Discussing Mary

[justasking4]

See post # 6. The word kecharitomene implies without doubt.

This definition has nothing to do with being sinless.

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2576982]Me too. But not explicitly. Have you seen the verses the JWs for instance use to support Yahweh is/was not Trinity? Pretty persuasive at first look. Take a look if you haven’t seen them.
Its been awhile since i have but as You say at first it does appear persuasive but a deeper study of it does not.

I agree once again with your opinion. Show me your Sola Scriptura in the Bible on which this reasoning of yours rests upon.

Not sure what you are asking here. However i will try to answer anyway. Anytime we are studying the scriptures we need to do exegesis if we want to understand what the author means. Primarily this involves the context and various other matters related to the text. We do this all the time when we read and study anything. If we didn’t, we would not understand much.
So for example if i want to know if Christ died for my sins then i must go to those passages that mention it, look at whom is saying this, context etc. Do all these various verses and passages support the claim that Christ died for our sins. These exegetical principles can help us tremendously.

 

[justasking4]

Hi

My (name removed by moderator)ut about Mary, sorry for the interruption.

There is an article:
Jesus Lived in India- Holger Kersten, a German Scholar.
sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

This article is a summary of Kersten’s exhaustive research into Christ’s travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir.

“The historian Mullah Nadini (1413) also recounts a story of Yuz Asaf who was a contemporary to King Gopadatta, and confirms that he also used the name Issar, ie. Jesus. There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or “The final resting place of Mary”. The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa’s (ie Christ’s) Mother. The tomb itself is oriented East-West consistent with the Jewish tradition, despite the fact it is within a Muslim area. Assuming its antiquity, such a tomb could not be Hindu either since the Hindus contemporary to Christ cremated their dead and scattered their ashes as do Hindus today.”

This is a new information on Mary, must be looked into.

Thanks

I have looked at these kinds of claims that Jesus was in India and there is no evidence for it.

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2577047]You’re contradicting yourself… you’re mentioning late developements and not mentioning of the NT authors of certain teachings (e.g. Mary being the ark)…

true

Can you then tell me, please (!) - which NT author taught the canon of the Bible? Which one? Tell me one…

None did.

Which one taught Sola Scriptura…? just give me one.

I would be very interested in your answers.

Before i do i need to know how you define sola scriptura? I don’t want to respond to something that may not be correctly defined. That would be a straw-man.

 

[justasking4]

Just asking will not respond to this since he is not able to refute it even though he will claim that scripture never claims she was without sin.

Do you have any positive evidence from scripture that shows Mary was without sin? Luke 1:28 doesn’t for a number of reasons. For one its a greeting from the angel and two the word itself does not mean without sin. The context has to do with the grace Mary will recieve to bear the Christ child.

 

[LilyM]

Even though men are fallen and can err does not mean they always do. The reason Jesus was infallible is because He was God in the flesh and as such cannot err.

And the Holy Spirit which he sent upon His Apostles and which they conferred upon their successors and which came down in an UNBROKEN line to OUR Pope, priests and bishops and those of the Orthodox (not yours), is no less God and no less incapable of teaching error.

Again, read the Gospels - Christ’s Church as an institution is in possession of ALL truth, given it by the Holy Spirit (including these things about Mary), and its dogmatic teachings ARE infallible-inerrant. If you think Jesus left us to flounder around in a morass of entirely fallible opinion - which your own understanding of Scripture is too, and those of whoever has taught you about Scripture, do you acknowledge this? - then you have NO idea what He was about.

The fact that some of the truth takes time to become dogma, and that some Christians (even some Catholics) disagree on various points, means nothing. For 300-odd years the Hypostatic Union wasn’t official dogma, for almost 400 years the Canon of the Bible (scripture itself) wasn’t formalised - does that mean these things weren’t nonetheless true and necessary beliefs?

And if the Arians had been more persistent it might have taken a few hundred more years to sort out the Hypostatic union. What of it? Truth is truth. It doesn’t change, our understanding of it certainly does .

And the Church which is and always has been in possession of all truth did not formalise or dogmatise all of it at once, what of that? Even the Apostles themselves had to learn slowly, and as late as the Last Supper Jesus was telling them that there was still much more He wanted to teach them, but that it was too hard for them. Even AFTER His 40 days upon the Earth after the Resurrection, even after they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the Apostles STILL sometimes did (though they don’t seem to have taught) the wrong things.

Since all men are capable of error, then to trust them unreservedly is foolishness. If any man makes a spiritual claim, hold them to the teachings of the scriptures. It is the scripture alone that is inspired-inerrant. With this standard, you can compare what any man claims with them. If they don’t line up with the scriptures, then it is to be rejected or is but a mere opinion.

This would be so if it were ***only ***men we were trusting. We trust Jesus and His promise and the guidance of the Holy Spirit (promised to His church, not to all churches calling themselves Christian). THEY promised all truth to us, THEY promised guidance to Peter and his successors in order for them to be the Rock, and THEY can surely deliver and have surely delivered.

Of course not all dogma sprang up overnight - humans are frail and couldn’t necesarily comprehend all of it instantly. But Christ doesn’t let HIS church fall into error in any particular of its dogmatic teaching.

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

This definition has nothing to do with being sinless.

Surely you jest?

Maybe you did not read it? Or maybe protestant glasses keep you from seeing?

caritow

The root word is charitoo [caritow], which means “to grace, favor.” On this much, it seems, all agree. All the common English translations of the word therefore, regardless of whether the translators are Catholic or Protestant, use some form of “grace” or “favor” in them.

ke

The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action. The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel’s greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.

mene

The suffix on charitoo, mene, makes this a passive participle. “Passive” means that the action is performed on the subject, in this case Mary, by another agent. The verb is “grace” and the implied subject is Mary. The **passive usage means that “someone graced Mary,” **rather than “Mary graced.” Most theologians would probably accept the assumption that the implied “someone” is God. “Participle,” in this case, means that the word has properties of both a verb and a noun. This makes sense in light of what has already been said about direct address. A direct address is a noun or pronoun, but “to grace” is a verb. Kecharitomene has verb and noun properties.

 

[zemi]

Do you have any positive evidence from scripture that shows Mary was without sin? Luke 1:28 doesn’t for a number of reasons. For one its a greeting from the angel and two the word itself does not mean without sin. The context has to do with the grace Mary will recieve to bear the Christ child.

It is your opinion it doesnt’ show that, justasking

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

Do you have any positive evidence from scripture that shows Mary was without sin? Luke 1:28 doesn’t for a number of reasons. For one its a greeting from the angel and two the word itself does not mean without sin. The context has to do with the grace Mary will recieve to bear the Christ child.

Do you have any positive evidence from scripture that shows Mary was with Sin?

The Context is that she was graced at a point before the angel addressed her. He is viewing the direct results.

Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle meaning that she was graced before the annunciationa and the state grace will continue into the future.

The Greek tells no lies. The english is full of satan’s misdirections.

 

[zemi]

Do you have any positive evidence from scripture that shows Mary was with Sin?

Catholic-Protestant dialogue from Dave Armstrong’s site:

Catholic (Dave Armstrong)
Baptist (Ken Temple )

**
A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

1. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

1. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28.).**

No problem, she confessed her sin and need of a Savior – Luke 1:46-47.

**Yes; she needed a savior like all of us; so God saved her from original and actual sin by preventing the fruit of the former to make the latter inevitable.

1. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.**

(No, as John 1:16 and Acts 6:8 proves, along with the whole book of I John, which never teaches sinlessness or perfection, but rather, it teaches against a cavalier attitude toward sin, and teaches that true believers don’t continue to practice sin continuously and it assumes we will sin, and a true believer exposes himself in the light and lives honestly and openly, confessing and hating his own sin.

**I basically agree, yet there are a host of verses which teach (at the very least) the possibility of attaining by God’s grace a sublime holiness and sanctity (Mt 5:48, Rom 6:17-22, 1 Cor 15:34, 2 Cor 7:1, 2 Cor 13:7, Eph 1:4, 4:24, Phil 2:15, 1 Thess 3:11-13 [holiness again tied to love, not belief in a soteriological formula], 1 Thess 4:7, 5:23, 1 Tim 5:22, 2 Tim 3:17, 1 Pet 1:16, 1 Peter 4:1 “ceased from sin”], 2 Pet 3:11,14, 1 Jn 2:1, 3:3 Why would it be presented as a real, attainable goal, if in fact it is not possible at all?
**
6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

This does not follow at all.

**It certainly does. You have not disproven this conclusion from the premises.

1. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.**

(which you have not proved at all, and in fact, the evidence is just the opposite, that grace implies a prior state of sinfulness, and guilt of actual commission of sin.
**
The potential of Mary being subjected to the Fall . . .

1. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.**

Not at all, as was demonstrated. It can neither be deduced reasonable or logically, and it is even less directly derived from Scripture.
**
Whatever. I can’t convince you, but I can convince some readers out there, so I need not despair of your disagreement.**

**The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises,
**

This is not true, because you leave out the full meanings of the two premises. Both premises presuppose sinfulness (that we are all conceived in sin and born sinners by nature – Psalm 51, Romans 5:12, Genesis 6:5, 8:21, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-3); and that all humans are guilty and have sinned before God. (Romans 3:23)

This affects not my argument in the least, as already explained.

This sentence is what I feel is most opportune to say:

Whatever. I can’t convince you, but I can convince some readers out there, so I need not despair of your disagreement.

 

[justasking4]

Surely you jest?

Maybe you did not read it? Or maybe protestant glasses keep you from seeing?

caritow

The root word is charitoo [caritow], which means “to grace, favor.” On this much, it seems, all agree. All the common English translations of the word therefore, regardless of whether the translators are Catholic or Protestant, use some form of “grace” or “favor” in them.

ke

The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action. The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel’s greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.

mene

The suffix on charitoo, mene, makes this a passive participle. “Passive” means that the action is performed on the subject, in this case Mary, by another agent. The verb is “grace” and the implied subject is Mary. The **passive usage means that “someone graced Mary,” **rather than “Mary graced.” Most theologians would probably accept the assumption that the implied “someone” is God. “Participle,” in this case, means that the word has properties of both a verb and a noun. This makes sense in light of what has already been said about direct address. A direct address is a noun or pronoun, but “to grace” is a verb. Kecharitomene has verb and noun properties.

Where is sin mentioned at all here?

Is the angel making a statement to her about her being sinless all her life in Luke 1:28?

 

[justasking4]

Catholic-Protestant dialogue from Dave Armstrong’s site:

This sentence is what I feel is most opportune to say:

Whatever. I can’t convince you, but I can convince some readers out there, so I need not despair of your disagreement.

If i understand the dialogue that Armstrong had, he was not able to make his case. To be full of grace doesn’t mean without sin. To be holy does not mean without sin. Take I Peter 1:15-16 where we are to be “holy” as God is holy. However, we know that even though we are to strive to be holy we sin and there is a provision for sin.

 

[justasking4]

Peter Da Rock;2580020]Do you have any positive evidence from scripture that shows Mary was with Sin?

Yes. Luke 1:47 which speaks of her acknowledgment that God is her Savior. Only sinners would say such a thing.
2- Romans 3:9-10—all are under sin are just a couple of places that state all men are sinners. Since she was born of human parents she inherits Adam’ sin.

The Context is that she was graced at a point before the angel addressed her. He is viewing the direct results.

The context in which this greeting appears says nothing of being without sin. It is later that in verse 47 that she acknowledges that she is indeed a sinner by acknowledging God as her Savior.

Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle meaning that she was graced before the annunciationa and the state grace will continue into the future.

The Greek tells no lies. The english is full of satan’s misdirections.

The problem is that the greek does not support your view. It says nothing of sin

 

[zemi]

If i understand the dialogue that Armstrong had, he was not able to make his case. To be full of grace doesn’t mean without sin. To be holy does not mean without sin. Take I Peter 1:15-16 where we are to be “holy” as God is holy. However, we know that even though we are to strive to be holy we sin and there is a provision for sin.

1. Can a pesron be filled with the Holy Spirit and be a sinner? (no bearing with Mary now)
2. I assume you accept the doctrine of original sin, don’t you? Or…?

 

[justasking4]

It is your opinion it doesnt’ show that, justasking

Look up the word in a Greek lexicon. It does not mean without sin or kept from sin.

 

[zemi]

Look up the word in a Greek lexicon. It does not mean without sin or kept from sin.

I most certainly understand and I know it has to do with “charis”

 

[justasking4]

And the Holy Spirit which he sent upon His Apostles and which they conferred upon their successors and which came down in an UNBROKEN line to OUR Pope, priests and bishops and those of the Orthodox (not yours), is no less God and no less incapable of teaching error.

Again, read the Gospels - Christ’s Church as an institution is in possession of ALL truth, given it by the Holy Spirit (including these things about Mary), and its dogmatic teachings ARE infallible-inerrant. If you think Jesus left us to flounder around in a morass of entirely fallible opinion - which your own understanding of Scripture is too, and those of whoever has taught you about Scripture, do you acknowledge this? - then you have NO idea what He was about.

The fact that some of the truth takes time to become dogma, and that some Christians (even some Catholics) disagree on various points, means nothing. For 300-odd years the Hypostatic Union wasn’t official dogma, for almost 400 years the Canon of the Bible (scripture itself) wasn’t formalised - does that mean these things weren’t nonetheless true and necessary beliefs?

And if the Arians had been more persistent it might have taken a few hundred more years to sort out the Hypostatic union. What of it? Truth is truth. It doesn’t change, our understanding of it certainly does .

And the Church which is and always has been in possession of all truth did not formalise or dogmatise all of it at once, what of that? Even the Apostles themselves had to learn slowly, and as late as the Last Supper Jesus was telling them that there was still much more He wanted to teach them, but that it was too hard for them. Even AFTER His 40 days upon the Earth after the Resurrection, even after they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the Apostles STILL sometimes did (though they don’t seem to have taught) the wrong things.

This would be so if it were ***only ***men we were trusting. We trust Jesus and His promise and the guidance of the Holy Spirit (promised to His church, not to all churches calling themselves Christian). THEY promised all truth to us, THEY promised guidance to Peter and his successors in order for them to be the Rock, and THEY can surely deliver and have surely delivered.

Of course not all dogma sprang up overnight - humans are frail and couldn’t necesarily comprehend all of it instantly. But Christ doesn’t let HIS church fall into error in any particular of its dogmatic teaching.

If what you are saying is true then why did Peter write for example; But **false prophets **also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.?
This is a warning to the church of what will happen. We see such an example of this with the marian doctrines.

 

[justasking4]

I most certainly understand and I know it has to do with “charis”

And “charis” means?

 

[NotWorthy]

Excuse me if I haven’t read the earlier postings. But I was thinking the other day about the phrase “The Lord is With You”. In the OT, when people did big things, they were able to do it because the Lord was with them. Here’s something I came across from Ed Sri’s book on the Rosary.

In the Old Testament this phrase often was used when someone was being called for a special mission. For example, when Moses was called to lead the people out of Egypt, God told him, “I will be with you.” When Joshua was called to lead Israel into the Promised Land, God said to him, “I will be with you.” When David was called to lead the kingdom he was told that the Lord would be with them. In each case the person was to take on a difficult task with many risks and challenges. While they may not have felt ready for the job, they were given the one thing they needed most to carry out the task: The Lord would be with them.

But while I was pondering on this, I remembered something different with Mary. In the OT, God says “I WILL be with you”. With Mary, the Angel says, “The Lord IS with you”. God could only be WITH Mary if she were already Graced (Yes, that’s what “Charis” means).

Although I haven’t verified all the OT references like this, I’ll check it out.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts?

 

[NotWorthy]

Originally Posted by justasking4 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Look up the word in a Greek lexicon. It does not mean without sin or kept from sin.**The Church teaches that for one to be “filled with Grace” one’s sins would have to have been forgiven. After Baptism, one is “filled with Grace”. The Holy Spirit dwells within our souls.

The difference with Mary is Kecharitomone and all that implies (although I imagine that has already been covered in this thread.*