HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?

[redleghunter]

And I do not think we should be trotting off with elaborate stories even if they are "consistent" with the Greek words present. That can make it into something other than that originally presented pretty quickly. (Perhaps to prove some other theories?)

What was originally presented and why do you think so? Please provide textual evidence to support your claim.

 

[sunshine456]

"OH BOY!!"

The true church of JESUS CHRIST is liken to a house built on perfect foundation that cannot be moved, broken or destroyed....it is eternal. It is those whom fall away, dislodge themselves quite possibly or leave that find themselves possibly a part of "that" which is outside the true church of JESUS CHRIST.

Separation by excommunication or self removal has been the process by which former flock members until repentant if possible can return as a part/member of the true church.

I say "true" to identify the one and only one church that JESUS CHRIST the high priest of Melchizedek resides over eternally.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[redleghunter]

IF as in Ambrose there are a lot of elements like unto that claiming there was a real person John in a womb who sensed some supposed real person Jesus in another womb,

You don't think Jesus Christ was a real Person in the womb? If not what was He and when was He?

Was Christ one Person with two natures or two persons with two natures? Or did the early church 'get wrong' the Incarnation as well.

BTW, by the title (Has the church always been corrupt) it seems you would like to air out several grievances. Yet, all this thread is about is continuing from another two threads where your assertions on a few verses from the Gospel of Luke did not fair well in discussion and debate.

So now we have this thread where you put the entire history of Christianity (and doctrine) on trial as 'corrupt' because no one in the history of the church comes close to even suggesting what you are asserting. Frankly, you wrested the Scriptures themselves to even pose a question. It is not even Christian theology you kick at the goads, but science as well as many have indicated.

Therefore, in order to present your views (which are not clear) you will now have to point out how the Christian Church has always been corrupt. If not, then at least admit this thread is just another continuation of a the two previous OPs you created.

If you do pursue the unwise (IMHO) path of trying to prove "the church has always been corrupt", you may ask to move this thread to Controversial Christian Theology as the audience is wider and I am sure you will get many responding to your points. But all you have right now, is a continuation of a discussion from the last abortion thread where you limit a limitless God, and confuse the dickens out of all us wondering if you are promoting Oneness theology, or Modalism, or Nestorianism or Monophysitism or even Kenosis.

It is for this reason the early church spent a lot of ink on the doctrine of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is central to Christianity. And frankly, the early church fathers did not make this stuff up either. They had clear passages from both the OT and NT to guide them to the doctrine. Which I will add have been presented to you from quite a few posters over the three threads you created.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

No one is messing with your post that I can see. A bracketed S usually means strikethough in most code.

But it was in my text, not any coding place. Surely some other characters of code, it they just happened to be in what I was misspelling, does it make sense they would be treated as code?
(E ad to leave an "s" out of "misspelling.")

 

[Davidnic]

But it was in my text, not any coding place. Surely some other characters of code, it they just happened to be in what I was misspelling, does it make sense they would be treated as code?
(E ad to leave an "s" out of "misspelling.")

Anything with a bracket can trigger the code usually. Even outside the rich text editor at times. howdy

for instance I just put an s in brackets then used the brackets slash to close it and it did it to mine. So brackets with code shortcuts will do that for things like strikethrough, I also would think bold, and underline could happen too.

 

[redleghunter]

This is Scripture. It does not go beyond it one iota. In fact to maintain Scripture does not strongly show that the Baptist leaps because of the coming of the Christ in Mary, requires we ignore massive amounts of Scripture or give it our own spin because the truth of it is inconvenient to the error that the human being is not a person in the womb.

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Is this resistance to the plain meaning in Luke to deny the personhood of Jesus and John the Baptist at earlier stages to promote abortion is 'moral' up to the birth of a child?

Pinging @Douglas Hendrickson as the above question is for you.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What was originally presented and why do you think so? Please provide textual evidence to support your claim.

THEE WORD: Words of the 66 books of the Bible, either in English or original languages.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

THEE WORD: Words of the 66 books of the Bible, either in English or original languages.

I think this post left out the "my understanding of and speculation on" "Words" verses the understanding of 2000 years of Christian history.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

So you are right and Elizabeth is wrong? Because she attributes to the leap a cause and emotion. Sticking with just Scripture Elizabeth explains what caused the event and that it was accompanied by an emotion on the part of the Baptist. So the person within her had an emotion caused by an external event. That is followed by the Magnificant that focuses on the motherhood of Mary and the Incarnation. Clearly tying the cause and event to the arrival of the Savior causes the leap for joy in the Baptist.

And again...this was not just Ambrose. It has been held by all major Christian groups even amid other divisions. You are inferring Ambrose is an aberration or not indicative of Christian belief when that could not be further from the truth.

Also there is the clear typology of Elizabeth's statement: ??a ???? ? µ?t?? t?? ?????? µ?? p??? ?µ?
to King David's statement: ??? e?se?e?seta? p??? µe ? ??ß?t?? ??????

Which again indicates that it is the arrival of the Christ that causes the Joy. And all of this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the Scripture on this.

This is Scripture. It does not go beyond it one iota. In fact to maintain Scripture does not strongly show that the Baptist leaps because of the coming of the Christ in Mary, requires we ignore massive amounts of Scripture or give it our own spin because the truth of it is inconvenient to the error that the human being is not a person in the womb.

The Word of God is clear. You may have a hard time accepting that, but I think the body of evidence is really against your personal interpretation. It does not go beyond what Scripture says. It goes beyond what some may wish it says. But that is not the fault of 2000 years of Christianity. To imply negative things like corruption about the Early Church Fathers...in particular those from Nicaea (like Ambrose), is a bit much.

So your thread asks if it has always been corrupt. And your examples are what you see as extrapolations from Scripture by the Early Church Fathers (one in particular but the concept in general). So what about the Didache? Or the decisions of Nicaea? These would also fall into the realm of what you seem to have a problem with and relate to your question: "Has The Church Always Been Corrupt"

You say "This is Scripture. ...strongly show that the Baptist leaps because of the coming of the Christ in Mary..."
I don't think it even weakly shows that. The most it "shows" (claims) is that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, "the babe leaped... ." A VAST DIFFERENCE.
"...the coming of the Christ in Mary" is all read in by you and others, NOT THERE in Scripture.

I feel rather sorry for anyone who has a concept of Christ the Son of God that has such a being as an invisible nothing in a womb of utter dark captivity. Christ was captive on the Cross for us, but did not exist as some single cell of merely genetic information , without any flesh even, NOT A MAN OF FLESH AND BLOOD.

The Didache says, "you shall not murder a child by abortion," but gives NO JUSTIFICATION for such an idea. I can find nothing in the Canons of Nicaea that says anything about the matter, or even Luke 1.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You say "This is Scripture. ...strongly show that the Baptist leaps because of the coming of the Christ in Mary..."
I don't think it even weakly shows that. The most it "shows" (claims) is that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, "the babe leaped... ." A VAST DIFFERENCE.
"...the coming of the Christ in Mary" is all read in by you and others, NOT THERE in Scripture.

I feel rather sorry for anyone who has a concept of Christ the Son of God that has such a being as an invisible nothing in a womb of utter dark captivity. Christ was captive on the Cross for us, but did not exist as some single cell of merely genetic information , without any flesh even, NOT A MAN OF FLESH AND BLOOD.

The Didache says, "you shall not murder a child by abortion," but gives NO JUSTIFICATION for such an idea. I can find nothing in the Canons of Nicaea that says anything about the matter, or even Luke 1.

Does Davidnic think he doesn't need to respond since I can't seem to get it without the strikethrough?

 

[Davidnic]

THEE WORD: Words of the 66 books of the Bible, either in English or original languages.

Unless Elizabeth says the Baptist jumped because of Joy, attributing the emotions of a person to the unborn. That Scripture she is just using the wrong words. Even though Scripture also says at that point the Holy Spirit us upon her. So a woman currently being inspired quoted in inspired text gives the Baptist a human emotion as the why for the leap meaning something caused the joy and the person felt it and expressed it in the leap.

That is in the Bible as you hold it and in all languages. So how is that not clear. You can't say she is just choosing the wrong word, exaggerating or somethings else. Not if you are saying we only have to use the Bible in exact from with no reasoning, story construction or cause and effect. Even with that most limiting view, and one counter to all criteria of Biblical interpretation, you still come up short.

How can you maintain only Scripture with no reasoning, tying events together or basic cause and effect can be used...that we can only use the exact linguistics...and maintain that there is anything unclear about what Elizabeth says.

She clearly, with the Spirit upon her says the child leaps for joy. The greek has the child as the focus so it is the joy coming from the child linguistically. You have no way around that in your own construction because you can not claim (with any logic) that the greek is not saying that. And you can not claim that Elizabeth is wrong or making poor word choice. Both of those reasons would undermine Scripture in your on construction.

 

[Davidnic]

Does Davidnic think he doesn't need to respond since I can't seem to get it without the strikethrough?

I responded in post 20. And quoted it.

 

[Davidnic]

And 3-4 people (including me) have responded and refuted your repeated opinions in two threads on this.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Sorry, in tending to latter part of #20 I forgot about the first part.

Your view effects issues like the Incarnation and the Trinity.

Care to show how that might be? I think it would only be if it is a rather twisted version of those that is being maintained.

 

[Davidnic]

Care to show how that might be? I think it would only be if it is a rather twisted version of those that is being maintained.

How much do you know about the early Christology debates in the Church, as well as the history of the Trinitarian formulation? Because your question goes right to the heart of what can we know from Scripture, what is implied, what is Apostolic Tradition as it exists alongside Scripture. And how that all relates to the early Christology debates.

A basic knowledge of these events in Church history show that what you are edging toward is the core philosophy that let to the errors rejected by the early Councils.

Your question is: Has the church always been this corrupt?

And your reasoning is an accepted view from an Early Church Father that is shared to this day by the Christian groups in division. Now, if your insistence that the unborn child must not be a person is what leads you to oppose any proof that shows the unborn are people is what has caused you to question this shared expression...that is a slippery road.

So is this thread about...the interpretation and authority of the Early Church Fathers and how the effected what we believe today? Or is it...I am rejecting the idea of the unborn as a person and if the Church Fathers use Scripture to show that for nearly 2000 years, I am going to question them and attack the foundation that even institutionally divided Christians agree upon. Because we have asked you many times, where does your view come from? When we show a long and constant historical and Scripture based Tradition for ours...what are you presenting other than your own opinion that is at odds with all established teaching across Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox...ect.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Sorry, in tending to latter part of #20 I forgot about the first part.



Care to show how that might be? I think it would only be if it is a rather twisted version of those that is being maintained.

Some people think a lot of things. I would think a view of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity is very twisted which suggests things like

• God has elements
• It is "grandiose" to think of the Holy Spirit as a Person the same way a human being is a person.
• There is nothing but human flesh in the womb, no learning, no person, and nothing for a Spirit to work with
• there is no thought of a spirit that is integral to our existence as humans and separable from our body, ie a soul, save a thought of breathing, or being alive or an abstract construct of "self" from our minds.
• Confuses the ideas of Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost which are names for One Person.
• Confuses the individuality of the Three Persons as if just different "elements" of One Being

 

[Colter]

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?

The creature may crave perfection, but only the creator possess it. Revelation is the only technique by which the mind of the finite may understand the infinite ; God. Without the grace gift of revealed truth man would be helpless in his sphere of existence when it comes to understanding the cosmic mind.

 

[redleghunter]

Care to show how that might be? I think it would only be if it is a rather twisted version of those that is being maintained.

Perhaps exploring the various Christian statements on the Incarnation and Nature of Christ would help:

Catholic: Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 3 PARAGRAPH 1

Augsburg Confession (Lutheran): http://www.flvenice.org/pdfs/AugsburgConfession.pdf (see page 4)

Westminster Confession (Reformed): Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter VIII)

General: https://carm.org/dictionary-incarnation

Theopedia: Incarnation of the Son of God | Theopedia

Edit: here's another from the Evangelical Theological Society: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/17/17-1/17-1-pp029-044_JETS.pdf

You will note, this is not a Catholic vs. Protestant deal. The doctrines line up and there is very good reason for that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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?

By whose measure are you measuring? Catholics, and Ambrose is a Catholic, don't believe in Scripture alone. We believe that something should not contradict Scripture. That's how we test the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
It is true that this is not a Bible study, per se. But it is clear that the baby jumped in Elizabeth's womb because of the presence of the Lord.

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.

Ambrose doesn't speak for all the Fathers, but shares his own insight. The quote is from a commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Commentaries are not infallible, but we believe he speaks the truth.
What is wrong with what he said, in your mind?

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?

It is not extreme in any way. God was involved both in the conception in Elizabeth as well as the conception in Mary.
Again, what is wrong with what he wrote? What's your problem with it?

 

[Root of Jesse]

It seems many do not know what "coincidence" means, that it means co-incidence. I think Scripture plainly says the "leaping" happened at the same time, "as soon as." COINCIDENCE does not mean more than that - others (I guess following Ambrose to some extent) add more to it.
Is it not plain it happened at the same time, that it was co-incident to Elizabeth hearing Mary's salutation? Note I am not claiming it was "only coincidence," though that might be the case, but I think it is to go beyond what we are told in Scripture to even claim that. I would think we should stick to what is in Scripture, not make that into something not there.

And I do not think we should be trotting off with elaborate stories even if they are "consistent" with the Greek words present. That can make it into something other than that originally presented pretty quickly. (Perhaps to prove some other theories?)

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