HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

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

So convincing. Period.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So convincing. Period.

If you read what the Church has said over 2000 years... Then yeah, it's absolutely convincing. But since you don't know you can't say otherwise.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

If you read what the Church has said over 2000 years... Then yeah, it's absolutely convincing. But since you don't know you can't say otherwise.

I know the mess going on presently. Churches forgot about Jesus. What happened in the years long passed, I don't know. But maybe not much better.

 

[redleghunter]

Many things.

Come on you can do better than that. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[redleghunter]

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

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

If this is truly your view, that would mean the Divine nature did not meet the human nature until the birth of Jesus?

Then who was Elizabeth calling Lord when she said blessed is the fruit of your womb?

If we back up to verse 31 we see Gabriel state: "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb.." He then goes on to say what she conceives is holy and will be named Jesus.

How can you ignore the plain text? Especially the Holy Spirit would overshadow?

So Who was in Mary's womb after “The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." ???

Applying your "at birth" personhood error, the only position you can take is Jesus Christ has two persons and two natures.

You have since punched out on my ancient heresies bingo card. But I'm guessing the logical conclusion for your innovation just takes us back to Nestorianism.

 

[redleghunter]

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

Yes there's a huge problem with what you pointed out.

His theory denies the fruit of the womb which Gabriel called holy is a person.

 

[redleghunter]

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

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

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

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

Now I will have to get my son's science text book out again...yep science proves you wrong again Douglas.

We are human beings Homo Sapiens at conception when we receive 23+23=46 chromosomes and are distinct in DNA.

Basic biology been done billions of times. I even managed to help in populating the earth.

What you are offering is not science at all. It may be #alternate science but not real observable science.

Not only are you promoting blasphemy, heresy but also bad science.

 

[loNe]

So looking at this...Christianity has believed this about the Baptist since the Early Church Fathers. Across divisions it has been constantly taught.

It is consistent with the Greek used and the sentence structure in Greek.

You have a personal interpretation of Scripture that differs so that means the entire body of Christian teaching on this subject that is in agreement across all major groups is corrupted.

...i've learned, D, that every little thing in scripture has a meaning... and all is working towards to Un-do this prisonmatrix of 'them'...

this, with the leaping ;
if one considers that John wore a camelhair garment etc... then the same concept returns by the 144,000 (the two witnesses/two houses), who will be changed inside, yet still walk in this flesh-body,
hence "sackcloth" -- referring to this present physical body [as opposed to the new gorgious one] ,

so John represented ús , and 'leaped of joy' because He came to offer that new gorgious body again

..i think in fact it's a very touching detail in that story...

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Now I will have to get my son's science text book out again...yep science proves you wrong again Douglas.

We are human beings Homo Sapiens at conception when we receive 23+23=46 chromosomes and are distinct in DNA.

Basic biology been done billions of times. I even managed to help in populating the earth.

What you are offering is not science at all. It may be #alternate science but not real observable science.

Not only are you promoting blasphemy, heresy but also bad science.

Note what you say. You refer to "populating the earth." You did NOT populate the earth one iota until a child of yours was actually born!
(Have you noticed how population is counted, WHAT IT IS ?)

Your saying having merely distinct DNA a person makes, your saying so does not make it so. Even if some biology book happens to be equally wrong, even if it too is mistaken at that point and does not notice how ridiculous it is to talk of invisible persons. (A zygote, the initial product of conception, is invisible to the naked eye, in case anybody hasn't noticed.)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Yes there's a huge problem with what you pointed out.

His theory denies the fruit of the womb which Gabriel called holy is a person.

Note that fruit is something produced over the season of the tree, the summer. Note that fruit comes long after the seed and the blossom.
It is you that is denying the fruit, not realizing that what you are talking about, the apple of your eye, is even invisible and NOT FRUIT AT ALL!

Fruit is harvested, fruit is picked. Fruit is not the production of fruit, and like human beings does NOT exist before it is produced.

Also please note what Scripture actually says when it tells us what Gabriel actually said to Mary in Luke 1:32. "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."
Note the progression, how it happens in real life. (Speaking of biology.) First comes the conception, and only after that did she "bring forth a son", and only after that at baptism was given the name. How life and populating, how human reproduction happens. The populating of human reproduction is NOT conceiving, though it requires that. It is much more - it is the reproduction of a human being and like Gabriel well knew, bringing forth a real Son.

edit: Please note that "human being reproduction" is so much beyond mere conceiving that perhaps fully half of all conceptions never become much more than that and certainly do not result in real people.

 

[SPF]

moved.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

If this is truly your view, that would mean the Divine nature did not meet the human nature until the birth of Jesus?

Then who was Elizabeth calling Lord when she said blessed is the fruit of your womb?

If we back up to verse 31 we see Gabriel state: "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb.." He then goes on to say what she conceives is holy and will be named Jesus.

How can you ignore the plain text? Especially the Holy Spirit would overshadow?

So Who was in Mary's womb after “The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." ???

Applying your "at birth" personhood error, the only position you can take is Jesus Christ has two persons and two natures.

You have since punched out on my ancient heresies bingo card. But I'm guessing the logical conclusion for your innovation just takes us back to Nestorianism.

Elizabeth was happy to be the first to bestow upon Mary the title "Mother of my Lord." It is in anticipation, very much anticipation that what the angel said would be fulfilled. Honoring her cousin. She already then recognized what many would come to recognize over the entire earth, that Mary was to be known as THE MOTHER, of MY LORD. She bestowed that title upon her, even before she was actually a mother.

The Holy Spirit overshadowing is predicted in verse 35 which foretells that "that holy thing ... shall be born... ." "Therefore," it says, because she was to be filled with the Holy Ghost, what she was going to produce would be a "holy thing" and "born" of her, and would be called "the Son of God."
It certainly does not say that once she had conceived there would be a "holy thing" (inside her), and that that "thing" inside her would then be called "the Son of God."

So NOBODY was in Mary's womb after "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." That she (was to be) imbued with the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit simply says NOTHING about there being anybody (else) inside her (except God, but note it was not God the Son who would be inside her - he would be born and be called the Son after his birth - it was the HOLY SPIRIT that was to be inside her!

Your trying to make my position into some sort of heresy and having difficulty discovering which heresy is really quite funny.
Your fabrication about "two persons and two natures" is plain silly, far as I can tell.

 

[redleghunter]

Note that fruit is something produced over the season of the tree, the summer. Note that fruit comes long after the seed and the blossom.
It is you that is denying the fruit, not realizing that what you are talking about, the apple of your eye, is even invisible and NOT FRUIT AT ALL!

Fruit is harvested, fruit is picked. Fruit is not the production of fruit, and like human beings does NOT exist before it is produced.

Also please note what Scripture actually says when it tells us what Gabriel actually said to Mary in Luke 1:32. "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."
Note the progression, how it happens in real life. (Speaking of biology.) First comes the conception, and only after that did she "bring forth a son", and only after that at baptism was given the name. How life and populating, how human reproduction happens. The populating of human reproduction is NOT conceiving, though it requires that. It is much more - it is the reproduction of a human being and like Gabriel well knew, bringing forth a real Son.

edit: Please note that "human being reproduction" is so much beyond mere conceiving that perhaps fully half of all conceptions never become much more than that and certainly do not result in real people.

Do you actually read your posts before you post them?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Do you actually read your posts before you post them?

Boy, that comment really made your case, didn't it !

edit: All your position leaves you is to attack me personally, it seems.

 

[redleghunter]

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!

Important point.

Dr. James White has a good analysis of exegesis vs. eisegesis in his book "Pulpit Crimes"

Eisegesis. The reading into a text, in this case, an ancient text of the Bible, of a meaning that is not supported by the grammar, syntax, lexical meanings, and over-all context, of the original. It is the opposite of exegesis, where you read out of the text its original meaning by careful attention to the same things, grammar, syntax, the lexical meanings of the words used by the author (as they were used in his day and in his area), and the over-all context of the document. As common as it is, it should be something the Christian minister finds abhorrent, for when you stop and think about it, eisegesis muffles the voice of God. If the text of Scripture is in fact God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and if God speaks in the entirety of the Bible (Matt. 22:31) then eisegesis would involve silencing that divine voice and replacing it with the thoughts, intents, and most often, traditions, of the one doing the interpretation. In fact, in my experience, eisegetical mishandling of the inspired text is the single most common source of heresy, division, disunity, and a lack of clarity in the proclamation of the gospel. The man of God is commended when he handles Gods truth aright (2 Tim. 2:15), and it should be his highest honor to be privileged to do so. Exegesis, then, apart from being a skill honed over years of practice, is an absolutely necessary means of honoring the Lord a minister claims to serve. For some today, exegesis and all the attendant study that goes into it robs one of the Spirit. The fact is, there is no greater spiritual service the minister can render to the Lord and to the flock entrusted to his care than to allow Gods voice to speak with the clarity that only sound exegetical practice can provide.​

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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

I think you miss the strength of vulnerability.

It is not about vulnerability. Babies are very vulnerable, born real babies are very vulnerable, but I do not deny they are human beings.
It is about what exists - when there is an animal being, an actual animal. In this case a human being.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Important point.

Dr. James White has a good analysis of exegesis vs. eisegesis in his book "Pulpit Crimes"

Eisegesis. The reading into a text, in this case, an ancient text of the Bible, of a meaning that is not supported by the grammar, syntax, lexical meanings, and over-all context, of the original. It is the opposite of exegesis, where you read out of the text its original meaning by careful attention to the same things, grammar, syntax, the lexical meanings of the words used by the author (as they were used in his day and in his area), and the over-all context of the document. As common as it is, it should be something the Christian minister finds abhorrent, for when you stop and think about it, eisegesis muffles the voice of God. If the text of Scripture is in fact God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and if God speaks in the entirety of the Bible (Matt. 22:31) then eisegesis would involve silencing that divine voice and replacing it with the thoughts, intents, and most often, traditions, of the one doing the interpretation. In fact, in my experience, eisegetical mishandling of the inspired text is the single most common source of heresy, division, disunity, and a lack of clarity in the proclamation of the gospel. The man of God is commended when he handles Gods truth aright (2 Tim. 2:15), and it should be his highest honor to be privileged to do so. Exegesis, then, apart from being a skill honed over years of practice, is an absolutely necessary means of honoring the Lord a minister claims to serve. For some today, exegesis and all the attendant study that goes into it robs one of the Spirit. The fact is, there is no greater spiritual service the minister can render to the Lord and to the flock entrusted to his care than to allow Gods voice to speak with the clarity that only sound exegetical practice can provide.​

Then certainly Ambrose's EXTRAVAGANT CONCOCTED FABLE is Eisegesis!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Note what you say. You refer to "populating the earth." You did NOT populate the earth one iota until a child of yours was actually born!
(Have you noticed how population is counted, WHAT IT IS ?)

Your saying having merely distinct DNA a person makes, your saying so does not make it so. Even if some biology book happens to be equally wrong, even if it too is mistaken at that point and does not notice how ridiculous it is to talk of invisible persons. (A zygote, the initial product of conception, is invisible to the naked eye, in case anybody hasn't noticed.)

Actually people who have a concept of a soul that is a spirit along with recognition that individual spirit (individual=person) must be created by God in the womb and present when the first human cell of their body forms do not get trapped into your biological delimina of not being able to explain the person present in that womb until you hear them making their first cry upon leaving.

 

[redleghunter]

Elizabeth was happy to be the first to bestow upon Mary the title "Mother of my Lord." It is in anticipation, very much anticipation that what the angel said would be fulfilled. Honoring her cousin. She already then recognized what many would come to recognize over the entire earth, that Mary was to be known as THE MOTHER, of MY LORD. She bestowed that title upon her, even before she was actually a mother.

The Holy Spirit overshadowing is predicted in verse 35 which foretells that "that holy thing ... shall be born... ." "Therefore," it says, because she was to be filled with the Holy Ghost, what she was going to produce would be a "holy thing" and "born" of her, and would be called "the Son of God."
It certainly does not say that once she had conceived there would be a "holy thing" (inside her), and that that "thing" inside her would then be called "the Son of God."

So NOBODY was in Mary's womb after "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." That she (was to be) imbued with the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit simply says NOTHING about there being anybody (else) inside her (except God, but note it was not God the Son who would be inside her - he would be born and be called the Son after his birth - it was the HOLY SPIRIT that was to be inside her!

Your trying to make my position into some sort of heresy and having difficulty discovering which heresy is really quite funny.
Your fabrication about "two persons and two natures" is plain silly, far as I can tell.

You have once again read your opinion into the text thus employed eisegesis.

Douglas, the "blessed is the fruit of your womb" and "will conceive" completely refutes your cause. God created humans for procreation and it has a start point. It is a human start point. We are human beings at the start point, which is conception. Twice Gabriel mentions conception from Luke chapter 1 verses 31-36 first to announce the conception and eventual birth of Jesus Christ and then to inform Mary her cousin also conceived and would give birth to a son. It's fact of human life Douglas...we are conceived and then born. It happens and birth cannot happen without conception and all the stages between. We are never partially human even according to biology. We have a beginning where we are really small and then develop eventually to birth and then (for most males) are not fully developed human beings until 20 or so years of age.

Conceived was used twice, Douglas from verses 31-36.

If you are still sticking to "Jesus was not a person until birth" and now you are saying "it was not God the Son who would be inside her-he would be born and be called the Son after his birth-it was the Holy Spirit that was inside her!"

Wow just wow, that's a new heresy never coined in my estimation. Mary was carrying the Holy Spirit and not God the Son...and Jesus becomes the Son after his birth...wow. I think you just coined a hybrid of Nestorianism and Adoptionism. You have boldly gone where no one has ever gone before.

 

[redleghunter]

Then certainly Ambrose's EXTRAVAGANT CONCOCTED FABLE is Eisegesis!

On the contrary, no it was not. Ambrose was drawing out the truth. Not reading his own opinion into it.