HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?

[DrBubbaLove]

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.

If we all viewed a person like a tree, there might be a point here. Trees do not have spirits, animals do. Our spirits are part of both what and who we are. Our spirit is not properly "us" but neither is our body. The person is both a body and a soul together. Without a spirit there is no living animals and their spirits [correction]have nothing to do with are NOT a product of the biology present. Take away the spirit and that biology instantly is no longer alive. Take away/kill the body and the spirit is generally considered no longer present - except for humans whose spirits are unique in the animal world created to transcend the death of our body. That transcendence of our soul is the only thing that makes an afterlife possible for humans.

In our making within the womb the spirit is joined completely with a body that is formed in a womb. Spirits have no "parts" that need growing or developing. So our spirit can only be said to be present or not. If present at conception then it is a complete spirit - not a "growing" spirit.[adding] Complete in the sense that spirit is an already complete part of the animal whose body it is joined and already operating on in the womb.[/ ] The problem with saying it is not present is the spirit's functions are integral to the form and the life of what is growing in the womb.

Without that spirit, there would be just an unguided growing mass of material - like the frankenchickenmeat one restaurant chain wants to start serving which is just a mass manufactured protein (meat) taken from Chickens and grown in trays. Those trays will never produce a real chicken in part because there is never a chicken spirit in those trays to form a chicken with. Being able to add an immaterial spirit to the material formed at conception is what distinguishes that material in a womb as "alive" from what can be massed produced in trays.

All of this is directly opposed to the idea presented in Douglas Hendrickson's many post that would have us believe our soul is just a long ago made-up word used by superstitious folks to explain the idea of "self" which then drives a conclusion that biology of material alone explains the existence of "self" and until that "self" is breathing air (unclear why really) there is no "self", no person. What is growing in the womb can then be viewed no more alive than a finger nail, a wart, a gangrenous arm, a human tumor or human cancer. It can be viewed as simply parasitic flesh growing inside of and at the expense of another person who can choose to treat that growing thing (cannot call it a human person or being yet) like a tumor and so remove it if they want to and throw it in the same garabage pail they would a wart.

This view of "life" then explains the trouble a person believing this, as Douglas does, would have in seeing the Holy Spirit working with a essentially a pile of meat that is they might agree is "living" or even "alive" but not yet of any greater value or "awareness" and certainly no more living or alive than a wart or tumor.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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.)



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.

A little deceptive. The correct expression is one believes they are human beings ONLY after they are born. Before birth they are no more a "being" and certainly no more alive or living than a tumor or cancer can be said to be alive and living.

 

[SPF]

Douglas, I was wondering if you have a response to my reply #91? To be honest, I'm really concerned for you.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

A little deceptive. The correct expression is one believes they are human beings ONLY after they are born. Before birth they are no more a "being" and certainly no more alive or living than a tumor or cancer can be said to be alive and living.

Your "correct expression" is very correct, except for the "one believes." If that "one believes" means "everybody," then perhaps correct too.

Yes we always notice how you always preface any of you posts with "I believe."

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, I was wondering if you have a response to my reply #91? To be honest, I'm really concerned for you.

A main reason I didn't get to it is you threw rather a great deal at me all at same time - it would be more manageable if only one or two things at once, and I would maybe dare to tackle it. I'm an old guy you know ... I will try to get too it soon.
(I was just noticing that perhaps there is much more positive reinforcement with short posts that can be responded to rather briefly. What do you think?)

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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!

I wouldn't worry too much about the Greek - others can fill me in.

I think I responded to the Davidnic you refer to.

You say, "Douglas, take advantage of this opportunity to come to a better understanding from people who actually know church history, who actually know Greek." I think that is precisely what I am doing now - e.g. engaging with David.nic etc.
Oh and I think you said something about being "really concerned" about me (always keep it personal I say!); "What are you some kind of woman?," I was tempted to say - then I resisted.

 

[Philip_B]

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.

Did you miss the bit in scripture about God's vulnerability, incarnation and crucifixion, God Omnipotent clothed in the vulnerability of love - love for me and you.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Your "correct expression" is very correct, except for the "one believes." If that "one believes" means "everybody," then perhaps correct too.

Yes we always notice how you always preface any of you posts with "I believe."

"I believe" was not part of my posts because I was not talking about my belief.

There is only ONE poster present in this thread that claims people are not people unless/until they are born. The same poster combines that belief with the error that we really have no souls that can be thought of as immaterial spirits, only something "maybe labeled self" which is just an abstract thought/product of a biological computer that is our brain. [adding]Same poster has expressed rather confusing ideas about God that are also incompatible and some even contradictory with the Trinity Doctrine. [/ ]

Ever notice how some people want to deny what they believe or avoid confirming what is obviously true about their beliefs so they can post about it in areas where their beliefs would otherwise not be allowed?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Did you miss the bit in scripture about God's vulnerability, incarnation and crucifixion, God Omnipotent clothed in the vulnerability of love - love for me and you you.

I don't think so.
I didn't realize that is what you were referring to. I thought it was something in a womb that couldn't possibly be anything of Christ!
btw, Am I really 'you you'?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't think so.
I didn't realize that is what you were referring to. I thought it was something in a womb that couldn't possibly be anything of Christ!
btw, Am I really 'you you'?

I think he meant "you yew".

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

"I believe" was not part of my posts because I was not talking about my belief.

There is only ONE poster present in this thread that claims people are not people unless/until they are born. The same poster combines that belief with the error that we really have no souls that can be thought of as immaterial spirits, only something "maybe labeled self" which is just an abstract thought/product of a biological computer that is our brain.

Ever notice how some people want to deny what they believe or avoid confirming what is obviously true about their beliefs so they can post about it in areas where their beliefs would otherwise not be allowed?

You weren't presenting what you believe - is that what you are trying to say?

Again you are grossly misrepresenting me; just can't help your self can you?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I think he meant "you yew".

Yew to Thee truth, I guess it iT.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You weren't presenting what you believe - is that what you are trying to say?

Again you are grossly misrepresenting me; just can't help your self can you?

So now you deny that a person is not a person until they are born???
Or deny that God has "elements"????

What have you done with Douglas???

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

So now you deny that a person is not a person until they are born???
Or deny that God has "elements"????

What have you done with Douglas???

I have done with Douglas, have I? Or is it AM done wit, Douglas?

btw, I was referring to the part about "soul," not that part you present here.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I have done with Douglas, have I? Or is it AM done wit, Douglas?

btw, I was referring to the part about "soul," not that part you present here.

I see. So there is no denial there is no "real" person until the fetus is born. And probably no denial God has "elements". Which was something I added to the post being objected to, but which we can link to where many erroneous things about God and His Nature have been said that are clearly contradictory to the Trinity Doctrine.

So the objection was saying there is a belief being alluded to in the thread that there can be [NO] sense of a "person" in the womb because human nature does not really include both a body and a human spirit (called a soul) united as one being. I see.

So when statements that were actually made like a soul could be thought of like the complex and abstract thought of "self" we were suppose to understand that part of this idea of "self" is actually including an invisible immaterial human spirit that God gives us only when we start breathing. Is that correct???

That would [seem to] be incompatible with the thought expressed that something that could indeed be considered an "invisible" individual person is a WAS CALLED A "ridiculous" idea and one that was said to cause "My mind reels at the idea of invisible persons ". That reeling at the thought of invisible persons might explain some rather physical attributes of God alluded to along with His having "elements" which only a physical being could have and why it was said the idea of a human person (a distinct individual) is not the same concept as Individual Persons in the Trinity. Believe the statement unless it has been edited was "What is NOT common sense is to suggest a human being is a person just like the Trinity has persons.”

Rather hard to deny what has been said, which I thought explains why when ever I have summarized the beliefs apparent in such expressions there is either no response at all or flat denial that what was said is understood. Let me throw it out there again then.

If a soul is properly understood as an invisible, immaterial spirit and that soul representing an individual person (not a complete human but still a human being - a person) - then please just affirm that and that all the prior expressions to the contrary just typos or misunderstood expressions.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Again you are just speculating all over the place about what I may have said and how you would like to interpret it.

I do not know well enough the meaning of what you say in the last paragraph to respond directly to it with a simple answer: what do you mean by the soul "represents" a person. Also you seem to be indicating "soul" and "spirit" are the same thing - I'm not so sure that is the way Scripture treats them (entirely or even partially?). Here is one thing I came up with:
Synonyms for spirit
noun soul, attitude

• character
• courage
• energy
• enthusiasm
• essence
• heart
• humor
• life
• mood
• morale
• quality
• resolve
• temperament
• vigor

• vitality
• warmth
• will
• air
• animation
• ardor
• backbone
• boldness
• breath
• complexion
• dauntlessness
• disposition
• earnestness
• enterprise

• fire
• force
• gameness
• grit
• guts
• jazz
• liveliness
• mettle
• motivation
• nerve
• oomphstar
• outlook
• psyche
• resolution

• sparkle
• spunk
• stoutheartedness
• substance
• temper
• tenor
• willpower
• zest
• frame of mind
• life force
• vital spark
• spirit
  
  [spir-it] noun
  1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
  2.the incorporeal part of humans:
  present in spirit though absent in body.
  3.the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

Edit. Definition #1. suggests spirit must be different than soul since it is somewhat between body and soul.
Sorry I had to prematurely post this because was being bugged to go walk the dog.

 

[Philip_B]

spirit
ˈspɪrɪt/
noun

1. the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.
   "we seek a harmony between body and spirit"
   synonyms: soul, psyche, inner self, inner being, essential being;
   pneuma;
   anima, ego, id;
   ka;
   atman
   "we seek a harmony between body and spirit"
   • the non-physical part of a person regarded as their true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation.
     "a year after he left, his spirit is still present"
     synonyms: life force, animating principle, vital spark, breath of life;
     élan vital
     "the spirit of nature"
   • the non-physical part of a person manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost.
     "a priest performed a rite of exorcism and the wandering spirit was ousted"
     synonyms: ghost, phantom, spectre, apparition, wraith, shadow, presence;
     bodach;
     Doppelgänger;
     duppy;
     informalspook;
     literaryphantasm, shade, revenant, visitant, wight;
     rareeidolon, manes
     "local people say that his spirit walks among the hills"
     
2. the prevailing or typical quality, mood, or attitude of a person, group, or period of time.
   "I hope the team will build on this spirit of confidence"
   synonyms: ethos, prevailing tendency, motivating force, animating principle, dominating characteristic, essence, quintessence;
   atmosphere, mood, feeling, temper, tenor, climate;
   attitudes, beliefs, principles, standards, ethics
   "the spirit of the nineteenth century"
   • a person's mood or attitude.
   • "the warm weather lifted everyone's spirits"
     synonyms: temperament, disposition, character, nature, personality, temper, make-up, humour, cast/turn of mind, complexion;
     mind, heart
     "this thought dampened even my optimistic spirit"
     attitude, frame of mind, way of thinking, way of looking at it, state of mind, point of view, outlook, thoughts, ideas
     "she's got the right spirit"
     mood, frame of mind, state of mind, emotional state, humour, temper
     "she was in good spirits when I left"
   • the quality of courage, energy, and determination.
     "his visitors admired his spirit and good temper"
     synonyms: morale, team spirit;
     esprit de corps
     "the spirit of the team is high"
     courage, bravery, courageousness, braveness, pluck, pluckiness, valour, strength of character, fortitude, backbone, spine, mettle, stout-heartedness, determination,firmness of purpose, resolution, resoluteness, resolve, fight, gameness;
     informalguts, grit, spunk;
     informalbottle;
     informalsand, moxie
     "though he was in considerable discomfort, his spirit never failed him"
     animation, enthusiasm, eagerness, keenness, liveliness, vivacity, vivaciousness,energy, verve, vigour, dynamism, zest, dash, elan, panache, sparkle, exuberance,gusto, brio, pep, go, sap, fervour, zeal, fire, passion;
     informalpizzazz, oomph, zing, zip, zap, vim, get-up-and-go
     "they played with great spirit"
3. the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation.
   "the rule had been broken in spirit if not in letter"
   synonyms: real/true meaning, true intention, essence, substance
   "we must be seen to keep to the spirit of the law as well as the letter"

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Again you are just speculating all over the place about what I may have said and how you would like to interpret it.

I do not know well enough the meaning of what you say in the last paragraph to respond directly to it with a simple answer: what do you mean by the soul "represents" a person. Also you seem to be indicating "soul" and "spirit" are the same thing - I'm not so sure that is the way Scripture treats them (entirely or even partially?). Here is one thing I came up with:
Synonyms for spirit
noun soul, attitude

• characterstar
• couragestar
• energystar
• enthusiasmstar
• essencestar
• heartstar
• humorstar
• lifestar
• moodstar
• moralestar
• qualitystar
• resolvestar
• temperamentstar
• vigorstar

• vitalitystar
• warmthstar
• willstar
• airstar
• animationstar
• ardorstar
• backbonestar
• boldnessstar
• breathstar
• complexionstar
• dauntlessnessstar
• dispositionstar
• earnestnessstar
• enterprisestar

• firestar
• forcestar
• gamenessstar
• gritstar
• gutsstar
• jazzstar
• livelinessstar
• mettlestar
• motivationstar
• nervestar
• oomphstar
• outlookstar
• psychestar
• resolutionstar

• sparklestar
• spunkstar
• stoutheartednessstar
• substancestar
• temperstar
• tenorstar
• willpowerstar
• zeststar
• frame of mindstar
• life forcestar
• vital sparkstar
• I don't know why they add "star" to all these "synonyms" - dump off the "star"s on the end.
  
• spirit
  
  [spir-it]
  
  noun
  1.
  the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
  2.
  the incorporeal part of humans:
  present in spirit though absent in body.
  3.
  the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.

Well I suppose I could cut and paste some definition of a soul from somewhere. Not sure doing that would necessarily reflect what I believe about a soul, especially if that definition is vague enough that I could claim it fits all my quotes. Someone asked a rather simple question and who needs to plead ignorance of the words in the question then post generic definition provided by cut and paste online could be viewed as being further deceptive.

Yes, in traditional theology, nearly 2000 years of recorded Christian history, the credible pagan philosophers speculations centuries before that and apparently also that of cavemen expressions; the idea of soul is the same as that of spirit. We are not talking about breathing or something acting on us from God.

Here is a post where a summary of what I understood from a number of posts about a particular belief of what a soul is/does:
CAN HOLY SPIRIT OPERATE INSIDE A WOMB ?
If that summary was wrong in anyway, one would expect a denial and clarification. We did not get that.
Rather than choosing to correct me in reply we simply have a change of subject and dismissive suggestion I have misrepresented a view - which seems a typical response when anyone has asked for clarification of this posters view on both the soul and the Trinity Doctrine (please do not go and C&P the Apostles Creed or a webonline def for the Trinity in reply - am aware of what it says and actually believe those things).

So if one really wants to be understood rather than to be seen as intentionally deceptive then we should wonder why the need to post an online definition of spirit than to offer ones own view by first giving a yes/no answer to a rather simple question about a soul. Pleading it was too complex to be understandable doesn't cut it at this point - we gone too far for that. We also had a quote early indicating the truth that cavemen obviously could answer my question if we had common language, so am not sure my question is really as complex as one wants others to think.

The same thread linked above continues with more denials that anyone understands the view presented in your posts with zero attempts made to point out what I got wrong about that view. Followed by a request made to show/prove where I got the ideas I expressed can be attributed to you. Took some time but I went through your 800+ posts and gathered quotes of statements about souls, persons, self as well as some rather controversial expressions about the nature of God. None of which have been explained, denied or responded to.
Henry Douglas on ON THE HUMAN SOUL AND WHAT THE "HOLY SPIRIT" HAS TO WORK WITH IN THE WOMB: CAN HOLY SPIRIT OPERATE INSIDE A WOMB ?

Henry Douglas with some decidedly non-Trinity Doctrine expressions about the nature of God and the Holy Spirit:
CAN HOLY SPIRIT OPERATE INSIDE A WOMB ?

So how exactly are we to respond to someone who allegedly wants to "talk about" what he claims everybody else has made up/corrupted without being able to clearly nail down what that person actually thinks is true/un-corrupted?

Again, yes or no? Does one see a soul as an invisible, immaterial spirit(we can omit that since synonyms are confusing apparently) -an immaterial, non-physical "thing" which is joined with and forms/operates the animated flesh we call our body?

If you want to claim a Trichotomy to human nature making a distinction with the "spirit" of a "regenerated man" as Saint Paul can be understood in a Christian view (rather than a Gnostic view of it) then simply declare it and if unfamiliar with terms and what that means then educate oneself before attempting to respond. Otherwise we are just chasing our tails here and playing word games.

[adding - BTW holding a Christian view of a Trichotomy nature described by Saint Paul will not help your case about there being supposedly no person in the room, I mean womb,for the Holy Spirit to work with.]

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I have done with Douglas, have I? Or is it AM done wit, Douglas?

btw, I was referring to the part about "soul," not that part you present here.

Well at least we now know what many have suspected - there is not a following of the Trinity Doctrine in this posters stated beliefs. Which rather explains a lot of the posts I linked to. Thanks for clarifying that much.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

So Elizabeth is wrong...Scripture chose the wrong word because you do not like it. It is her claim. He claim in inspired Scripture. You see how in order to support what you want desperately to believe you have to undermine Scripture. The measure you personally chose as the only acceptable one that we were not allowed to go beyond at all. But aren't you going beyond it by claiming that and Inspired woman recorded by an Inspired writer...was her modification.

No, I do not say Scripture chose the wrong word. I say Elizabeth chose the words "for joy."
Yes it is her claim, her claim in inspired Scripture.
The inspiration part may well be to include and emphasize all the ENTHUSIASMS of the situation. She was so filled with enthusiasm and joy and the Holy Spirit - she had particularly noticed the "leaping," and it came rather natural and inspired even to indicate this extended right to her belly and to even think it was coming from there since that was an obvious, particularly potent in mind, concern of the moment. But I think all that is a long way from showing that what she said was some profound truth that there was a person in her belly and that person was in fact a being filled with the Holy Ghost. Especially is that a stretch on her part if she thought the movement itself was some manifestation of Holy Spirit.

The "for joy" was her modification of the more simple description of the event we are given just prior. I think Scripture is clear that she spoke that additional thing - and there is no indication someone else dictated it to her.

Another place you wrote: "As to just one joy, you might want to look at Paul's view of Joy/Exultation of the Holy Spirit. And follow that to how the Joy of the Baptist became Elizabeth's Joy through the Holy Spirit."
Not sure what you mean by "just one joy." Perhaps to consider one element or view of "joy"?
Anyway, would you be able to say a bit more about St. Paul's views?
I read in Romans 14:17 that the Kingdom of God is or includes "joy in the Holy Ghost." Do you read this as what will be accomplished when Christ returns, or some other "kingdom"? And can you relate anything else St. Paul said to Elizabeth's joy?

I read in Acts 13:52 that the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost. With your Greek, how do you understand this "and."
How much are they two (entirely?) different things?