An Example of Hyper Hyper Hyper Dulia?

[PerryJ]

Well, I am no expert on the Greek here, but I will try to use what sources I have to address it. Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature defines the usage of “caritoo” at Luke 1:28, “favored one (in the sight of God).” No lexical source that I have found gives the meaning of caritoo as “sinlessness.” The term refers to favor - in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God’s grace. The only other occurrence of caritoo is in Ephesians 1:6, “…to the praise of His glorious grace, which he freely bestowed (caritoo) on us in the Beloved.” If the bare term caritoo means “sinlessness,” then it follows that the elect of God throughout their lives have been sinless as well.

I apologize as I am not stating that verb means she was sinless. The context of the whole Bible supports her being sinless. I do believe this verse shows her receivng special grace.

I also do not know Greek. Here is what I know from other sources.

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 with permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968 ) 108-109, sec 1852:b also Blass and DeBrunner p.175.

 

[sandusky]

Perry J:

Is it a simple greeting? An angel giving a message concerning coming of the Lord certainly does not denote a simple greeting to me. In addition the verb used in this passage refers to a grace given perpetually…This is different than how it is used in other Bible verses. The root word is the same; however, it is not the same use of the word in the Bible. It has a different tense than all the other examples I have seen.

That same word is used only one other time in the NT, and that is in relation to those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world—it’s an identical gracing, the difference being in the tense only

The verb tense in the passage is that of perfect, passive, participle. From that, Catholic apologists state that Mary is, as you say, “perpetually graced.”

The inconsistency in your argument is seen in that the same verb tense, perfect, passive, participle is used in Eph 2:8—by grace you have been saved.

Catholics fight harder for Mary to be “perpetually graced,” based upon the verb tense, than they fight for a believer to be "perpetually saved," based upon the same verb tense.

 

[adstrinity]

Let me just go on record here, as I believe TriuneUnity has said on this thread and other threads that it’s not explicitly in the Bible that he doesn’t believe in it, as he’s as Sola Scripturist. Not that he holds anything against those who believe in it or who don’t, but, simply that he cannot find it in the Bible and therefore, he is not bound to believe this according to his religion. He’s not trying to convert anybody and logical arguments, while it may help him in understanding, aren’t to be for conversion purposes since he is being legitimate and righteous in God as best he knows how.

 

[PerryJ]

That same word is used only one other time in the NT, and that is in relation to those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world—it’s an identical gracing, the difference being in the tense only

The verb tense in the passage is that of perfect, passive, participle. From that, Catholic apologists state that Mary is, as you say, “perpetually graced.”

The inconsistency in your argument is seen in that the same verb tense, perfect, passive, participle is used in Eph 2:8—by grace you have been saved.

Catholics fight harder for Mary to be “perpetually graced,” based upon the verb tense, than they fight for a believer to be "perpetually saved," based upon the same verb tense.

It appears that you are giving your personal opinion. I have given you the translation in Greek that shows the use of the terms is different. I believe my post include three references.

My post shows that Mary was given a special grace as defined by the language of the Bible.

If you wish to construe this difference as negative that is for you.

 

[notsmart]

Let me just go on record here, as I believe TriuneUnity has said on this thread and other threads that it’s not explicitly in the Bible that he doesn’t believe in it, as he’s as Sola Scripturist. Not that he holds anything against those who believe in it or who don’t, but, simply that he cannot find it in the Bible and therefore, he is not bound to believe this according to his religion. He’s not trying to convert anybody and logical arguments, while it may help him in understanding, aren’t to be for conversion purposes since he is being legitimate and righteous in God as best he knows how.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It’s funny, but Martin Luther seemed to retain the Catholic beliefs about Mary. See HERE

While I am sure he would oppose the language used in the work before us, he certainly had no problem with the IC, perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.

Peace…

MW

Very interesting! Lutherans should follow thier leader better!

 

[TriuneUnity]

Let me just go on record here, as I believe TriuneUnity has said on this thread and other threads that it’s not explicitly in the Bible that he doesn’t believe in it, as he’s as Sola Scripturist. Not that he holds anything against those who believe in it or who don’t, but, simply that he cannot find it in the Bible and therefore, he is not bound to believe this according to his religion. He’s not trying to convert anybody and logical arguments, while it may help him in understanding, aren’t to be for conversion purposes since he is being legitimate and righteous in God as best he knows how.

I appreciate that, ads

I probably did over react somewhat to that book…but then again, I don’t think I did as I find it a clear abuse of, at best, a weak argument for intercession.

Frankly, I would hope Catholics would condemn this kind of junk as forcefully as possible. It is precisely that kind of thing that has given rise to much misunderstanding.

 

[notsmart]

Very interesting! Lutherans should follow thier leader better!

I believe that Lutherans do not make the claim that Luther was infaillable on matters of Faith. I am not sure Luther claimed he was either. So why should they follow all things he said?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I believe that Lutherans do not make the claim that Luther was infaillable on matters of Faith. I am not sure Luther claimed he was either. So why should they follow all things he said?

He was clearly right about Mary!

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Prayer of St. Ephraim is:

St. Ephraim wrote many prayers and hymns. They form the basis of the Assyrian and West Syrian Divine Office.

 

[adstrinity]

It seems to me that we’re trying to forcefully show him we are right and he should see the logic in all this. It may help him see how Catholics view the world, but, c’mon, be charitable, is all.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Oh just about the whole thing. Specifically the exaltation of Mary far beyond what appears in Scripture. That God listens to her as if by command, that going to her is better than going to Christ, etc. It takes it far beyond anything resembling “honor” and is rank idolatry. I don’t have a problem with saying that many Catholics would find this offensive, too, but, unfortunately, the Church has given rise to this kind of inane attempt to be anything remotely like Christian teaching.

These are the same arguments that good ole’ Len from the Armstrong debate offered. It’s mere strawman tactics and rhetoric. Explain “specifically the exaltation of Mary” and any quotes from the book that speak of “God listens to her as if by command” and quotes that speak of “going to her is better than going to Christ”. You’re making assumptions and not quoting the material. Once you’ve done that, you can post quotes from the book that display the “idolatry”.

We can pray to Him through Christ’s mediation, yes.

Yep, we agree.

No problem here, except that OT typology is fulfilled in Christ, not Mary.

You just fail to see it in front of your eyes. The ark of the OT “held” the sacred objects inside. Mary “held” the sacred Jesus, the Son of God. Pretty straight-forward. I don’t understand the confusion.

I don’t agree with this language, but yes, she was called to bear Christ.

It’s just semantics, Triune. It’s using words that most of us Protestants wouldn’t normally use. That doesn’t mean the teaching is false.

Only if everytime you see the word “woman” in Scripture in automatically refers to Genesis-John Marian typology. Which, of course, would be absurd. Therefore, there is no reason to see the Johannine passages to be saying anything like Catholic.com apologists use it.

Don’t you find it odd that Jesus used that word for his mother? I don’t remember ever calling my mother “woman”.

I don’t interpret a simple greeting by an angel to be filled with all sorts of Marian doctrines that apologists have to go through tortured explanations in order to even make remotely sensible. Considering the other uses of the same exact word, I cannot read into this example the Immaculate Conception, et al.

Can you cite another example where an archangel gave the greeting that he gave to Mary? That one message doesn’t contain all of the teachings about Mary. But, it does give some important clues as to who she really is in the eyes of God. It wasn’t meant to give an example of IC all by itself. There are other passages.

And there’s no indication that Mary knew that Jesus was going to turn water into wine. I am not sure how much can be read into this.

Okay, that’s just an absurd statement. Read the passage:

1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” 4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, “My time has not yet come.” 5His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

Why do you think she said this to him - “They have no more wine”? Was she stating the obvious? What would be the point? Was she telling him to go to the local liquor store to get some? And then to top it off, Jesus acknowledges the request to perform the miracle, obeys his mother and she says “do whatever he tells you”. How are we to understand this passage, Triune?

That is right…and part of the misunderstanding on the Protestant side is the attempt to downplay the significance of Marian teaching in the face of absurd comments like those made by Liguori.

I’ve not seen anyone downplay it, but try to give you the proper perspective on what is being said, which you continue to pass by. Talk about absurdity…

MW

 

[PerryJ]

It seems to me that we’re trying to forcefully show him we are right and he should see the logic in all this. It may help him see how Catholics view the world, but, c’mon, be charitable, is all.

adstrinity,

If you were referring to my post I was only joking. I respect Triune’s thoughts as he is well founded in his faith.

I just hope you help me when he is beating me up on some scripture.

PJ

 

[notsmart]

It seems to me that we’re trying to forcefully show him we are right and he should see the logic in all this. It may help him see how Catholics view the world, but, c’mon, be charitable, is all.

Oh, I am not part of the “we” in this case, so I am off the hook!
But, in all fairness I dont think TU is a stranger to how forums work.

 

[sandusky]

PerryJ:

It appears that you are giving your personal opinion. I have given you the translation in Greek that shows the use of the terms is different. I believe my post include three references.

I know what the Greek says.

PerryJ:

My post shows that Mary was given a special grace as defined by the language of the Bible.

So is the believer given a special grace as defined by the very same language of the Bible—perfect, passive, participle (Eph 2:8).

PerryJ:

If you wish to construe this difference as negative that is for you.

Not negative, but equal.

 

[PerryJ]

I know what the Greek says.

So is the believer given a special grace as defined by the very same language of the Bible—perfect, passive, participle (Eph 2:8).

Not negative, but equal.

I don’t see the equal. They are not using the verb the same as you imply. At least according to the three references I have listed again. Who is your source that states they are the same?

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 with permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968 ) 108-109, sec 1852:b also Blass and DeBrunner p.175.

 

[adstrinity]

adstrinity,

If you were referring to my post I was only joking. I respect Triune’s thoughts as he is well founded in his faith.

I just hope you help me when he is beating me up on some scripture.

PJ

If I was referring to your post, it wasn’t exclusively your post but, the collective. I don’t know if your post was part of the uncharitable, “BUT THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, MORON!!!” tone of other posts. I think I have a pretty grand sense of humour so if it was joking, I think I would have seen humour. This was also why I added the part about if one wants to show him how we see things (as I appreciate how others get their religion through how they view the world), it’s great that they are adding these links, but, other than that…make sure you’re doing the Lord’s work and not your own…in general, not you.

Should he beat you up on some Scripture, I will be the faith and charity to your hope.

But, in all fairness I dont think TU is a stranger to how forums work.

…True…

 

[cfrancis]

And the problem with a lack of explicit evidence…

TU, I’m trying to follow the logic of your argument (or perhaps understand the underlying logic).

If the underlying logic is, a doctrine must have explicit evidence in Scripture, what is the basis for your belief in the canon of Scripture, an important Christian doctrine?

 

[TriuneUnity]

adstrinity,

If you were referring to my post I was only joking. I respect Triune’s thoughts as he is well founded in his faith.

I just hope you help me when he is beating me up on some scripture.

PJ

hahaha…none taken, Perry. You’ve only posted like 5 times in the thread LOL. I’ve never found you uncharitable.

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU, I’m trying to follow the logic of your argument (or perhaps understand the underlying logic).

If the underlying logic is, a doctrine must have explicit evidence in Scripture, what is the basis for your belief in the canon of Scripture, an important Christian doctrine?

In the ability of God to make his truth known to His people.