J
justasking4
Guest
Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
If Scripture is the i font of all religious truth how do we determine who’s interpetation to use?
B
brkn1
Guest
I would like to repeat your statement from post #681 while changing the word Protestant to Catholic.
“Ahhhh…yet ANOTHER rationalization. Boy, to be a Catholic, you really have to be full of rationalizations.”
H
honeysuckle
Guest
Quite obviously, the gospels would not record public recognition of the importance of Mary. She did not go around telling people that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. They also refer to Jesus as the Son of Joseph. So what does their lack of respect for Mary prove?
When the rich man came to Jesus, he said, “Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” You are well aware of what Jesus said. Why do you call me Good? No one but the Father is good.
If we use your reasoning above, we must surmise that because Jesus does not proclaim Himself God and Good to the rich man he has denied his own divinity.
The obvious answer to your question is because neither Mary nor Jesus are concerned with being adored and praised here on Earth, they are honoring the will of the Father and drawing attention to each individual’s relationship with the Father and their obedience to His will.
I’ve replied to this point several times but it is totally ignored. By your reasoning, because Jesus is God incarnate, then He had no need to be born of a woman at all. He could have simply arrived on a cloud.
The idea that because He is holy, he cannot be tainted by sin, is totally beside the point. The point is that what God is joined to is made pure. I have made this point in more detail in several places and it is ignored.
N
NDfan
Guest
Peary sorry to disagree but the literal definition of Kecharitomene is one who has been bestowed with grace. The emphasis is on the fact that it has already happened and not that she was full of grace. The problem is we have no way of verifying when in the past it occured. So it could have been at conception or birth or 2 days before as I’ve stated in other posts. The word that literally translates to full of grace is taken from Acts to describe Stephen and John to describe Jesus. That word is pleres karitos. Kecharitomene is rendered as full of grace but that is incorrect. The true rendering is highly favoured which is also how NASB shows it.
The word Charitoo appears only twice in the NT, in the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. In both cases the word charitoo is used but in different tenses. In the letter to the Ephesians the present tense of Charitoo is used which is Echaritosen. But the same root Charitoo is used to describe the grace given to the Ephesians. So if Mary was going to be ascribed as sinless then the Ephesians and their descendants would have to be as well. Mary was graced in the past and the Ephesians in the present, but both are the same type. There’s just no getting around this.
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
DCD good question. The answer is because GOD has found favour with Mary and has chosen her to bring Jesus into the world.
Answer this. Why would Paul write a letter to the Ephesians and tell them the same thing?
Paul uses the same word charitoo as I explained to peary that only appears twice in the NT. In Luke and in Ephesians. The difference is the tense of the word. Luke uses Kecharitomene, so we know Mary was graced at some point in the past. And Paul uses Echaritosen which is the present tense. So we know the Ephesians were considered graced in the present tense. But there’s just no getting around the fact that both Mary and the Ephesians have received the same type of grace. If one is sinless then the other has to be as well. We know the Ephesians were not because the 2nd chapter tells us they were slaves to sin. So how do you resolve this?
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
H
honeysuckle
Guest
You have the wrong argument completely.
Catholics are not arguing that there is a qualitative difference in the grace of God as bestowed upon the Ephesians and that which was bestowed upon Mary. The theological point being made is that when the Annunciation occurred, the grace had already been bestowed. Why and how would Mary have been redeemed at a point in time following her conception? There is no basis to argue that she was redeemed at age 5 or age 10. We do know that before Christ was conceived, Mary was redeemed. Thank you for showing us how this verb proves the Catholic position.
bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm
“However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).”
J
justasking4
Guest
You study it. You use good exegetical methods as you would in other disciplines.
Is it not true that the catholic church has infallibly interpreted less than 20 verses? If this is the case, then how do you determine which interpretation of scripture is correct on those passage the church has not infallibly interpreted?
J
justasking4
Guest
Where in the definition does it say that such a person would be sinless their entire life?
P
peary
Guest
We will have to agree to disagree on this.
E
elvisman
Guest
There are 2 places in Scripture that mention Peter even having a wife: 1 Corinthians 9:5 and Mark 1:30. And guess what? It doesn’t mention that he WASN’T a widower, either.
As for Peter and his wife being killed in Rome together - that’s not a tradition I’ve ever heard of. Please state your source.
Besides, if it’s not in Scripture, wouldn’t you be less inclined to believe a mere tradition anyway?
E
elvisman
Guest
I was merely arguing the point from a merely Sola Scriptura point of view.I would like to repeat your statement from post #681 while changing the word Protestant to Catholic.
“Ahhhh…yet ANOTHER rationalization. Boy, to be a Catholic, you really have to be full of rationalizations.”
Whereas you adhere to Scripture only, we Catholics have what is called the “deposit of faith”. This includes traditions, extra-biblical writings of the Fathers, etc. I could argue the point much easier and clearer if I wasn’t limiting myself to Sola Scriptura.
**The problem, though, is that as a believer in Sola Scriptura, you have to jump through a lot of hoops and defy logic to make your points. The Catholic approach simply makes more sense. **
P
peary
Guest
As for Peter and his wife being killed in Rome together - that’s not a tradition I’ve ever heard of. Please state your source.
Besides, if it’s not in Scripture, wouldn’t you be less inclined to believe a mere tradition anyway?
Peter’s tomb and his bones were excavated under the main altar of St. Peter’s…just where tradition said they always were.
E
elvisman
Guest
Peter’s tomb and his bones were excavated under the main altar of St. Peter’s…just where tradition said they always were.
N
NDfan
Guest
Lapell I’m glad you posted this because I was getting ready to call you on it. If Mary could be sinless in her mother’s sinful womb then Jesus certainly could be sinless in Mary’s sinful womb. The difference is Jesus is GOD incarnate so the blood passed to HIM would have been cleansed by HIS healing powers.How the Virgin Mary could be immaculate within her mother’s womb is another great mystery, of course. But God being all-powerful, it’s just a piece of cake to Him!
I’m always amazed when it is said that Mary had to be sinless so Jesus would be sinless, yet they can’t explain how Mary stayed sinless by receiving sinful blood from her mother. If she was made sinless at conception then she still would have her mother’s sinful blood circulating into her. What stops Mary from becoming sinless then?
E
estesbob
Guest
You do all of the above and you end up with mass confusion and endless verse wars . Was Christ the author of confusion?
I am not concerned about interpretation of specific verses, nor is my Church.
J
justasking4
Guest
Christ not the author of confusion but that does not mean some of His followers might be. In fact we should expect it since we are fallen.
Even in your oqn church will you be able to avoid the confusion.
N
NDfan
Guest
No lapell they were acting in accordance with the authority of scripture. Re-read Acts to see why they did this:
Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms,
“‘May his camp become desolate,
and let there be no one to dwell in it’;
and
“‘Let another take his office.’
But look at the qualifications of becoming an Apostle:
21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
Based on this they could only come up with 2 names. Barsabbas and Matthias. Given this then no one after them could be an Apostle. So using the Apostolic succession argument fails right here. That’s why the instructions the Apostles left as claimed by one of the ECFs was to make sure the church held to Apostolic teachings. Irenaeus coined the term Apostolic Succession in response to all the heretics like Marcion, the Gnostics, Montanists etc. This was to make sure that church leaders who held to Apostolic teachings were in the Christian churches.
PEACE
E
estesbob
Guest
So he left us on our own?
Our Church has avoided the Confusion-adhering to the same teachings and doctrines for 2,000 years.
- Status