• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Featured Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

Discussion in 'Debates on Abortion' started by Douglas Hendrickson, Dec 11, 2017.

  1. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost. Luke 1:41d
    One thing we know!
    Do we know anything more about that?

    I mean about that, the Holy Spirit "INSIDE" Elisabeth. What can we truthfully say, does Scripture say about that? (Not that it is actually a fetus, I don't think that is what it says.)

    (I tend to think the next line, 42, is the actual actuality of "filled with the Holy Ghost" meant she SPoKE OUT WITH A LOUD VOICE.)
    I like that explanation I don't think I know that explanation.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Dave-W

    Dave-W Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner! Supporter

    +15,847
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Others
    That requires a doctrinal discussion and understanding of the difference between the Holy Spirit Upon -vs- Holy Spirit Within.

    This is not the folder for that discussion.
     
  3. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    I was mostly looking for and should have pointed to explicitly,

    whether anything else in Luke 1 is possibly related to it, and if so how

    Care to tell us what IS the folder for that discussion?

    BTW, is there any difference between "within" and "in," in the case of Holy Spiriting?
     
  4. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    +1,568
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    Luke 1:41,44 - And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit...For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

    I think what we see here is a supernatural recognition by John the Baptist, still in his mother's womb of Jesus, inside Mary's womb. We know that the unborn John leaped for joy at the sound of Mary's greeting. Quite the testimony!

    But that should be of no surprise since John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit himself prior to leaving his mother's womb! Luke 1:15 - "for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb."

    Also, this discussion has already been done ... HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?
     
  5. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Not it's testimony.
    One difference we can notice in the usual case, between a real person and womb contents.
    Not possibly saying anything, how much of Word can that be? (Especially in the case of Jesus.)

    It is what Elisabeth said. HOW SHE INTERPRETED THINGS.
    And then of course how we are to interpret that.

    Surely what she experienced is no different than anyone else would experience in a similar situation, i.e. when six months pregnant.
    The reality undoubtedly was some movement of flesh within her belly. That we can be pretty sure happened. That is, what she by that point in great anticipation was referring to as "the babe," (BECAUSE it was in her mind, "for sure going to be her firstborn son"), that flesh and blood and bone perhaps just accidentally and totally randomly "exercised" a couple of muscles.
    Some muscles contracted and relaxed. (Don't ever say there's no ability in a womb!)
    So she noticed it, (not "of her son," it is certainly not referred to as a "son" at that point.
    Anyway, she choose to identify that movement as "leaping", but we can notice full well that it could not have been anything like the actual leaping of the guy Jesus at one point healed.

    Anyway we know what happened, and we know how it was interpreted. No need to identify it as anything else. (Except to falsely construct some argument for something else.)
    "Supernatural recognition," and "by John the Baptist," those are spurious artificial constructs,
    TRYING TO CLAIM WHAT IS NOT THERE IS THERE.
    (Or at least what we are NOT told is there.

    And of course we should never mind, pay not attention to your claiming, "... John the Baptist, still in his mother's womb of Jesus ...," right?

    Additional little note on Luke 1:46 - it was not her belly or her belly thing that magnified - it was the thing of HER SPIRIT,(i.e.) HER SOUL.
     
  6. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +5,578
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    It's possible that new people are here since March and / or that there may be more thoughts on the discussion.
     
  7. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    +1,568
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    No, it's inspired Scripture. The passage is very clear, and the only reason you deny the clarity of Scripture is because it contradicts with your preconceived notions and beliefs. You unfortunately, are a testimony of what it looks like to read beliefs INTO Scripture as opposed to allowing Scripture to help form beliefs.

    The passage is clear. It quite literally says in verse 44 - "For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. "

    So who leaped? The baby. Why did the baby leap? For joy.

    The problem is that for you to maintain the integrity of your made up belief that there never exists a human being inside a womb you have to actually deny Scripture. That's personally not a place I would want to find myself in.

    Not only is the verse clear that the baby leaped because he was joyful, it's also clear that Scripture calls John in the womb a baby! I pointed this out to you before.

    The Greek word used for "baby" in Luke 1:41 is used 8 times in the NT.

    Luke 1:41 and 44 as we have been discussing, as well as the following.

    Luke 2:12 - This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths....

    Luke 2:16 - So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as he lay in the manger.

    Luke 18:15 - And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them...

    Acts 7:19 - It was he who took shrewd advantage of our race and mistreated our fathers so that they would expose their infants and they would not survive.

    I Timothy 3:15 - and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings....

    I Peter 2:2 - Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word...

    I'm sure you'll see where this is going. If the life inside Elizabeth's womb was not considered a person, why would Scripture not use a different word?

    The bottom line is that your fabricated position about fetus' not being real human beings is at odds with Scripture. You are not capable of justifying your position with Scripture. What's worse than that, is that you're not even capable of justifying your position with Science. Both Scripture and science are at odds with your fabricated position.

    No amount of magical word-smithing will change the clear Greek sentence structure that is presented in Scripture. Again, this is an old topic. You were explained the Truth then, sorry to see you're still sticking your head in the sand.
     
  8. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    When I said "Not its testimony," the "its" does NOT refer to Scripture. That's why I immediately explicate that with:
    If you still don't catch it, the fetus does NOT give the testimony, we certainly do not have it claiming anything.

    IT IS YOU WHO DENIES THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE, not me. It is NOT ME READING INTO SCRIPTURE; like I pointed out, it is you reading in stuff like "supernatural recognition" and "John the Baptist." THOSE DO NOT APPEAR IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. Do you comprehend that?

    Yes, the so-called "baby." Not very truly called that, but what a prospective mother might well say given the expectation there would indeed be a baby born. It did the so-called "leaping." Do you deny that my understanding of what the "leaping" was is true?

    And Elisabeth claimed that was for joy. And indeed it was for joy, for we catch the joyousness in what she says and how she says it. Truly understandable and realistic.
    It was her joy; no one could truthfully say they know that it is even possible for there to be joy in a womb. Completely made up idea, whether by you or somebody else. NO GROUNDS FOR, especially when there is a much more sensible explanation ready to hand.
    SO INTERPRET IT IN THE WAY THAT MAKES SENSE - it was for the joy of Elisabeth, and probably also
    joyous for Mary to know the pregnancy was coming along including the expectation of one to be a forerunner to the promised Messiah. JOY TO BOTH. REAL JOY.

    Ordinary people, not intent on reading into it something that is not there (and certainly need not be taken to be there), would have no difficulty in understanding what it actually says, especially when the things I have pointed to are pointed to.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2017
  9. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    It is clear that it leaped for joy. NOT "because he was joyful." That is your understanding of "for"; certainly not the only understanding possible. And one that does not make much sense if looked at closely. It is certainly not clear that "for" always means "because he was," nothing like that is the case. So the clarity you claim is not there, but the clarity that actually makes sense is indeed there.

    No "John" in the womb is referred to, not all all. Not called that, that is for sure.
     
  10. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    +1,568
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    This is where you are mistaken, and Scripture leaves no room for you to be correct.

    Luke 1:41,44 - And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit...For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

    1. Elizabeth hears Mary greet her.
    2. In response to hearing this greeting, the unborn baby in her womb leaps for joy.

    Question: Who leaped for joy?
    Answer: The unborn baby.

    Question: Why did the unborn baby leap?
    Answer: For joy.

    Question: Whose joy?
    Answer: The baby's own joy.

    Now, as for you saying this: "no one could truthfully say they know that it is even possible for there to be joy in a womb. Completely made up idea, whether by you or somebody else. NO GROUNDS FOR,"

    The simple response is that we as Christians acknowledge that Luke, who penned this particular book was writing under the inspiration of Scripture. So it is God who could truthfully say they know that it is possible for there to be joy in the womb. How can we say that? Because Scripture says it.
     
  11. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    sa
     
  12. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    Whatever the fetus does, it is NOT SAID that it is "in response" to anything!
    So this (2) is false, not to mention the "unborn baby" crap.

    Not really, since there was no real leaping. I pointed out what the so-called "leaping" is - if you are able to show how I am wrong in what I say about that, you have NOT shown any such wrong doing.

    SO, to get it actually right, incontestably right, the fetus moved in that it's newly formed limb muscles contracted and expanded. That we can know. Please, at least acknowledge that we do know that.

    What you further claim is so on the basis of what you say here, it is not known, not obviously known in the same way, and I would say it is basically false, what you further claim that we cannot know for sure, if at all.
     
  13. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    +1,568
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    The reason you are taking issue with the text and attempting to make it say something different is because the text is in direct contradiction to your beliefs. It is challenging your position that no human beings exist in a womb. This passage in Luke clearly contradicts your presupposition. The man with character and integrity would recognize this and adapt their beliefs to align with Scripture.

    Luke 1:41,44 - And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit...For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

    The Greek word used here for "leap" is found 3 times in the NT.

    Luke 1:41 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb...

    Luke 1:44 - For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

    Luke 6:23 - Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven...

    Also, as previously shown, the Greek word that Luke uses for "baby" in the aforementioned passage is used 8 times in the NT, and in fact all the other times it is referring to babies that have already been born:

    Luke 2:12 - This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths....

    Luke 2:16 - So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as he lay in the manger.

    Luke 18:15 - And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them...

    Acts 7:19 - It was he who took shrewd advantage of our race and mistreated our fathers so that they would expose their infants and they would not survive.

    I Timothy 3:15 - and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings....

    I Peter 2:2 - Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word...

    So what we have here in Luke is we have a reference to John the Baptist who is still in the womb of Elizabeth actually leaping for joy, his joy, at the sound of Mary's greeting. There simply is no other way to read this in the Greek. There is literally no other sound interpretation.

    John, while in his mother's womb, leaps for joy.

    Just like if I walked in the door after being at the office and said hello to my wife, if my son in the room heard me and leaped for joy at the sound of my coming, we would all know that the leaping he did was for his joy at the sound of my voice. There is no other interpretation.

    If you disagree - I challenge to provide just one commentary that supports your position. Give me ONE theologian who agrees with your interpretation. I don't believe you can because the text is crystal clear.
     
  14. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    No, of course not, it is not a reference to John the Baptist.

    No "John the Baptist" is referred to. Obviously. And COULD NOT BE TRUTHFULLY REFERRED TO AS BEING IN A WOMB, since there are never any people in wombs. (But you don't seem to know that yet.)

    THAT IS THE SOUND, AND NOT QUESTION BEGGING, INTERPRETATION.

    Your "thing" is far from being a true or sound interpretation, FALSELY IDENTIFYING THE WOMB CONTENTS EVEN.
    (Not to mention "his joy," which you know full well is not a part of Scripture.)
     
  15. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    +1,568
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    If I'm falsely identifying the contents of the womb, then Scripture is falsely identifying the contents of the womb. I already demonstrated for you that the term used for the unborn baby is the same used for babies that exist outside the womb. Same word.

    Also, Scripture is clear that the baby leaped for joy at the sound of Mary's voice. Just like if my son were to leap for joy at the sound of my voice, nobody would question who's the joyful one! There literally is no other way to interpret the sentence.

    And the fact that you were incapable of providing even one single commentary that agrees with your interpretation is quite telling.
     
  16. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    NO. Scripture does not tell us there was any "John the Baptist" in any womb.

    Scripture does not do the nonsense thing and refer to human beings where there are none and could never be any!
     
  17. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    +1,568
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    I actually showed you in the Greek how it does just that. Can you provide one single commentary that agrees with your isegesis?
     
  18. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    You can say you did that - I don't think you did it at all.

    If you think you can do it, please do it so I can see how you supposedly show that.

    "John the Baptist" was in a womb? Show me how the Greek has that!
     
  19. SPF

    SPF Well-Known Member

    +1,568
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    Luke 1:41,44 - And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit...For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

    The Greek word used here for "leap" is found 3 times in the NT.

    Luke 1:41 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb...

    Luke 1:44 - For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

    Luke 6:23 - Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven...

    Also, as previously shown, the Greek word that Luke uses for "baby" in the aforementioned passage is used 8 times in the NT, and in fact all the other times it is referring to babies that have already been born:

    Luke 2:12 - This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths....

    Luke 2:16 - So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as he lay in the manger.

    Luke 18:15 - And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them...

    Acts 7:19 - It was he who took shrewd advantage of our race and mistreated our fathers so that they would expose their infants and they would not survive.

    I Timothy 3:15 - and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings....

    I Peter 2:2 - Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word...

    So what we have here in Luke is we have a reference to John the Baptist who is still in the womb of Elizabeth actually leaping for joy, his joy, at the sound of Mary's greeting. There simply is no other way to read this in the Greek. There is literally no other sound interpretation.

    John, while in his mother's womb, leaps for joy.

    Just like if I walked in the door after being at the office and said hello to my wife, if my son in the room heard me and leaped for joy at the sound of my coming, we would all know that the leaping he did was for his joy at the sound of my voice. There is no other interpretation.

    If you disagree - I challenge to provide just one commentary that supports your position. Give me ONE theologian who agrees with your interpretation. I don't believe you can because the text is crystal clear.
     
  20. Douglas Hendrickson

    Douglas Hendrickson Well-Known Member Supporter

    +189
    Pentecostal
    Private
    I already pointed out how this is not a sound interpretation.

    And particularly, NOWHERE IN THIS IS JOHN THE BAPTIST EVER EVEN MENTIONED.
    So no reference to "John the Baptist."
    Sorry, repeating a falsity does not make it any less so. (And more like a lie, once its falsity has been pointed out.)
     
Loading...