctrine or present an understandable idea of an immaterial soul being integral to human nature, just as immaterial spirits are integral to all animal life.
I have heard some people get off on lying about their beliefs but never met someone like that. I could understand someone holding to theology that if confessed would restrict there ability to freely post their ideas in CF, but no they do not pay me to point out when someone is being deceptive about their beliefs to avoid rules we all voluntarily agreed to follow. I could understand why such a person would not want to explain why they have posted the things they have posted. But in my experience here eventually the record of doing that will catch up with them.
Upvote
0
Since you seem to have gotten this bit about "elements" from some post of mine, how about sharing that particular quote with us?
Just on the surface your last question could be answered by, the Trinity has the "elements" of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I presume you have heard of them.
I think "persons" is the more usual terminology for those particular elements. Whatever it may have been, certainly GOD has features, definite characteristics. I guess in some of your concern about heresies you have come across "elements" being a no no. Again, until I can see how I actually used the term (if I did), I am unable to say more about it.
I certainly believe in the Trinity, and stand to be corrected if something I said was false in relation to it.
Upvote
0
It would be nice if you as least used "reply" so one could see exactly what you are responding to. Thanks.
Elizabeth and Scripture are doing different things. Elizabeth was exulting in jubilation and joy; Scripture is an account of the situation and what she said. The inspiration of Scripture is more toward truth and presenting the truth - also to inspire those who read.
The differentiation I am pointing to is the additional words of Elizabeth, "for joy." These are the words of a very excited woman, not a dispassionate chronicler.
NO, and I am not saying she is modifying events. She is modifying the depiction of events. Adding to the account given just before. The dispassionate, objective account is given in 41 - and her subjective interpretation of them in 44.
It would seem those wanting the anti-abortion edifice build it on this (obvious?) subjectivity - a whole lot to claim on the basis of one "en agalloisis."
Upvote
0
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Oh Anti-Abortion is built on much more than this Scripture and held in the early Church. So there is no agenda to twist this Scripture on that part.
Mainly because the Scripture is, again, linguistically clear.
You have been told this over and over and it has been explained over and over. Your view of Inspiration potentially allows massive errors into Scripture and reduces the Holy Spirit to a helpless scribe unable to present the Truth of revelation if someone exaggerates. All the Spirit can do is make sure the Gospel author writes down the error and wait for one person to personally interpenetrate it correctly on their own.
That is not a view of Scripture that in in line with Inspiration. And it also is doubly incorrect here because Elizabeth while she is speaking is under the influence of the Holy Spirit. So the Spirit would be having to correct the Spirit.
At this point people have explained things over and over. It is clear you want to believe what you believe despite the evidence and are not open to the repeated proofs of the people in this debate. And that is fine for you. Like I said these threads rarely are for those in it. Many more watch than participate. And those are the ones people repeat themselves for.
Mainly because the Scripture is, again, linguistically clear.
You have been told this over and over and it has been explained over and over. Your view of Inspiration potentially allows massive errors into Scripture and reduces the Holy Spirit to a helpless scribe unable to present the Truth of revelation if someone exaggerates. All the Spirit can do is make sure the Gospel author writes down the error and wait for one person to personally interpenetrate it correctly on their own.
That is not a view of Scripture that in in line with Inspiration. And it also is doubly incorrect here because Elizabeth while she is speaking is under the influence of the Holy Spirit. So the Spirit would be having to correct the Spirit.
At this point people have explained things over and over. It is clear you want to believe what you believe despite the evidence and are not open to the repeated proofs of the people in this debate. And that is fine for you. Like I said these threads rarely are for those in it. Many more watch than participate. And those are the ones people repeat themselves for.
Upvote
0
SPF
Well-Known Member
- Feb 7, 2017
- 3,594
- 1,984
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
Douglas, what strikes me as alarming is that you readily admit that you have no Greek understanding or knowledge:
Not only do you not have any understanding of Greek, you're holding to a very strong position, without any seeming flexibility, while basically not having the right tools to defend your position. I want you to take seriously the quote below from Davidnic. He is spot on in what he says.
This is why you're having so much trouble. The problem is that you have come to an understanding about how humanity works, when it comes into existence, and what it is while still in the womb without any consultation of Scripture or Science. To quote your favorite saying, your position is entirely your fabrication. The fact is that you are unable to point to anything scientific or anyone in the scientific community that can support you. You are unable to point to anything in the Bible or anyone throughout all of Church history that agrees with you.
The simply reality that you are facing is that you are utterly alone in your position. Science does not support you. The Bible does not support you. It has become abundantly clear from these conversations that you have not studied at all the Scriptures on this matter. When confronted with Scripture that contradicts you, you embark upon a magical wordsmith journey where you come up with ideas and interpretations which are entirely your fabrication and based upon NO KNOWLEDGE of how the language of Scripture works.
I am utterly lost and confused as to why someone would so willingly, strongly, and purposely hold onto a position such as yours when you have to realize by now that science and Scripture are utterly against your position. Why Douglas? Why is it so important to you that you hold onto this distinction between human life inside a womb vs human life outside a womb?
Your position is so alarming that you even went to the extent to create a topic questioning whether or not the Church has "always been corrupt" No Douglas! No! You are the one who is corrupt! You are the one who is alone an has fabricated a belief that you did not pull from Scripture! You are fighting tooth and nail to find a way to fit it INTO Scripture! Read Davidnic's quote up top again! Then read it again! It isn't his opinion, it's simply the nature of Biblical language and what was written!
To be blunt, you remind me of Charles Russell who founded the JW cult. He had no foundation. He did not know anything of Church history. He did not know anything of Greek. He looked at Scripture and thought it made sense since Jesus was called the son of man that He couldn't actually be God. He then went on to form heresy after heresy. He had no accountability. He had no knowledge of Church history. He had no idea he was falling victim to previous heresies that had already been addressed.
Douglas, take advantage of this opportunity to come to a better understanding from people who actually know church history, who actually know Greek. Don't throw away this opportunity to deepen your understanding of Scripture and the nature of man because you refuse to release yourself from your fabricated opinion about human life which you don't based upon anything other than ideas you've come up with!
Not only do you not have any understanding of Greek, you're holding to a very strong position, without any seeming flexibility, while basically not having the right tools to defend your position. I want you to take seriously the quote below from Davidnic. He is spot on in what he says.
This is why you're having so much trouble. The problem is that you have come to an understanding about how humanity works, when it comes into existence, and what it is while still in the womb without any consultation of Scripture or Science. To quote your favorite saying, your position is entirely your fabrication. The fact is that you are unable to point to anything scientific or anyone in the scientific community that can support you. You are unable to point to anything in the Bible or anyone throughout all of Church history that agrees with you.
The simply reality that you are facing is that you are utterly alone in your position. Science does not support you. The Bible does not support you. It has become abundantly clear from these conversations that you have not studied at all the Scriptures on this matter. When confronted with Scripture that contradicts you, you embark upon a magical wordsmith journey where you come up with ideas and interpretations which are entirely your fabrication and based upon NO KNOWLEDGE of how the language of Scripture works.
I am utterly lost and confused as to why someone would so willingly, strongly, and purposely hold onto a position such as yours when you have to realize by now that science and Scripture are utterly against your position. Why Douglas? Why is it so important to you that you hold onto this distinction between human life inside a womb vs human life outside a womb?
Your position is so alarming that you even went to the extent to create a topic questioning whether or not the Church has "always been corrupt" No Douglas! No! You are the one who is corrupt! You are the one who is alone an has fabricated a belief that you did not pull from Scripture! You are fighting tooth and nail to find a way to fit it INTO Scripture! Read Davidnic's quote up top again! Then read it again! It isn't his opinion, it's simply the nature of Biblical language and what was written!
To be blunt, you remind me of Charles Russell who founded the JW cult. He had no foundation. He did not know anything of Church history. He did not know anything of Greek. He looked at Scripture and thought it made sense since Jesus was called the son of man that He couldn't actually be God. He then went on to form heresy after heresy. He had no accountability. He had no knowledge of Church history. He had no idea he was falling victim to previous heresies that had already been addressed.
Douglas, take advantage of this opportunity to come to a better understanding from people who actually know church history, who actually know Greek. Don't throw away this opportunity to deepen your understanding of Scripture and the nature of man because you refuse to release yourself from your fabricated opinion about human life which you don't based upon anything other than ideas you've come up with!
Upvote
0
"Almost" a coincidence - three minutes after Davidnic concludes the post immediately before yours with "Many more watch than participate. And those are the ones people repeat themselves for," you REPEAT AN ENTIRE LONG POST, which I had responded to before at your special request; that is, I was a little slow in responding the first time. You can scroll back a bit if you somehow missed my replies to your concern for me personally.
I think it would be preferable if you responded to points about Scripture and what Ambrose said - maybe even to what I already said in response to this pose. Edit: er, post.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
SPF
Well-Known Member
- Feb 7, 2017
- 3,594
- 1,984
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
For what it's worth, I don't see anywhere that you responded to the content of what I wrote. And not that it matters, but I posted this before seeing David's most recent post. But it certainly is interesting!
Douglas, I think your lack of response to what I wrote is quite telling. The fact is that at this point the only thing you can do is repeat yourself with regards to your lack of understanding of the Luke passage. You are incapable of refuting the Greek and the nature of how the passage is constructed. All you're doing is fabricating your own invention as to what the passage could say, with the foundation being your personal opinion on when human life begins, not on anything of substance.
Can you point to anyone in the scientific community that agrees with you? Can you point to any Biblical commentator throughout all of time that agrees with you? Can you point to any understanding of the Greek language that would lend credit towards your fabricated interpretation? The answer as we all know at this point to all these questions is.... No, you cannot.
Based on your responses to these passages and the way your interpretations of them have developed over the course of this dialogue, I would imagine that you had no real experience with them prior to this discussion. Your view seems entirely fabricated upon some personal and subjective notion that doesn't come at all from Scripture. The foundation of your position is clearly your own mind. Why should anyone agree with you when both science and Scripture are in opposition to your view?
Douglas, I think your lack of response to what I wrote is quite telling. The fact is that at this point the only thing you can do is repeat yourself with regards to your lack of understanding of the Luke passage. You are incapable of refuting the Greek and the nature of how the passage is constructed. All you're doing is fabricating your own invention as to what the passage could say, with the foundation being your personal opinion on when human life begins, not on anything of substance.
Can you point to anyone in the scientific community that agrees with you? Can you point to any Biblical commentator throughout all of time that agrees with you? Can you point to any understanding of the Greek language that would lend credit towards your fabricated interpretation? The answer as we all know at this point to all these questions is.... No, you cannot.
Based on your responses to these passages and the way your interpretations of them have developed over the course of this dialogue, I would imagine that you had no real experience with them prior to this discussion. Your view seems entirely fabricated upon some personal and subjective notion that doesn't come at all from Scripture. The foundation of your position is clearly your own mind. Why should anyone agree with you when both science and Scripture are in opposition to your view?
Upvote
0
SPF
Well-Known Member
- Feb 7, 2017
- 3,594
- 1,984
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
So your response to the content of what I wrote is to say, "I don't care about the Greek" and "I am responding to Davidnic"
Sorry Douglas, but that isn't much of a response.
Can you point to anyone in the scientific community that agrees with you? Can you point to any Biblical commentator throughout all of time that agrees with you? Can you point to any understanding of the Greek language that would lend credit towards your fabricated interpretation?
How do you deal with the fact that the Greek is actually very clear in this passage as has been outlined to you? On what basis do you have to disagree with it other than your own fabricated opinion?
Luke 1:15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb."
The NASB translation is better because it is more clear. Because you don't understand Greek, you should be appreciative of the NASB translation as it clarifies the Greek better than the KJV does in that you can clearly see that John was filled with the HS while he was still in the womb.
Luke 1:44 "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.
This passage is also clear in the Greek. This isn't debatable Douglas. And that's the point - if you had any basic understanding of Greek then you wouldn't be arguing this point. Therefore, because you are ignorant of Greek, you need to rely on those that are knowledgeable in Greek. But the sad truth is that you actually don't even need the Greek, the English suffices. The baby, John, leaped in his mother's womb for joy. It's actually clear in itself. Who? The baby. The baby did what? The baby leaped. Where? In the womb. Why? Because it was joyful. It's actually very straightforward.
And herein lies the problem. You are utterly alone in your disagreement with the clear nature of the passages. Alone Douglas. You have to fabricate out of your own magical word smithing an interpretation that isn't based in reality. You are incapable of pointing to anyone who agrees with your fabricated views. You are incapable of providing any support from the Greek to enforce your fabricated views.
The only reason that anyone would fight tooth and nail as you are over these passages is because they are approaching Scripture with a fabricated and personal understanding of something that contradicts the clear teaching of these passages. The problem Douglas is that you are entirely blinded by your fabricated notion of humans not existing in a womb that your willing to accuse the Church of always being corrupt. It's absurd. The bottom line is that your view contradicts Scripture. So you need to determine what's more authoritative in your life. Yourself and your opinions - or God.
Sorry Douglas, but that isn't much of a response.
Can you point to anyone in the scientific community that agrees with you? Can you point to any Biblical commentator throughout all of time that agrees with you? Can you point to any understanding of the Greek language that would lend credit towards your fabricated interpretation?
How do you deal with the fact that the Greek is actually very clear in this passage as has been outlined to you? On what basis do you have to disagree with it other than your own fabricated opinion?
Luke 1:15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb."
The NASB translation is better because it is more clear. Because you don't understand Greek, you should be appreciative of the NASB translation as it clarifies the Greek better than the KJV does in that you can clearly see that John was filled with the HS while he was still in the womb.
Luke 1:44 "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.
This passage is also clear in the Greek. This isn't debatable Douglas. And that's the point - if you had any basic understanding of Greek then you wouldn't be arguing this point. Therefore, because you are ignorant of Greek, you need to rely on those that are knowledgeable in Greek. But the sad truth is that you actually don't even need the Greek, the English suffices. The baby, John, leaped in his mother's womb for joy. It's actually clear in itself. Who? The baby. The baby did what? The baby leaped. Where? In the womb. Why? Because it was joyful. It's actually very straightforward.
And herein lies the problem. You are utterly alone in your disagreement with the clear nature of the passages. Alone Douglas. You have to fabricate out of your own magical word smithing an interpretation that isn't based in reality. You are incapable of pointing to anyone who agrees with your fabricated views. You are incapable of providing any support from the Greek to enforce your fabricated views.
The only reason that anyone would fight tooth and nail as you are over these passages is because they are approaching Scripture with a fabricated and personal understanding of something that contradicts the clear teaching of these passages. The problem Douglas is that you are entirely blinded by your fabricated notion of humans not existing in a womb that your willing to accuse the Church of always being corrupt. It's absurd. The bottom line is that your view contradicts Scripture. So you need to determine what's more authoritative in your life. Yourself and your opinions - or God.
Upvote
0
I don't see that your first point here is correct - what did I say in that original post that corresponds to what you say - i.e., with what words do I, "ask about the action of the Holy Spirit on the Baptist"?
Then you say, "Paul often ties the Holy Ghost to Joy." I find that only once, in Romans 14:17. Can you give anything more on that? (I already requested further discussion of it.)
Can you explain why 'eti ek' must be translated "even before," Luke 1:15b (or "while yet in") and not the way my Bible says, " even from." I wouldn't consider that something amounting to, "it makes the point I want to make 'more clear'," as sufficient reason. "From" means after, I would think - what can you point to that means it cannot mean "after," "beginning at"? (Last 2 words added in edit.)
Seems to me your, "He is filled with the Holy Spirit and the joy overflows and fills his mother, who then with the Spirit upon her attests to the joy of the Baptist," is fabrication, is not there in the text. (But where ever you get it from it, "shows the personhood in the womb"?
Can you please respond to each of these points, and not with some vague, "we've been over and over them again and again"? Thank you for your every contribution!
Speaking of the "clarity," where does Scripture say that, "when the Apostles get the Holy Ghost there is joy"?
There was a lot of babble, I mean "speaking in tongues," and they were mistakenly taken to be drunk (but there are different kinds of drunkedness, and not always joyful, right?), but I see no mention of joy in those assembled at Pentecost.
I can readily agree that, "The cause of the Holy Spirit coming over Elizabeth is the Holy Spirit...," but how do you get, "and the Joy in the Baptist that overflows"?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Aug 8, 2004
- 11,336
- 1,728
- 64
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Claiming one believes in "the Trinity" is one thing. I said a belief in the "Trinity Doctrine" is not only not evident but contradicted by expressions that have been made. We should also note that Trinity "Doctrine" was not part of the above claim in reply to my last post.
A Father, Son and Holy Ghost even the Mormons will claim that much as Trinity. It is another thing to prove expressions made actually back up the claim as being one that is agreeing with the Trinity Doctrine. We could say my point about Doctrine is being very technical - and yeah maybe it is. But with someone so vague (coy even) about what they believe in, in my experience it pays to be technical. Especially when they also attempt to equate a word like "elements" or "characteristics" or "features" with the concept of "Persons". But sure I can offer quotes as I did with links in another thread, but those were ignored too. As you request:
[Adding - apparently there was some confusion who the following quotes were quotes of - that would be "you" in the last sentence above as in "you requested" this - "you" also being the person I am replying to here. The links to each of these quotes below of that same person can be found here in this LINK where they were ignored that time too: CAN HOLY SPIRIT OPERATE INSIDE A WOMB ? ]
“I was trying to point out that "God" includes all of these elements ("persons" they are usually called), and is NOT "Holy Spirit" alone; the concepts "God" and "Holy Spirit" are NOT SYNONYMOUS.”
"I think "persons" is the more usual terminology for those particular elements. Whatever it may have been, certainly GOD has features, definite characteristics."
"What is NOT common sense is to suggest a human being is a person just like the Trinity has persons.”
"God" is not "Holy Spirit" somewhat like a forest is not only "wood."
““Holy Spirit incarnated God as a man (Son Jesus). He the Father became incarnated as the Son.”
“The Holy Spirit's Father (note the captial F), may be everyone's (spiritual) father.”
“Thing about it is, Holy Spirit is spirit (at least!)”
"God" is not only "Holy Spirit" - the two terminologies should not be considered as pointing to the same identical reality. Knowing-all (omniscience as in your second quote) is a reality of God, but not an action of spirit, not a spirit sort of thing.”
"Is it not contrary to the spirit of Spirit [couldn't resist it] and Holy Scripture that Spirit is anything directly involved in flesh, with which spirit is contrasted?"
‘Would this be the Second Coming, Christ of Holy Spirit Father God?”
"I think "persons" is the more usual terminology for those particular elements. Whatever it may have been, certainly GOD has features, definite characteristics."
"What is NOT common sense is to suggest a human being is a person just like the Trinity has persons.”
"God" is not "Holy Spirit" somewhat like a forest is not only "wood."
““Holy Spirit incarnated God as a man (Son Jesus). He the Father became incarnated as the Son.”
“The Holy Spirit's Father (note the captial F), may be everyone's (spiritual) father.”
“Thing about it is, Holy Spirit is spirit (at least!)”
"God" is not only "Holy Spirit" - the two terminologies should not be considered as pointing to the same identical reality. Knowing-all (omniscience as in your second quote) is a reality of God, but not an action of spirit, not a spirit sort of thing.”
"Is it not contrary to the spirit of Spirit [couldn't resist it] and Holy Scripture that Spirit is anything directly involved in flesh, with which spirit is contrasted?"
‘Would this be the Second Coming, Christ of Holy Spirit Father God?”
So yeah, Persons in
In contrast the above expressions indicate that what is imagined "elements" are not each God, but just part of God, like a tree is just another part of the forest. That would be the only way to understand an expression that "the Father became incarnated as the Son." Or the combining of titles of all Three Persons in the last statement, as if each is just a different name for God rather than actual Individual Persons that cannot be "combined" as any characteristic or "element" might be.
So while we could say there is a belief in some sort of Trinity, the belief as expressed does not seem to really include the Trinity Doctrine idea of Three Persons, One God. It rather suggests exactly what is stated, in my words, that Persons is just a label used to talk about another part or "elements" or "feature" or "characteristic" of God. Perhaps most clearly expressed by the statement above that God is "not only Holy Spirit" and that the two terms (Holy Spirit & God) are NOT "pointing to the same identical reality". The reality is Holy Spirit is God, the Son is God, and the Father is God. But none of those Persons are synonymous with each other. It is this last statement especially which I cannot see reflected in any of the above quotes or any quotes at all by same poster. So believing in [Three] Persons is not like saying a tree is just part of one forest. [one could say there are Three Trees, One Forest. Each Tree is Forest (complete) but each Tree ╪ to other Tree, still only One Forest] So yeah, when someone says "of course I believe in the Trinity" it is still important to consider they may not mean by that expression the same thing most Christians do. Clearly a belief in the Trinity Doctrine may NOT be
However it does not end there as there are also expression that have been made which strongly suggest physical aspects of God, like the idea that Omniscience cannot be a part of Spirit. Which suggests a belief that God is more than just a Spirit. That same thought [about the abilities of a spirit] also clearly being expressed in discussion about what our spirit is. Any possession of "knowledge" seems to only be associated with a physical brain, specifically only in the mind of a breathing (born) person. So the idea of humans even having a nature which is both physical (body) and non-physical (soul) seems very clouded. We need not go there with what may be seen as expressions of a physical side of God's Nature. To question a belief in the Trinity Doctrine the above offered quotes are sufficient to prove this claim of a belief in the Trinity is not one that appears to agree with the Trinity Doctrine. In fact the expressions contradict such a belief.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
As far as where you said about the actions of the Holy Spirit on the Baptist your first thread that you made this one off of posts in there...was about the Holy Spirit in the Womb and you referenced Luke 1:15 which is about the Baptist.
As far as the Greek. Why must it be translated as it is? Because that is how Greek works. It is what the word is. You have an English idea of from. And although many imprecise English words can be used the Greeks were far more precise. So a translator may choose many words but those words might mean something in English that is broader than in Greek. The Greek is clear that it is not after birth but while yet in, which we can use "from" bit not in the context of since emerging out of. That is not how that word is used in Greek. It is more exact than the English "from" which can be broad.
As far as that the joy overflows, it is the way the syntax joins the sentence the baby leaping is the cause of the filling of the Spirit. A close syntax equivalent in English would be: We tipped the pitcher of water and the cup was filled. It is directly casual from the event as the source. So, not a fabrication. Elizabeth gets filled because the Spirit flows from the Baptist, who...as the Scripture says will be filled. 1:15 is fulfilled in 1:44.
This is why we have an interpretative tradition that we accept, so translations into less precise languages like English do not cause error in our Faith. Pastors of all Christian groups avail themselves of this and study it in order to preach.
Think of this...in English when the Lord asks Peter does he love Him three times, we can easily be confused if we do not look at the different greek being used. Then the text opens up. But that is not a fabrication when we look at why He uses those words. And the interpretative Tradition exists so we all do not have to speak Greek, Latin, Hebrew...ect.
This is why it is important that you can not find any support of your position in the ancient Church or the interpretation held by divided Christianity even now. Because in the face of the Scripture it would be a personal innovation.
As far as Joy and the Holy Spirit. Paul ties the acceptance to Christ to a work of the Holy Spirit. This is tied often to Joy. It is one of the basics of Pauline Theology. He expressly names it as a Fruit of the Spirit and mentions joy in various forms at least 10 times I think. This helps to form that component of Paul's Theology. Then it ties to how the Spirit is given, flows...ect. There are whole books on Pauline theology on the topic. Like The power of God in Paul's letters by Gräbe published in 2000. There are over a dozen others.
But the connection is evident in Galatians, 1 Thessalonians and other places. Paul's entire Christology is dependent upon the Spirit. And Paul's Christology is tied in with the various expressions of Joy, Exultation, Love...ect.
In reference to the Apostles, they receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit. And are filled with it. That leads to Joy. It is inseparable in New Testament Theology. We can not view each line and event in a bubble, without looking at the rest of Scripture.
Upvote
0
"It is inseparable," how are we to view that? Presumably "New Testament Theology" includes the New Testament. We find occurrences of joy without any indication Holy Spirit present, and many places where there is the Holy Spirit yet it does not seem joy is a necessary element there? Am I missing something of the logic?
I was just noticing how Luke 1:57 says, "she brought forth a son." If the Bible were consistent (with your view!), then wouldn't it read, "she brought forth HER son"? Since according to your view she had had a son for a rather long time.
And wouldn't the ones constructing that theology (e.g. Luke) be most likely to most know that (inspired and all!)? IF that were true?
What does the Greek indicate here?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So is NEB denying the Holy Spirit, being uninspired or something, when it says "from his very birth"? Luke 1:15
Note the "very"!
Note the "very"!
Upvote
0
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Why would you think it should be "her" rather than "a" and that would make any difference? Just because the word used is not possessive does not indicate a lack of perosnhood in the womb. What...do you think that it is not until the child actually exits the womb that perosnhood magically happens???? That personhood and the soul are present by physical location outside the body but not until then.
Because that is the only way I can understand your question. Why would the use of an accusative singular noun mean personhood any less than the use of a genitive pronoun in the third person?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,112
- 11,338
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
You see the problem in hunting through English translations rather than looking at the interpretative tradition and the Greek.
Very in Greek means exceedingly like "Very much" not very as in an event, this very moment. And a greek word to signify the exact moment of birth as the time is not used. But the one that indicates from before the moment is used.
When something is translated there are differences in language. This is because of colloquial variations in the language the text is being translated into. But none of the early Church and the continuous theology on this has supported how you are reading it.
The NEB uses very because it had a British flavor to word use and to use very like that is a common way to Emphasize an event. But no scholars of the NEB have ever interpreted that to mean the event is the point of origin. It is there because in British usage "very" was used to emphasize things at the time and era of the translation. So even in that era the colloquial usage of "very" would not mean how you are using it. But in Greek no work meaning "very" is present.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
