B
bayoubutterfly
Guest
ebvne?
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
You dont read mesopotomian? english translation is “even”ebvne?
B
bayoubutterfly
Guest
ah…no I only read english and puppy dog 
A
AussieAnn
Guest
Dear Forum Members,
Please see the following link for the final word on our Blessed Virgin Mary. It has a thorough argument for all aspects of Catholic Dogma on our Blessed Mother with biblical references. Thank-you!
socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/biblical-overview-blessed-virgin-mary.html
Please see the following link for the final word on our Blessed Virgin Mary. It has a thorough argument for all aspects of Catholic Dogma on our Blessed Mother with biblical references. Thank-you!
socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/biblical-overview-blessed-virgin-mary.html
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, Jesus “emptied himself” and took upon himself human form, so he could be fully human. This was the reason that the dogma was developed in the first place. This is how the Church understood the nature of Jesus. Are you saying that you don’t believe that Jesus was formed of Mary’s flesh? That is a very early gnostic heresy…
D
dandn5000
Guest
There’s no evidence that she did sin. It’s speculation.
It’s called faith for a reason, folks.
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
You didn’t answer a very serious and interesting question that ND asked… And I am interested to hear the answer myself…Well, Jesus “emptied himself” and took upon himself human form, so he could be fully human. This was the reason that the dogma was developed in the first place. This is how the Church understood the nature of Jesus. Are you saying that you don’t believe that Jesus was formed of Mary’s flesh? That is a very early gnostic heresy…
If God did it for Mary, seeing as her parents were sinful but she was saved from it, why would He not do it for Himself? If Mary HAD to be sinless otherwise Jesus would be tainted then why wasn’t it the same for Mary and her parents? He posed the question better than I:
The logic just doesn’t jive…
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
K
KJK80
Guest
What are you implying here?
S
Singinbeauty
Guest
Not implying, I am saying… We are to test what we believe to make sure we are on track. To ask questions and pray about it. I was replying to someone who saying “it’s called faith for a reason”. Faith isn’t just believing or blindly accepting what you are given and taught, it is a action - a thought process - and a way of life.
What did you think I was implying?
A
AussieAnn
Guest
No Catholic would dispute this. We solely ask Mary to pray for us.
Here are some of the key points from the link I previously posted.
Jesus Christ gave to John - and by implication, all Christians - His Mother, to be our Spiritual Mother (Jn 19:26-27; cf. Rev 12:1-2,5,17). Thus, we can ask for her prayers on our behalf, which have great efficacy due to her exalted holiness (Jas 5:16) and closeness to our Lord Jesus Christ.
There is only one person in all humanity of whom God has one picture, and in whom there is a perfect conformity between what He wanted her to be and what she is, and that is His Own Mother. The model and the copy are perfect. As Eden was the Paradise of Creation, Mary is the Paradise of th Incarnation. The closer one gets to the fire, the greater the heat; the closer one is to God, the greater the purity. But since no one was ever closer to God than the woman whose human portals He threw open to walk this earth, then no one could have been more pure than she. We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ. The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood. It may be objected: ‘Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her.’ But He needed her, whether we do or not. God, Who made the sun, also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. All its light is reflected from the sun. The Blessed Mother reflects her Divine Son; without Him, she is nothing. With Him, she is the Mother of Men.
{Archbishop Fulton Sheen, The World’s First Love, 1952}
II. MARY THE “MOTHER OF GOD” (“THEOTOKOS”)
- Mary is called “Mother of the Lord” (Lk 1:43) and the “Mother of Jesus” (Jn 2:1), thus she is the Mother of God, since Jesus Christ is true God, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity (see also Is 7:14; Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35; Gal 4:4).
The Gk. word rendered “highly favoured” here (KJV) and in many translations, is “kecharitomene.” Catholic Bibles usually translate it “full of grace,” which is permissible, and not merely a biased position. E.g., the Protestant Amplified Bible mentions in a note that “endued with grace” is the “literal translation.” W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, a standard Protestant reference, states that the word means “to make graceful or gracious . . . grace implies more than favour; grace is a free gift, favour may be deserved or gained.”
Luke 1:35 “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
This verse explicitly establishes a link between Mary as bearer of the New Covenant and the Ark of the Old Covenant. The Gk. word for “overshadow” (“episkiasei”) was used of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (Mt 17:5; Lk 9:34) and is reminiscent of the Shekinah of the OT, which represented God’s Presence (Ex 24:15-16; 40:34-8; 1 Ki 8:4-11). Mary became like the Holy of Holies in the Temple, where God dwelt. God gave extremely detailed instructions on constructing the ark, since it was to contain His Law (Ex 25-30 and 35-40). Mary had to be that much more holy, since she was to carry the Word of God in the flesh (Job 14:4). Further parallelism between Mary and the Ark is indicated in comparing Lk 1:43 with 2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:44 with 2 Sam 6:14-16, and Lk 1:39-45,56 with 2 Sam 6:10-12.
Mary had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself. The whole Bible teaches this (e.g., Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14). God’s Presence imparts and requires holiness (1 Cor 3:13-17; 1 Jn 3:3-9). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies (where the Ark and God’s Special Presence were) only once a year, under threat of death if God’s instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her ineffable physical and spiritual relationship with God the Son, the Holy Spirit (as “Spouse”), and God the Father (as “Daughter of Zion”), necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness from conception, just as we all will be cleansed utterly in order to be present with God in heaven (Rev 21:27). Seen in this light, the Immaculate Conception, though still technically a deduction from the Bible, is a very biblical doctrine indeed.
Early Christian Tradition was unanimous in holding to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. It was first doubted, as far as we know, by one Helvidius, who tangled with St. Jerome in 380, but by few others until recent times. All the Protestant Founders firmly held the belief, as did later notable Protestants such as John Wesley, and many more to this day, on biblical grounds alone.
K
KJK80
Guest
I’m not sure… It sounded like you were implying Catholic’s don’t have a proper faith. But I’m glad you don’t feel that way!
D
dandn5000
Guest
I agree that we are to test what we believe, and it is necessary to have true faith to be able to have it tested by somebody else and walk away with it intact. But at the same time, “faith” itself implies a certain measure of uncertainty - we can only prove things to a certain point. The post that I replied to with that statement sounded to me as if that poster was saying that because the poster s/he replied to(whoa, this is confusing if you think about it…)didn’t give proof that Mary didn’t sin but instead stated that they believed in Mary’s sinless state due to what they had been taught, that the teaching wasn’t valid. I disagree with that - there can’t always be concrete proof of something. That’s why I made the faith comment.
A
AussieAnn
Guest
PART ONE
Luke 1:28 [RSV]: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!’”
[The RSVCE translates kecharitomene (“favored one” above) as “full of grace”]
Catholics believe that this verse is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary - itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated “highly favored” - which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language). I have done a great deal of exegesis and analysis of this verse, in dialogue with Evangelical Protestants, and so I shall draw from that thought and experience in this chapter.
Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).
The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:
“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’” (Plummer).
(Robertson, II, 13)
Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).
Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).
Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).
The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:
Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .
(Kittel, 1304-1305)
Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):
Luke 1:28 [RSV]: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!’”
[The RSVCE translates kecharitomene (“favored one” above) as “full of grace”]
Catholics believe that this verse is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary - itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated “highly favored” - which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language). I have done a great deal of exegesis and analysis of this verse, in dialogue with Evangelical Protestants, and so I shall draw from that thought and experience in this chapter.
Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).
The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:
“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’” (Plummer).
(Robertson, II, 13)
Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).
Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).
Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).
The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:
Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .
(Kittel, 1304-1305)
Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):
A
AussieAnn
Guest
Romans 6:14: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)
We are saved by grace, and grace alone:
Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)
Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:
We are saved by grace, and grace alone:
Ephesians 2:8-10: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)
Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:
- Grace saves us.
- Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.
Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7,9; 3:6,9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions: - To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
- To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.
A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this: - The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.
- To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.
- Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).
- The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.
- To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.
- Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
- The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
- Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.
G
guanophore
Guest
You just proved yourself that the way this verse is commonly interpreted is not right.
B
brkn1
Guest
Jesus says that His sheep will recognize His voice. I know that I am one of His sheep, even if your church or any other church says otherwise. The Holy Spirit will guide all of the Lord’s sheep into all truth through His Word. This is in the Bible.
I agree that my faith is too important to leave up to the authority of any human or worldly organization. The role of the Lord’s Church and the Christians in that Church is to be servants as they teach others, not lords. Jesus said this in the Bible, as He exampled this form of servanthood, first by washing the apostles feet and then later dying as the Redeemer of all those whom the Father gave Him.
The Word of God is my source of authority and the simple Gospel of salvation described in the Bible is so clear when God’s Spirit guides anyone, that there is no need for a personal interpretation on my part.
You do not have to accept any opinion or interpretation from me to find salvation. My personal salvation depends completely on Jesus alone, Who is revealed in Scripture by the Holy Spirit.
Your church says that I must also have faith in your church and your Pope for salvation. You assume the role of lord by that claim. As one of Jesus’ sheep, I do not recognize such a claim in God’s Word, so I will not follow your church. There is only One Lord and Mediator in my Bible and I will trust no other.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Let’s say I claimed that my mother has never sinned in her life and that she was somehow delivered from original sin at her conception. Would you believe me? Why or why not?
K
KJK80
Guest
You are God?
D
dandn5000
Guest
No, because I have no reason to believe that you are true God and true Man, and thus God would more than likely not be compelled to save your mother from sin at the moment of conception. If I were to believe that you were true God and true Man, as Jesus was and is, then yes, I would be inclined to believe you. Nothing is certain, of course, but it is a possibility.
- Status