HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Why would you think it should be "her" rather than "a" and that would make any difference? Just because the word used is not possessive does not indicate a lack of perosnhood in the womb. What...do you think that it is not until the child actually exits the womb that perosnhood magically happens???? That personhood and the soul are present by physical location outside the body but not until then.

Because that is the only way I can understand your question. Why would the use of an accusative singular noun mean personhood any less than the use of a genitive pronoun in the third person?

Of course personhood doesn't magically happen at birth. But immense and vital changes do occur at that very point. (Note it is not some stage or ongoing "development" - it happens on one particular day at one particular time.) They and all the growth in the womb up to that point result in the creation of an actual animal, born being.

I told you, "Since according to your view she had had a son for a rather long time." That is why "her son" would be more correct than "a son" (given it, and not him).

 

[Davidnic]

I told you, "Since according to your view she had had a son for a rather long time." That is why "her son" would be more correct than "a son" (given it, and not him).

That is not even even viable in English. And again, why would the use of an accusative singular noun mean personhood any less than the use of a genitive pronoun in the third person? Why would a Greek Accusative noun be any less a person than an genitive pronoun? That is not how anything works.

When my wife gave birth her parents called the grandparents and said, "She had a girl" Not "she had her girl". When my son was born saying, "I she had a boy" or "she had our boy" makes no difference to his personhood in the womb. And that is English.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You see the problem in hunting through English translations rather than looking at the interpretative tradition and the Greek.

Very in Greek means exceedingly like "Very much" not very as in an event, this very moment. And a greek word to signify the exact moment of birth as the time is not used. But the one that indicates from before the moment is used.

When something is translated there are differences in language. This is because of colloquial variations in the language the text is being translated into. But none of the early Church and the continuous theology on this has supported how you are reading it.

The NEB uses very because it had a British flavor to word use and to use very like that is a common way to Emphasize an event. But no scholars of the NEB have ever interpreted that to mean the event is the point of origin. It is there because in British usage "very" was used to emphasize things at the time and era of the translation. So even in that era the colloquial usage of "very" would not mean how you are using it. But in Greek no work meaning "very" is present.

You mistake how I am using it.
I actually (mostly) thought the "very" was for emphasis - I only emphasized it to try to be jokey.

But I do fully think "from" means "since then," after that point.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

That is not even even viable in English. And again, why would the use of an accusative singular noun mean personhood any less than the use of a genitive pronoun in the third person? Why would a Greek Accusative noun be any less a person than an genitive pronoun? That is not how anything works.

When my wife gave birth her parents called the grandparents and said, "She had a girl" Not "she had her girl". When my son was born saying, "I she had a boy" or "she had our boy" makes no difference to his personhood in the womb. And that is English.

Yah, it's not a viable thought over all.

"Makes no difference," you say?
I would say the reason they do not say "she had her girl" is because it would be untrue, would tend to indicate there was a girl before then.

Gotta go have a nap.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Of course personhood doesn't magically happen at birth. But immense and vital changes do occur at that very point. (Note it is not some stage or ongoing "development" - it happens on one particular day at one particular time.) They and all the growth in the womb up to that point result in the creation of an actual animal, born being.

I told you, "Since according to your view she had had a son for a rather long time." That is why "her son" would be more correct than "a son" (given it, and not him).

It almost appears one has said a person exists before birth, but we know from prior statements this is absolutely denied.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Oh Anti-Abortion is built on much more than this Scripture and held in the early Church. So there is no agenda to twist this Scripture on that part.

Mainly because the Scripture is, again, linguistically clear.

You have been told this over and over and it has been explained over and over. Your view of Inspiration potentially allows massive errors into Scripture and reduces the Holy Spirit to a helpless scribe unable to present the Truth of revelation if someone exaggerates. All the Spirit can do is make sure the Gospel author writes down the error and wait for one person to personally interpenetrate it correctly on their own.

That is not a view of Scripture that in in line with Inspiration. And it also is doubly incorrect here because Elizabeth while she is speaking is under the influence of the Holy Spirit. So the Spirit would be having to correct the Spirit.

At this point people have explained things over and over. It is clear you want to believe what you believe despite the evidence and are not open to the repeated proofs of the people in this debate. And that is fine for you. Like I said these threads rarely are for those in it. Many more watch than participate. And those are the ones people repeat themselves for.

 

[Davidnic]

Of course personhood doesn't magically happen at birth. But immense and vital changes do occur at that very point. (Note it is not some stage or ongoing "development" - it happens on one particular day at one particular time.)

So when does the person exist as a human person? According to you of course, I know what Scripture says even if you are reluctant to see that.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Again and again multiple people in this thread have pointed to constant teaching and the unified view of Scripture across all our divided groups. Back to our oldest records of explanations on this verse and related Scripture it is all in unity.

Wrong from the beginning, like I suspected?
You seem to think what with the Holy Spirit and all it is impossible for "all of Christianity" to have been wrong on one little point all these years. Certainly there have been a lot of differences over a lot of matters from the beginning, but apparently nobody thought much to question what could possibly be in a womb?

To my mind there is a much greater matter, at least a much more obvious matter, of Christianity not being (It seems really ever, far as I can tell) in conformity of understanding that one should Greet ye one another with a Holy kiss. I think this is much in agreement with your pointing out St. Paul being big on Holy Spirit joy. You seem to think theologians have figured that out even though I don't see Scripture saying the two elements, joy and Holy Spirit, are inseparable. Anyway, consider the ADMONITION to greet one another with a kiss of love, a command given to us FIVE times. Yet nobody does it, and apparently nobody ever did it. Blatantly NOT lead by the Holy Spirit along the lines of St. Paul, it would seem?
If Christianity can be so universally not in accord with the inspirations clearly stated five times, clearly and obviously and outrightly present in five different epistles, if we can be so apparently wrong even in those circumstances of revelation, why not on the little matter of the exact status of the fetus? Which is not nearly so clearly indicated in any of Scripture.

All of Christianity united and divided since ancient times has to be in error or corrupt. And the historical record of the view of what a person is that was one of the defining marks of the Early Christians vs the Pagan neighbors...has to be wrong for the Christians but right for the Pagans.

I think the major thing about the pagans was sacrificing etc. actual real children which was indeed contrary to human beings as made in the image of God. To be even more extreme in the matter, than truth required, may have been useful to prevail over them. Does not make it right - or maybe it does in that it was necessary to overcome infanticide?

Christianity, drawing from the seeds God planted with the Israelites, changed the worlds view on the unborn.

This may be a major reason for world overpopulation, at least the immense population we now have and all the wars and all the famines and all the people piled up on top of each other.
Thus it may be that ultimately Christianity will suffer much condemnation (and is now?) for inflicting a false view upon the world, if that is the case. Much falling away because of untruth, false teaching. If that is the case.

In this context, do you know anything of the actual practices of early Jews - that is, how did they interpret the Exodus 21 thing about accidents causing miscarriage or whatever it was?
Surely early rabbis must have discussed that a lot, or it was it so obvious to them there was no need for discussion?

 

[Davidnic]

To my mind there is a much greater matter, at least a much more obvious matter, of Christianity not being (It seems really ever, far as I can tell) in conformity of understanding that one should Greet ye one another with a Holy kiss. I think this is much in agreement with your pointing out St. Paul being big on Holy Spirit joy. You seem to think theologians have figured that out even though I don't see Scripture saying the two elements, joy and Holy Spirit, are inseparable. Anyway, consider the ADMONITION to greet one another with a kiss of love, a command given to us FIVE times. Yet nobody does it, and apparently nobody ever did it.

What do you mean that no one ever greeted each other with a Holy Kiss? That was custom in that era and still has its remnants in the sign of peace in different Christian groups, some with conditions still do a kiss. What do you mean nobody does and and apparently nobody ever did do it? A history of the Liturgy shows that statement to be wrong. Augustine talked about it too...you know the guy taught by Ambrose.

And there is a large body of historical evidence as to why it changed over the years. But it was practiced in some form until the 13th century in some places and still has forms today. Also a Biblical practice falling away does not mean the practice was in error. And there is a world of difference between what was a liturgical rubric and custom and what is a moral revealed truth.

If you are comparing the two you are seriously misunderstanding Scripture as it has been viewed for 2000 years. And that seems to be a running theme here. You bring up loosely connected and personally misunderstood view of Scripture and Christian history. And all of it to reduce and shove Divine Revelation into a view that you decided on beforehand.

I just do not understand how you can say nobody ever did something we have records of people doing until about the 13th century and still have some doing today. And we have the history of why it changed and stopped at times. And there is the difference between Liturgical norm and Moral Truth.

This view of Scripture you express is very unorthodox to say the least.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What do you mean that no one ever greeted each other with a Holy Kiss? That was custom in that era and still has its remnants in the sign of peace in different Christian groups, some with conditions still do a kiss. What do you mean nobody does and and apparently nobody ever did do it? A history of the Liturgy shows that statement to be wrong. Augustine talked about it too...you know the guy taught by Ambrose.

And there is a large body of historical evidence as to why it changed over the years. But it was practiced in some form until the 13th century in some places and still has forms today. Also a Biblical practice falling away does not mean the practice was in error. And there is a world of difference between what was a liturgical rubric and custom and what is a moral revealed truth.

If you are comparing the two you are seriously misunderstanding Scripture as it has been viewed for 2000 years. And that seems to be a running theme here. You bring up loosely connected and personally misunderstood view of Scripture and Christian history. And all of it to reduce and shove Divine Revelation into a view that you decided on beforehand.

I just do not understand how you can say nobody ever did something we have records of people doing until about the 13th century and still have some doing today. And we have the history of what it changed and stopped at times. And there is the difference between Liturgical norm and Moral Truth.

This view of Scripture you express is very unorthodox to say the least.

My total error, I guess. Don't know enough history to even know where to look I guess. That's why your response was very useful - do you happen to know where in Augustine he discussed it?

Are you able to answer the question of early Jewish PRACTICE in relation to Exodus 21:22ff?

And could you give me some idea of what you think my "unorthodox"view of Scripture is?
Not grounded sufficiently in historical overviews?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I thought you wanted to stick to the words of Scripture, or was that someone else!?

Well if there is a question of how to interpret Scripture, perhaps it is relevant to look at the nature of things ("the world") to help understand which of several possible interpretations makes most sense.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Here from theopedia.com is a sample of what one has to deal with in the case of "Apostolic tradtions" or "Christian understandings" or whatever it is:
Incarnation of the Son of God
The Incarnation of the Son of God is the terminology used to describe what happened when the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God, "became flesh" as he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary according to the Bible.

Shows a bit of the contradiction involved in thinking that at conception there is a human being - "as he was miraculously conceived" there is NO FLESH WHATSOEVER, for a period of time, until at least after implantation in the womb. There is a single cell that constitutes NO FLESH.
It is also untrue that conceiving takes place in a womb, is it not? Doesn't it happen before the sperm and egg get into the womb? (In the Fallopian tube.)

Edit: Am I just "too picky"?

 

[Philip_B]

Well if there is a question of how to interpret Scripture, perhaps it is relevant to look at the nature of things ("the world") to help understand which of several possible interpretations makes most sense.

HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?
HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?
So, let me try and discuss this.

For whatever purpose (in the wisdom of God) the scripture was written. There are many things said and many things imagined, however it remains undoubtedly true that what was written was written in time and circumstance, so that as we understand the time and circumstance so we can evaluate the purpose and the meaning for the words for us today.

Example:

Psalm 137
By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept :
when we remembered Zion.
As for our harps we hung them up :
upon the trees that are in that land.
For there those who led us away captive
required of us a song :
and those who had despoiled us demanded mirth, saying
‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion.’
How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem :
let my right hand forget its mastery.
Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth :
if I do not remember you,
if I do not prefer Jerusalem above my chief joy.
Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem :
how they said ‘Down with it, down with it, raze it to its foundations.’
O daughter of Babylon, you that lay waste :
happy shall he be who serves you as you have served us;
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones :
and dashes them against the stones.

This is the song of lament of a people in exile and captivity. Towards the end of it - if you can the sultry voice of Don Mclean out of your head - you find the call for justice and retribution, and this cry belongs in the circumstance which gives rise to the scripture in the first place.

Clearly it is a mistake to take these words out of there context and make them some kind of justification and support for the killing of children. Context is partly the understanding of the text that surrounds the words we are looking at, but also the social and political context that has given rise to the text.​

One of the temptations is to apply our current context to the original text.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;

This text expressed a meaning in the social context in which it was written. It has been used to show that God understood slavery to be part of the natural and dignity that he had arranged for humankind. And indeed it seems that there is not a great deal (there is some) to suggest that either Paul or Jesus addressed this issue which today most Christians would understand as a social evil.

We may well extend our understanding of the context to suggest that those who are employed should work as hard as they can and follow the instructions of their bosses and be good employees. I accept that, however I see that as in that sense exegesis. That is we are reading out of the text in order to understand the present and how we should respond.
​

The thing we have to try very hard to avoid is to read into the text things that we might do, and indeed I suspect we all do that from time to time as a result of cultural blindness. The filters of culture and upbringing are very hard to see and understand. I had the privilege of working for a few years on a Mission School in Papua New Guinea. Most Churches had a (or many) Cross, Crucifix or Christus Rex. The School had a Christus Rex which stood about 8 feet high behind the Altar. It had been made in North America by an Indian Tribe (as far as I remember) and the children in the School, and indeed people from a number of the villages around accord this with great reverence. Eventually I understood that they loved it, including the feathered headdress because this told them that Jesus was not a white Anglo Saxon, Jesus got them, Jesus was one of them. The cultural filters that we applied without intent were getting in the way of the message we were bringing. This genius of accident - actually I don't think it was an accident - helped me at least ask myself the question what is Gospel and what is Culture.

So the problems I have been having along the way in this thread when we are looking at the passage of the account of the visitation is that I feel you are pushing some assumptions onto the passage, which may even work for you, however our real task is to find out what the text, and indeed what God is saying to us in the text, so it isn't what I can get the text to say, but what it does say. In the opening post you were very critical of Ambrose (which I am too at times, but not here) because you felt Ambrose had layered a level of meaning that was not explicitly in the text. Then the posts appeared to suggest that the child in Mary's womb was not yet human, and that the unborn child in Elizabeth's womb was incapable of emotion, and that it was about Elizabeth being happy to see her cousin, or that overcome by the Holy Spirit she was in a spiritual state of some ecstasy. I am not convinced that the passage needs 21st century rationalism shoved into it. It is not a newspaper account, it is Good News, it is the Baptist foreshadowing the role of the one who comes before and points out Jesus to those around. I just think the text deserves a little dignity and respect, we tear it around enough as it is.

Hopefully that is a fair answer to the question posted.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?
HAS THE CHURCH ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT ?
So, let me try and discuss this.

For whatever purpose (in the wisdom of God) the scripture was written. There are many things said and many things imagined, however it remains undoubtedly true that what was written was written in time and circumstance, so that as we understand the time and circumstance so we can evaluate the purpose and the meaning for the words for us today.

Example:

Psalm 137
By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept :
when we remembered Zion.
As for our harps we hung them up :
upon the trees that are in that land.
For there those who led us away captive
required of us a song :
and those who had despoiled us demanded mirth, saying
‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion.’
How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem :
let my right hand forget its mastery.
Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth :
if I do not remember you,
if I do not prefer Jerusalem above my chief joy.
Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem :
how they said ‘Down with it, down with it, raze it to its foundations.’
O daughter of Babylon, you that lay waste :
happy shall he be who serves you as you have served us;
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones :
and dashes them against the stones.

This is the song of lament of a people in exile and captivity. Towards the end of it - if you can the sultry voice of Don Mclean out of your head - you find the call for justice and retribution, and this cry belongs in the circumstance which gives rise to the scripture in the first place.

Clearly it is a mistake to take these words out of there context and make them some kind of justification and support for the killing of children. Context is partly the understanding of the text that surrounds the words we are looking at, but also the social and political context that has given rise to the text.​

One of the temptations is to apply our current context to the original text.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;

This text expressed a meaning in the social context in which it was written. It has been used to show that God understood slavery to be part of the natural and dignity that he had arranged for humankind. And indeed it seems that there is not a great deal (there is some) to suggest that either Paul or Jesus addressed this issue which today most Christians would understand as a social evil.

We may well extend our understanding of the context to suggest that those who are employed should work as hard as they can and follow the instructions of their bosses and be good employees. I accept that, however I see that as in that sense exegesis. That is we are reading out of the text in order to understand the present and how we should respond.
​

The thing we have to try very hard to avoid is to read into the text things that we might do, and indeed I suspect we all do that from time to time as a result of cultural blindness. The filters of culture and upbringing are very hard to see and understand. I had the privilege of working for a few years on a Mission School in Papua New Guinea. Most Churches had a (or many) Cross, Crucifix or Christus Rex. The School had a Christus Rex which stood about 8 feet high behind the Altar. It had been made in North America by an Indian Tribe (as far as I remember) and the children in the School, and indeed people from a number of the villages around accord this with great reverence. Eventually I understood that they loved it, including the feathered headdress because this told them that Jesus was not a white Anglo Saxon, Jesus got them, Jesus was one of them. The cultural filters that we applied without intent were getting in the way of the message we were bringing. This genius of accident - actually I don't think it was an accident - helped me at least ask myself the question what is Gospel and what is Culture.

So the problems I have been having along the way in this thread when we are looking at the passage of the account of the visitation is that I feel you are pushing some assumptions onto the passage, which may even work for you, however our real task is to find out what the text, and indeed what God is saying to us in the text, so it isn't what I can get the text to say, but what it does say. In the opening post you were very critical of Ambrose (which I am too at times, but not here) because you felt Ambrose had layered a level of meaning that was not explicitly in the text. Then the posts appeared to suggest that the child in Mary's womb was not yet human, and that the unborn child in Elizabeth's womb was incapable of emotion, and that it was about Elizabeth being happy to see her cousin, or that overcome by the Holy Spirit she was in a spiritual state of some ecstasy. I am not convinced that the passage needs 21st century rationalism shoved into it. It is not a newspaper account, it is Good News, it is the Baptist foreshadowing the role of the one who comes before and points out Jesus to those around. I just think the text deserves a little dignity and respect, we tear it around enough as it is.

Hopefully that is a fair answer to the question posted.

I guess I don't really know what you mean by "21st century rationalism shoved into it."
I certainly think Ambrose added a great big fable to it.

Because it makes a good story, is the way some want to see it as "the Baptist foreshadowing the role of the one who comes before and points out Jesus to those around," is it justified to add that to the text, to the story? We know the role of the actual Baptist, the born person, as the one who came before and pointed to Jesus, but is it not enough that we know that, that that is the case?
If we are, as you pointed out earlier, "what God is saying to us in the text" is what we are to look for, is not basically WHAT GOD IS SAYING in Luke 1: 42-45 that Elizabeth cried out these things - are we to conclude because she was "filled with the Holy Ghost" that what she says is like unto what Christ himself might have said?
(It's not clear to me whether Elizabeth said what is said in verse 45 - can anyone clear that up for me?)

If as you say I am, "pushing some assumptions into the passage," if you feel that is the case, then perhaps you could indicate what some of those assumptions are? That I, supposedly from what you say, I am making into being a part of the passage?
It seems the tenor of some of what you say is that a minimal of what "maybe" can be garnered out the passage would be preferable to making a whole lot (more?) out of it?
I think I am rather willing to accept more minimal interpretations, and to me that is being less inclined to add something to it, take out more than it really has.
You indicate (I think as part of a characterization of what you take to be my view): "that it was about Elizabeth being happy to see her cousin, or that overcome by the Holy Spirit she was in a spiritual state of some ecstasy." If the "or" is replaced with an "and" I think it is very true, probably the second part of it being simply a characterization of her happiness.
Is there anything wrong with this (revised) claim?
Is that not simple facts of the case, the situation that is being presented to us.
Others want to make a big deal of the "for joy" added by Elizabeth - I think they are grasping at straws and desperately trying to be sure the passage includes what they want it to say.
Why, if they are, are they more correct than me, who am happy to accept that it amplifies the Spirit fill joy of the situation, Elizabeth gives us confirmation that all was very joyous.

But to go from that and claim it says the contents of her womb was joyous is a bit much. Yes, I think attributing emotions to a fetus is (probably) a contradiction of reality, but over and above that, to take this most tenuous straw to try to prove there are such emotions to my mind is really baking the thing up. I can understand Elizabeth might think her fetus had joy, or at least express the thought that there was such joy - that does not mean we need subscribe to her theory.
TO INSIST WE MUST SUBSCRIBE TO HER THEORY (if she has one), I think it is there where exegesis is gone beyond.
Surely there are many things EXPRESSED IN SCRIPTURE that are in themselves untrue, things people (maybe very bad people and maybe not so bad) have said (quotes like that of Elizabeth), and to insist that because she was filled with the Holy Ghost meant she could not have been simply expressing her feelings in the way they affected her, and it had to be a profound truth, some proven claim about what is in a womb, is that really necessarily what her being "filled with the Holy Ghost" meant here?

Thanks for your contributions Phillip. Hope to hear back from you.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Here from theopedia.com is a sample of what one has to deal with in the case of "Apostolic tradtions" or "Christian understandings" or whatever it is:
Incarnation of the Son of God
The Incarnation of the Son of God is the terminology used to describe what happened when the second person of the Trinity, the eternal Son of God, "became flesh" as he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary according to the Bible.

Shows a bit of the contradiction involved in thinking that at conception there is a human being - "as he was miraculously conceived" there is NO FLESH WHATSOEVER, for a period of time, until at least after implantation in the womb. There is a single cell that constitutes NO FLESH.
It is also untrue that conceiving takes place in a womb, is it not? Doesn't it happen before the sperm and egg get into the womb? (In the Fallopian tube.)

Edit: Am I just "too picky"?

maybe not picky enough and would rather make up one's own thought on the Trinity and Godhead than rely on anyone else's. Someone who thinks person and knowledge requires a material & breathing body or that Persons is just a label for another characteristic of God and those beliefs qualify as proof for a belief in a "Trinity" is not picky at all when it comes to the Trinity Doctrine. Those are not original thoughts, folks have believed errors like this and others before and do now. It is not in line with a belief in the Trinity Doctrine however.

CF restricts those folks to presenting those ideas to a limited area for the forums so that every Christian discussion, or most I should say, does not break down into Who or What God is, like these recently started threads have. If one is not picky about Who or What God is, then the thoughts on many subjects run a huge wide range. So huge that it becomes impossible to carry on a discussion about something like abortion or the Incarnation in the womb, without it being derailed into something most Christians hold as fundamental to our faith, the Trinity Doctrine. It is also very annoying when those disagreeing with those fundamentals do not want to discuss other topics without inserting and insisting on those erroneous beliefs about God. So all their threads and posts become repetitious repeats of the same points, no matter how many different ways they try to phrase the same topic of discussion.

Adding:
Saint Augustine, supposedly from an Easter Sermon but this greeting is still in practice in the RCC and maybe more so even in the EO Churches. Saint Augustine is describing something that occurs now during Mass said 24/7/365. So someone was correcting in pointing out that the practice is far from entirely gone among Christians.

"After that comes the greeting, Peace be with you, and Christians kiss one another with a holy kiss."

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

maybe not picky enough and would rather make up one's own thought on the Trinity and Godhead than rely on anyone else's. Someone who thinks person and knowledge requires a material & breathing body or that Persons is just a label for another characteristic of God and those beliefs qualify as proof for a belief in a "Trinity" is not picky at all when it comes to the Trinity Doctrine. Those are not original thoughts, folks have believed errors like this and others before and do now. It is not in line with a belief in the Trinity Doctrine however.

CF restricts those folks to presenting those ideas to a limited area for the forums so that every Christian discussion, or most I should say, does not break down into Who or What God is, like these recently started threads have. If one is not picky about Who or What God is, then the thoughts on many subjects run a huge wide range. So huge that it becomes impossible to carry on a discussion about something like abortion or the Incarnation in the womb, without it being derailed into something most Christians hold as fundamental to our faith, the Trinity Doctrine. It is also very annoying when those disagreeing with those fundamentals do not want to discuss other topics without inserting and insisting on those erroneous beliefs about God. So all their threads and posts become repetitious repeats of the same points, no matter how many different ways they try to phrase the same topic of discussion.

Adding:
Saint Augustine, supposedly from an Easter Sermon but this greeting is still in practice in the RCC and maybe more so even in the EO Churches. Saint Augustine is describing something that occurs now during Mass said 24/7/365. So someone was correcting in pointing out that the practice is far from entirely gone among Christians.

"After that comes the greeting, Peace be with you, and Christians kiss one another with a holy kiss."

In those two paragraphs describing your self, I guess.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

In those two paragraphs describing your self, I guess.

Sadly no, but that description of a peculiar belief in a "Trinity" and it following a history of people making all sorts of errors regarding God will be ignored just as my post on numerous quotes have been ignored, ignored even when those quotes were requested.

So no, it clearly does describe someone who has asked for and was given twice now numerous quotes demonstrating a lack of belief in the Trinity Doctrine, as well as lacking any rational or understandable idea of a human nature that is at it's conception the union of the immaterial with material, a human soul created by God and joined with material that will become that particular person's body which is all created at that moment, conception.

 

[Blade]

no.. we are not. Some people are but the Church.. no.. For Christ is the head of this Church. And the word when talking about church was about US not some building.. I know you know this We need to focus on the GOOD...and pray FOR those that are falling.. fell.. and bend.. and pick them up.. no matter how they are. For that is what JESUS does every day to you and me.. we always do this for all...song playing Imperials.. I'm forgiven.. perfect timing

 

[Davidnic]

My total error, I guess. Don't know enough history to even know where to look I guess. That's why your response was very useful - do you happen to know where in Augustine he discussed it?

Are you able to answer the question of early Jewish PRACTICE in relation to Exodus 21:22ff?

And could you give me some idea of what you think my "unorthodox"view of Scripture is?
Not grounded sufficiently in historical overviews?

To the question of Jewish practice you have to look at it in the context of did they have the whole of the Law. No, they did not. That came in Christ. This is evidenced by Christ Himself putting Himself as the new Law. This can be attested to with how the Lord would tell them you have heard it said....but I say. And how because of their hardness of heart Moses allowed some things. But that was ended with Divine Revelation in the Christ. Where, for the Israelite time, there was a striving to understand many things yet to be revealed; we do not have that.

As far as your view of Scripture it seems to be that you have an idea and force Scripture to validate it rather than looking to Scripture as it is for Truth. You go back between we must take Scripture as it is and not go beyond it, but then we can diminish the role of people speaking and what they say as exaggeration. You want to go deep into the wording until it is a problem then the wording is fluid. If it can be shown that Christianity has accepted something for almost 2000 years or more, then you think it might be corrupted since the earliest days. This view is one that puts Scripture as a rubber stamp on our previously decided views. And it limits the Holy Spirit to recording secretary rather than one who reveals, preserves, and helps us to understand Truth.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

no.. we are not. Some people are but the Church.. no.. For Christ is the head of this Church. And the word when talking about church was about US not some building.. I know you know this We need to focus on the GOOD...and pray FOR those that are falling.. fell.. and bend.. and pick them up.. no matter how they are. For that is what JESUS does every day to you and me.. we always do this for all...song playing Imperials.. I'm forgiven.. perfect timing

I'm sorry Blade, it is rather difficult to figure out what you are talking about. "no.. we are not" WHAT? Some people are WHAT?
Perhaps you should "reply" to a particular post, or otherwise quote somebody?