Did Mary need a savior?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmmcounts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even the NAB translates this phrase as “Hail, favored one!” I really wasn’t expecting that. But there it is. nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke1.htm

Ok, scroll down. Look at verse 28. Surprised? Now scroll back up and check what version it is. Yes, it really is the New American Bible. They did a good job on this verse.
You might be surprised to learn that we Catholics actually read and are aware of how the Catholic translations translate this verse. :rolleyes: Are YOU surprised to learn that Catholic translations are not doctrinally biased in this regard? It is unfortunate that the Protestant NIV is not so objective…but that would be another thread.
I haven’t run across any besides the Vulgate (and the D-R preservation of it) that say “full of grace.” Contemporary English says “you who are truly blessed”…It’s not a very good translation, but it’s not the bad one I’m looking for. continues searching

Ah! Wycliffe New Testament also says “full of grace.” Over 90% of medium to high-quality translations read something like “favored one” or “highly favored one,” though. Including the NAB. I think the only place saying “highly favored daughter” is in the older RSV, and I say “I think” because I’m finding it to be less accessible than most translations. I do see that it’s been changed in the NRSV, though. That was a good decision.
And you base your judgment on…what? Your own expertise in Greek? Or your own doctrinal presuppositions?
After the angel says this, Mary says nothing but wonders “What manner may this greeting be?” The angel explains why he called her “favored one.” He tells her “Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God.” That word translated “favor” has the same stem as the Greek word kecharitomene- it’s just the noun form, singular, accusative, and feminine. Translating it as “grace” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in either use of the word.
Unlike you, I do not pretend to be an expert in Greek. However, like you, I can do a bit of research, and I offer the following from “Father Mateo”, the pen name of a Catholic priest who was the professor emeritus of New Testament Greek at a prominent university. In a small book, Refuting the Attack on Mary, which I bought a couple of months ago during our discussion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, Fr. Mateo writes:

“Luke 1:28 uses the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes ‘continuance of a completed action’; ‘completed action with a permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.’ On morphological grounds, therefore, it is correct to paraphrase kecharitomene as ‘completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.’”

Mateo goes on to point out that other examples of this perfect tense include John 19:30: “It is finished”.
It makes even less sense as an “implicit reference” to Mary’s sinlessness when you read the angel’s continued explanation. After telling Mary she’s found “favor with God,” Gabriel tells her what this “favor” entails. You will be with child, give birth to a son, call him Jesus, so forth and so on. I don’t believe this is an implicit reference to God bestowing “divine grace” on Mary (remember when I asked what sort of grace and you said “amazing grace?” I found out the preferred name for it is “divine grace.” Small sidebar).
The “favor” described by the angel does not refer to the fact that Mary would bear a child. Under the circumstances, it should be obvious that bearing a child out of wedlock was a questionable “favor”, at best. If Mary had found favor with God, it was because she had dedicated herself to Him as a Perpetual Virgin, and God was pleased with her decision.
“Highly favored” is actually a much better translation than anything like “full of grace.” Calling her “daughter” isn’t really so bad either, though I probably wouldn’t do it. Acceptable translations include “one who is highly favored” and “highly favored one.” It’s not really so bad to change “one” to “daughter.” It’s technically true…she is someone’s daughter. It’s not really a traditional way of rendering this kind of verb, though. “Favored one” is probably the way to go.
Mateo, professor emeritus of NT Greek, disagrees. He states, “I contend that gratia plena is not at all a mistranslation. It is a felicitous phrase, as close to Greek as Latin can come and much to be preferred to modern efforts to improve it: ‘favored one’ (NAB [1986], RSV), ‘highly favored’ (NIV), and the monstrosity, ‘highly favored daughter’ (NAB [1970]).”
I realize the Vulgate says “full of grace,” but it’s not the first instance where St. Jerome got something wrong or translated something imperfectly. We continue making new versions because we can improve on the old ones. I really hope you aren’t going to treat the Vulgate like the “KJV-only” kinds of people treat their favored translation. It’s just not smart. You should focus on the original Hebrew and Greek, then see which translations do a good job with them. Don’t make a habit of hitching yourself to one particular translation as if it’s inherently better than another one. No translation is divinely inspired.
Fear not. I am not a Vulgate fanatic. I actually grew up on the NIV and have only recently switched to the RSV-CE due to the obvious bias of the translators of the NIV.

Allow me to offer these words of wisdom from Mateo concerning kecharitomene and the Immaculate Conception of Mary:

“One word of one Bible verse does not prove the doctrine, but kecharitomene proves the harmony of the doctrine with scripture.”
 
Finally, I think you have the cart before the horse. In other words, if I were to set about proving the validity of the Immaculate Conception of Mary to you, I would not necessarily begin with the Bible because it was never intended by its authors to be a comprehensive work of systematic theology.

Instead, I would begin by offering the argument that Jesus Christ established one Church and that He has protected this Church from doctrinal error by the working of the Holy Spirit. Establishing that fact, I would proceed with building the case for this doctrine (and all others) upon the sure foundation of the teaching of an infallible Church which scripture declares to be the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

You see, I could just as easily respond to each of your questions about Catholic doctrine with the true statement, “Because an infallible Church declares it to be so”. But that would not satisfy you because you view the world through “Protestant-colored lenses”. Consequently, I strive to “prove” everything to you from the Bible Alone - but I do this as a concession to your weakness as a Protestant and not because I think that such proof alone suffices.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
=Randy Carson;5300361]Mike-

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, **“**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

If you agree that there is nothing in scripture that REQUIRES all to have committed personal sins, then it has to be admitted that Mary did not have to commit personal sins. Consequently, the only question that would remain is whether she inherited original sin.

So what do you think so far?
Friends,

This comparison may seem a bit simplistic, yet it seems to me to be a logical point of comparison.

Exodus 25: 10 "They shall make an ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it, and you shall make upon it a molding of gold round about. And you shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. You shall make poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold. And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark by them. The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. And you shall put into the ark the testimony, which I shall give you. Then you shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you.”

Keep in mind that God is intervening on a very personal level with great specificity on size, shape, materials, and content. “Pure Gold is demanded.”

Here is what Dr. Scott Hahn, a Theologian, has to say in comparing what Yahweh God required to be placed in the “Ark of the Covenant” [from his book, The Lamb’s Supper] and comparing it to the “Ark of the New final and Perfect Covenant, the very Mother of God, Mary. The Most perfect Ark, the most perfect Tabernacle, chosen by God from all of history, to be the Mother of Jesus.

“The old Ark contained the word of God written in stone; Mary contained in her womb the very Word of God who dwelt amongst us. The ark contained manna; Mary contained the living bread come down from heaven. The ark contained the rod of the Highpriest Aaron; Mary’s womb contained the eternal high priest; Jesus Christ. In the heavenly temple, the word of God is Jesus, and the ark in whom He resides is Mary, His Mother.”

Could, would a God who takes such a personal interest in the OT Ark, not take even greater interest, do greater things for the New Ark, the first Tabernacle? Of course God would.

Mary had to be perfected in every way in order to become the Mother of God Himself. God could not come forth to redeem a sinful world, through a vessel that had not been perfected, a vessel that had any sin; as a singular honor, befitting the very Mother of God, through the very merits of her son Jesus, Mary was conceived without any sin, and through special graces, avoided all sin throughout her life. Such was God’s will, and Mary’s response was “do with me as you will!”

Welcome back Randy:thumbsup:
Love and prayers,
Pat
 
Welcome back Randy:thumbsup:
Love and prayers,
Pat
Thanks. Here are my notes on Mary as Ark of the New Covenant:

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant Proved from Scripture

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. Those who ate of this bread still died. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, the bread of life which came down from heaven. Those who eat of this bread will live forever. (John 6:31-41)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the staff of Aaron which had budded as proof as his priesthood. (Number 17:1-9) Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, our high priest, Himself. (Hebrews 4:14)

The ark of the Old Covenant was overshadowed by the glory cloud. (Exodus 40:34-35)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea. (2 Sam. 6:1–11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea. (Luke 1:39)

A man touched the ark of the Old Covenant to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

The ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months. (2 Sam. 6:11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:11)
In the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, the word blessed is used three times; surely Elizabeth’s house was blessed by God. (Luke 1:39–45)

The ark of the Old Covenant returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple. (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:14)
John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. (Luke 1:41)

David shouts in the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:15)
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant. (Luke 1:42)

The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth.
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was assumed bodily into heaven by God at the end of her earthly life, and no trace of her can be found anywhere on earth.
 
HI All.
"Why would anyone be interested in the virginity of a little Jewish girl who lived 2000 years ago the Mother of our God ? And the Holy Spirit Spouse ? Or that the CC
teaches perpetual viriginity, therefore that’s a good enough reason ? But most of all I hope it’s not that they have no love or fear of God.

Peace, onenow1:popcorn:
 
Irenæus does yet not hesitate to chargeMary with ‘unseasonable haste’ or ‘urgency,’ which the Lord had to rebuke at the wedding of Cana - Iren. Adv. hœr. iii. c. 16, § 7:Dominus, repellens intempestivam festinationem, dixit: ‘Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier!’
No time to look up and refute each one, but you misinterpret the writings of these saints. You neglect their motive as well.

Wasn’t Irenaeus refuting heresy concerning the humanity of Christ? Wasn’t he merely pointing to Mary’s humanity, her ability to sin, which is different from calling her a sinner.

But even if poor Ireneaus is taken to mean such a thing - you misinterpret Our Lord and the meaning of the miracle at Cana.

Our Lord purposely said it was not His time yet, and then went on to answer his mother’s charitable wishes for their hosts. Jesus plainly shows us here that favors can and will be received through the intercession of His mother whom He finds irresistable in her perfect obedience and devotion to Him and His Father.

Come Holy Spirit! Come by means of the powerful intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Your well-beloved spouse.
 
Friends,

This comparison may seem a bit simplistic, yet it seems to me to be a logical point of comparison.

Exodus 25: 10 "They shall make an ark of acacia wood; two cubits and a half shall be its length, a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height. And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it, and you shall make upon it a molding of gold round about. And you shall cast four rings of gold for it and put them on its four feet, two rings on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it. You shall make poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold. And you shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark, to carry the ark by them. The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. And you shall put into the ark the testimony, which I shall give you. Then you shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you.”

Keep in mind that God is intervening on a very personal level with great specificity on size, shape, materials, and content. “Pure Gold is demanded.”

Here is what Dr. Scott Hahn, a Theologian, has to say in comparing what Yahweh God required to be placed in the “Ark of the Covenant” [from his book, The Lamb’s Supper] and comparing it to the “Ark of the New final and Perfect Covenant, the very Mother of God, Mary. The Most perfect Ark, the most perfect Tabernacle, chosen by God from all of history, to be the Mother of Jesus.

“The old Ark contained the word of God written in stone; Mary contained in her womb the very Word of God who dwelt amongst us. The ark contained manna; Mary contained the living bread come down from heaven. The ark contained the rod of the Highpriest Aaron; Mary’s womb contained the eternal high priest; Jesus Christ. In the heavenly temple, the word of God is Jesus, and the ark in whom He resides is Mary, His Mother.”

Could, would a God who takes such a personal interest in the OT Ark, not take even greater interest, do greater things for the New Ark, the first Tabernacle? Of course God would.

Mary had to be perfected in every way in order to become the Mother of God Himself. God could not come forth to redeem a sinful world, through a vessel that had not been perfected, a vessel that had any sin; as a singular honor, befitting the very Mother of God, through the very merits of her son Jesus, Mary was conceived without any sin, and through special graces, avoided all sin throughout her life. Such was God’s will, and Mary’s response was “do with me as you will!”

Pat
Ah, Pat, love your work. There do indeed seem to be clear parallels here.

As with so many Catholic concepts which I am just learning, it is amazing how they are so often in harmony with the earlier Jewish principles.
 
I would like to provide a specifc reply to the OP.

YES! Mary did need a Savior.

Through the Grace and Will of God, Jesus Her Son is also her redeemer.

Because Had she not been chosen from all time to become the Mother of God [Jesus], she could and would have been born with “Orginal Sin.”

Becasue Mary NEVER [key word] said “No” to God, and always [another key word] said “yes” to God if everything [another key word], God ordained that she be conceived without any sin, as is both necessary and fitting for the Mother of God.

It is not that Mary “was perfect” rather that Mary was PERFECTED [by God’s Divine Will, through the merits of Jesus] to enable her to accomplish her role in a manner FITTING FOR GOD!

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
You might be surprised to learn that we Catholics actually read and are aware of how the Catholic translations translate this verse.
Yet it doesn’t seem to matter to you.
Are YOU surprised to learn that Catholic translations are not doctrinally biased in this regard?
I was a bit surprised on this particular occasion. I have been far less surprised on other occasions, though.
It is unfortunate that the Protestant NIV is not so objective…but that would be another thread.
You’re right, the NIV is not a very good translation. You should check out the ESV. In January of '09, they released it with your favorite additional books included.
And you base your judgment on…what? Your own expertise in Greek? Or your own doctrinal presuppositions?
This time, it was based on what all the good translations say. Including the Catholic ones. Generally, that’s a good starting point.
Unlike you, I do not pretend to be an expert in Greek. However, like you, I can do a bit of research, and I offer the following from “Father Mateo”, the pen name of a Catholic priest who was the professor emeritus
Argument from authority. I knew you had it in you.
The “favor” described by the angel does not refer to the fact that Mary would bear a child.
Gabriel explained himself, and that’s exactly what he said. Did you not read that far?
Under the circumstances, it should be obvious that bearing a child out of wedlock was a questionable “favor”, at best.
It’s a very unique circumstance. There’s no other circumstance like it that you can compare it to. Joseph thought it was something to be avoided at first, but once he knew what it was, he considered it a favor to raise someone else’s child, too.
If Mary had found favor with God, it was because she had dedicated herself to Him as a Perpetual Virgin, and God was pleased with her decision.
For God to find favor with Mary, it was not necessary for her to dedicate herself as a virgin for life. You just happen to believe that’s the case, and this is based on…stories without a real source.
Mateo, professor emeritus of NT Greek, disagrees.
I’m sure I could find a few scientists with Ph.Ds who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. I wouldn’t care. I don’t care about this guy, either. I think he’s wrong about some stuff, and so does pretty much every Christian.
the monstrosity, ‘highly favored daughter’ (NAB [1970])."
Seriously? That came from an earlier version of the NAB? I had no clue.
Fear not. I am not a Vulgate fanatic. I actually grew up on the NIV and have only recently switched to the RSV-CE due to the obvious bias of the translators of the NIV.
The ESV is the best one out there. That’s why they call it the Extra Special Version.
Allow me to offer these words of wisdom from Mateo concerning kecharitomene and the Immaculate Conception of Mary:

"One word of one Bible verse does not prove the doctrine,
He’s right about that.
but kecharitomene proves the harmony of the doctrine with scripture."
You can use (and people have used) individual words and phrases to prove the harmony of all sorts of heresies with scripture. That’s what Jehovah’s Witnesses do at every house they go to, provided that they have the opportunity for a real conversation.
if I were to set about proving the validity of the Immaculate Conception of Mary to you, I would not necessarily begin with the Bible because it was never intended by its authors to be a comprehensive work of systematic theology.
I wouldn’t do that because no proof can be found there. You know what I would do? Find some other way to prove that it happened. If I couldn’t, I’d conclude that unquestioning belief in the story is a bad idea.
Instead, I would begin by offering the argument that Jesus Christ established one Church and that He has protected this Church from doctrinal error by the working of the Holy Spirit.
Your idea of protection from error is the guarantee of reliable transmission of extra-Biblical stories via oral tradition? You have some funny ideas on protection from error.
Establishing that fact, I would proceed with building the case for this doctrine (and all others) upon the sure foundation of the teaching of an infallible Church which scripture declares to be the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
You know, ecumenical councils used to be ecumenical. If your idea of Christ’s Church excludes most Christians in the world, your mistake is not a small one.
I could just as easily respond to each of your questions about Catholic doctrine with the true statement, “Because an infallible Church declares it to be so”.
You really hate to fall back on that, though. You want to know why?

All right, I’ll tell you. It means you’ve fallen back to that place where you no longer even pretend to care about knowing why you believe what you believe. You must limit yourself to knowing what you believe, and as for the why…you can’t go there, because a trip to that place is, in this case, remarkably unfruitful.
Consequently, I strive to “prove” everything to you from the Bible Alone - but I do this as a concession to your weakness as a Protestant and not because I think that such proof alone suffices.
Ok, you called Protestantism a weakness. Did that feel good? Can we try not to do that kind of thing anymore?

As for the Bible Alone thing, it’s not what you think. Bible Alone only means the Bible Alone is infallible. Extra-Biblical historical evidence is a perfectly acceptable source of truth concerning historical events. Of course, it always receives perfectly average literary analysis and historical criticism. Not all sources are trustworthy, but a few are.
 
God ordained that she be conceived without any sin, as is both necessary and fitting for the Mother of God.
You know, when you broadcast the claim that you’re “informed and practicing,” you basically put a target on your forehead.

How is it that you weren’t informed of the fact that Rome’s position neither states nor implies that this was necessary?
 
Yes, Mary needed THE Savior. She professes from her own lips in Scripture that God is her Savior. And, of course, the Church proclaims the same:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. (ccc 491)
 
I think he’s wrong about some stuff, and so does pretty much every Christian.
Well considering Catholics are Christians, there’s quite a few who’d disagree with you.
Paul advised Timothy to take as his norm the sound words that Paul **spoke **to him (1 Tim. 1:13). Timothy knew that even if a particular teaching was not written down, Christians were still expected to abide by it (2 Thess. 2:15) and to defer to the authority of Church leaders (Heb. 13:17). The only way a person could know what these unwritten binding traditions were was to keep their ear to the mouth of the Church. If the Church were merely a collection of saved individuals-none with any real authority over the others-then Scripture would not tout her as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15) whom we must listen to or be cut off (Matt: 18:17).
Since we’ve moved so far from your original topic I’d suggest you start a new thread asking about what why believe what we do on Mary being a Virgin which you insist on refuting. The subject on her needing a savior has already been stated extensively (though you seem to have ignored it).

I’ll continue to pray that you come to know the truth and hope you will do the same for me. 😃
 
Hey triple m. 🙂

I found this for our discussion.

"Highly Favored " or "Full of Grace "? from:
catholicapologetics.net/grace.htm

“And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, FULL OF GRACE, the LORD IS WITH THEE…”(Luke 1:28)

The Annotation for Luke 1:28 in the 1582 Catholic Rheims Translation of the Bible in to English says:

" 28 Full of grace) Note the excellence prerogatives of our B. Lady, and abhor those Heretics which make her no better than other vulgar woman, and therefor to take from her fullness of grace, they say here, Hail freely beloved, contraire to all significations of the Greek word, which is at the left, endued with Grace, as S. Paul useth it Eph. I. by S. Chrysostoms interpretation : or rather Full of grace, as-both* Greek and Latin fathers have always here understood it, and the Latin’s also read it, namely S. Ambrose thus, Well is she only called full of grace, who only obtained grace which no other woman deserved, to be replenished with the author of grace. And if they did as well know the nature of these Greek words, as they would seem very skillful, they might easily observe that they signify fullness, as when them selves translate the like word (Luc. 16,20) full of force. Beza, Ulcerous." . (The Annotations for Luke Chapter I, of the 1582 Rheims New Testament .)

The translation “Full of Grace” instead of “Highly Favored” or “freely beloved” is far more accurate to the Greek. The Ancient Syriac, Arabic and Latin versions bare the truth of this out. The translation “Full of Grace” was also approved by the early Christian fathers.
This Scan is from Gorge M. Lamsa’s translation of the ancient Eastern Aramaic Version of the Scriptures called the “Peshitta” . As we can see third century Aramaic supports “Full of Grace” as the correct meaning of the passage.

St. Luke wrote kecharitomene [a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo]. In secular Greek charis meant charm, that which attracts favor. It was used to translate Old Testament Hebrew hen which first meant a favorable attitude of God to us, then the expression of that favor, then what He gives as a result of that favor. namely hokmah or beraka, wisdom or blessing. (Oo verbs means to put someone in the state expressed by the root, which here is charis. ) The word was not used broadly like NT charis which came to mean any gift from God to us. The net result was that charis could mean either favor or grace.

But now, a thing often overlooked: if God merely sat there and gave nothing but a smile, favor, then the human would do the good by his own power - which would be Pelagianism. So when we translate favor, we must keep this in mind, and usually would do better to translate grace. So then charitoo will mean to put into grace.
Luke 1:28 in the 1611 King James Version has in the Margin notes “Much Graced” This Scan is taken from the Thomas Nelson reprint of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible.

Further, in English we may use a noun to mark a person as the ultimate in his class. Kecharitomene is used here as her personal name. So just as Mr. Tennis is the ultimate in the category of tennis. --therefore she would be “Miss Grace”, much the same as full of grace.

The early Church father St. Jerome [who the translators of the 1611 King James Version called " a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him,".(From the Translators’ Preface to the 1611 KJV)] translated “kecharitomene” as “gratiae plena” meaning 'full of grace which thou hast received" when creating The Vulgate. The Rheimes new Testament [1582] has “Full of Grace”. Many of the early Protestant versions also accepted “Grace” to be the proper translation.

Wyclif’s Version [1380] said “Full of Grace”
Tyndale’s Version [1534] said “Full of Grace”
Cranmer’s Version [1539] said “Full of Grace”
Geneva [1599] said in the Margin Notes "might be rendered, 'full of favour and grace, " ( The Link is to a Scan from a 1608 Printing of the Geneva Bible)
Authorized Version or KJV [1611] said in the Margin notes “Much Graced”
Polyglott Bible [1838] said in the Margin notes “or Much Graced”
Revised Version [1885] said in the Margin Notes: “Endowed with Grace”.
American Standard Version [1901] said in the Margin Notes: “or Endowed with Grace”.
Scofield Edition [1909, revised in 1914] said in the Margin Notes “or Endued with Grace”
New Standard Reference Bible [1934] said in the Margin notes “Much Graced”
The Amplified [1958] in the verse (In brackets) “endowed with grace” with a foot note that says “literal translation.”



It is certain that kecharitomene is directly concerned with the idea of “grace,” since, as Vine noted, it is derived from the root word charis, whose literal meaning is "grace. The word “Charis” is translated by the King James Version, for example, 129 times (out of 150 total appearances) as “grace”.

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass & DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, p.166; Smyth, H.W., Greek Grammar, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1968, sec. 1852:b. )

We also have the another Protestant Greek scholar John Nolland, who expounds the Greek word “kecharitomene” as found in Luke 1:28 as follows:
“Luke 1:28…kecharitomene is a quite rare Hellanistic verb (only found elsewhere in the NT at Eph. 1:6 in the active) Etymologically it should mean 'To be furnished with Grace” (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 35A, Pg 50, Nelson, 1989 )

Thus, in just this one verse, pregnant with meaning and far-reaching implications, the uniqueness of Mary is strongly indicated, and the Immaculate Conception can rightly be deemed entirely consistent with the meaning of this passage.
 
Ok, you called Protestantism a weakness. Did that feel good? Can we try not to do that kind of thing anymore?
We can’t something “anymore” if we haven’t done it to begin with. I did not say that Protestantism is a weakness. If I asked, I would say that Protestantism is a heresy.

What I did reference is your adherence to sola scriptura - this is an inherent weakness of Protestantism. It is not a “higher standard” - it is a rejection of both Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (the word means “teaching authority”) of the Church that Christ founded for your benefit.

1500 years after the foundation of the Church, Martin Luther rejected Tradition and the authority of the Church leaving him with the Bible Alone - sola scriptura.

We Catholics will do our best to explain our beliefs exclusively from scripture because we understand that your mind-set forces you to reject virtually everything else. (I say “virtually” everything, because there are some extra-biblical doctrines which even you will accept…thus putting the lie to sola scriptura.) However, we do this as a concession to our separated brethren (like Paul abstained from meat), and not because we ourselves feel constrained by the idea that everything has to be proven from the Bible Alone.

I think we CAN demonstrate our faith from the Bible, but then someone like you comes along and rejects our more ancient interpretations.

Finally, it is interesting that you are willing to embrace the virgin birth as a unique event in human history but you reject the Immaculate Conception as a unique event in human history. Aren’t you being just a little selective in what you will and won’t accept based purely upon your own doctrinal presuppositions?
 
You know, when you broadcast the claim that you’re “informed and practicing,” you basically put a target on your forehead.

How is it that you weren’t informed of the fact that Rome’s position neither states nor implies that this was necessary?
Are you informed about all of your denomination’s positions on all doctrines?
 
Isaiah 43:11 says “I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.”
I don’t think you’re interpreting what 1ke said correctly. He said that the Catechism states that Mary became the cause of salvation. In other words, she caused the Savior to be born so that salvation might happen for all mankind. Do you understand better now? :confused:
 
I don’t think you’re interpreting what 1ke said correctly. He said that the Catechism states that Mary became the cause of salvation. In other words, she caused the Savior to be born so that salvation might happen for all mankind. Do you understand better now? :confused:
I’ve never heard of a virgin who caused herself to become pregnant. That would be a neat trick- and it’s one that Mary was totally incapable of performing. Mary did birth Jesus, but she did not cause this to happen. The Holy Spirit did. Does that make a little bit of sense?
 
We can’t something “anymore” if we haven’t done it to begin with. I did not say that Protestantism is a weakness. If I asked, I would say that Protestantism is a heresy.
Your current Pope disagrees. With reference to heresy, he says this “cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian” (The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, 87-88).

How’s that whole brotherhood thing going with you, anyway? Do you think you can call Protestants by the name “heretic” and “brother” at the same time?
What I did reference is your adherence to sola scriptura - this is an inherent weakness of Protestantism. It is not a “higher standard” - it is a rejection of both Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium (the word means “teaching authority”) of the Church that Christ founded for your benefit.
We don’t automatically reject whatever comes from these sources. We just reject the much more recent claim to infallibility regarding these things.
1500 years after the foundation of the Church, Martin Luther rejected Tradition and the authority of the Church leaving him with the Bible Alone - sola scriptura.
I think you’re failing to see the distinction between sola scriptura and nuda scriptura.
We Catholics will do our best to explain our beliefs exclusively from scripture because we understand that your mind-set forces you to reject virtually everything else.
We accept everything from Scripture, and we will accept anything else whose veracity can be adequately demonstrated. “Because I said so” does not qualify. There is some room for probabilistic assent, as well- ie., “That’s probably true. Wouldn’t stake my faith on it, but the evidence is pretty compelling.”
(I say “virtually” everything, because there are some extra-biblical doctrines which even you will accept…thus putting the lie to sola scriptura.)
Nuda scriptura, yes. Sola Scriptura, no.
However, we do this as a concession to our separated brethren (like Paul abstained from meat), and not because we ourselves feel constrained by the idea that everything has to be proven from the Bible Alone.
News flash: Neither do we. I am well aware of the fact that the concept of Divine Grace appears nowhere in the Bible. I have invited you to enlighten me as to why you believe what you believe, starting with a primary source. If you had a believable primary source who could verify these claims, that’d be totally cool. If a primary source like this existed apart from the Bible, I probably wouldn’t put the full measure of my faith in this story, but I’d give it some probabilistic assent as appropriate. In this case, though, there is no primary source.

Let me give you a quick example of how this would look in another situation. There’s this story about Peter being crucified upside down. The list of sources includes some rather untrustworthy documents, but there is quite a bit of legitimate evidence indicating that some of the more important details of those stories are historically accurate. Because of this evidence, I’m quite willing to say Peter was crucified upside down. I reserve the right to be unsure of the heretofore unsubstantiated details aside from the verifiable ones, but as far as the evidence verifies them, I have no problem assenting to them.
Finally, it is interesting that you are willing to embrace the virgin birth as a unique event in human history but you reject the Immaculate Conception as a unique event in human history. Aren’t you being just a little selective in what you will and won’t accept based purely upon your own doctrinal presuppositions?
I’m being selective based on the source. The Bible is reliable. The Gospel of James is not. These are facts. It has nothing to do with doctrinal presuppositions. If you had a reliable source confirming the Immaculate Conception, I would have no problem accepting it.

Any other questions?
 
I guess most of you are working from the assumption that she never sinned. Let’s see what comes up.
mmm.
Mary seemed to think so. Mary is a very special person. she was chosen by God to be the mother of his son.

Lu.1:46-47 reads “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
48. for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant.”
You may want to read about Mary from verses 26-56 🙂

God bless you,
jean
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top