Discussing Mary

[zemi]

And “charis” means?

We both know what it means and neither Armstrong claimed otherwise (of course). He made the argument from it you reject, but I’m okay with that in a sense. Moreover I’m surprised that you do not accept the cumulative evidence for her Immaculate conception

By cumulative I mean let’s say these ones:

1. “kecharitomene” argument
2. “Mary as the New ark” (i.e. a holy place designed specifically for God’s dwelling)
3. Mary as the New Eve

 

[jabelltulsa]

We see such an example of this with the marian doctrines.

I read this as:

I****** see such an example of this with the marian doctrines.

There is no falsity in what the Church teaches, because it has the authority given by Christ to teach these doctrines.

These doctrines are hardly secret, by the way.

Also, Peter says that false teachers arose among the people. This means from anyone (those who are not infallible).

They can be false, and they can come from false teachers. The Church can NEVER be a false teacher, because the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her.

 

[zemi]

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.

Sure. You see it that way you forgot to add. So you believe Peter in this passage?

Do you consider the Jerusalem Council teaching infallibly? Or were they in error?

 

[zemi]

This is another indicator how off this is in making some of the claims about Mary being sinless. If Mary had to be sinless she also would be in danger of being contaminated by her parents as Jesus would be if Mary was a sinner.

Allow me one question - you surely agree that little babies are without sin. Do you die if you touch them? Or is the mother struck dead when she conceives (as a result of getting in contact with a sinless person)?

Or… is your case based on the presence of original sin here?

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

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.

Amen. but you were not answering his question, you were answering justasking4?

 

[LilyM]

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.

False prophets and teachers - as individuals yes. Many such.

Popes formally teaching error? The Church collectively formally teaching error? Impossible. How could the gates of Hell possibly not prevail against a Church that as an institution officially taught error? How could the leader of such a Church, who himself officially taught error, possibly be the Rock?

Take Peter himself as an example. Did he err? Yes, in his practice - by refusing to eat with Gentiles. Did he TEACH error (ie bind everyone not to eat with Gentiles?) No. Paul called him out for not practicing what he taught, not because he taught error.

 

[zemi]

False prophets and teachers - as individuals yes. Many such.

Popes formally teaching error? The Church collectively formally teaching error? Impossible. How could the gates of Hell possibly not prevail against a Church that as an institution officially taught error?

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

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?

Can sin exist at the same time the full measure of Grace is present in the body?

 

[Peter_Da_Rock]

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.

No the context of verse 47 is that she is saved and that God is her savior. The question is when was she saved? And that question can be answered via the exegesis of KECHARITOMENE.

Let us break it down and you read it and try to understand it, okay?

**KE - **

1 The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense.

2 This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action.

1. 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.

Now what part of this do you not understand?

mene

1. 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.
2. The verb is “grace” and the implied subject is Mary. The passive usage means that “someone graced Mary,” rather than “Mary graced.”

Past tense, Gabriel is viewing the finished result.

1. Most theologians would probably accept the assumption that the implied **“someone” is God. **
2. "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. **
   **A very remarkable word. Don’t you think. **

Now, what part of this do you not understand?

 

[justasking4]

Peter Da Rock;2580938]No the context of verse 47 is that she is saved and that God is her savior. The question is when was she saved?

Go back to Luke 1:26-38. Where is the angel speaking of Mary being without sin?

And that question can be answered via the exegesis of KECHARITOMENE.

Let us break it down and you read it and try to understand it, okay?

**KE - **

1 The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense.

2 This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action.

1. 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.

Now what part of this do you not understand?

Is the angel telling Mary by greeting her by saying “greetings favored one” means you are without sin?
Secondly, what is his message to her?

mene

1. 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.

1. The verb is “grace” and the implied subject is Mary. The passive usage means that “someone graced Mary,” rather than “Mary graced.”

Past tense, Gabriel is viewing the finished result.

1. Most theologians would probably accept the assumption that the implied **“someone” is God. **

1. "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. **
   **A very remarkable word. Don’t you think. **

Now, what part of this do you not understand?

The context determine how we are to understand the words used. The angel’ message has to do with ther being chosen to bear the Christ child and because of this she is favored. She is “graced” in this regards to be part of God’s plan. This grace however has nothing to do with her being without sin.

 

[justasking4]

Can sin exist at the same time the full measure of Grace is present in the body?

Evidently yes.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2580843]False prophets and teachers - as individuals yes. Many such.

Popes formally teaching error? The Church collectively formally teaching error? Impossible.

It is not impossible when we are speaking of men. Secondly to make such a claim is to deny the scriptures abotu this i.e. false prophets would come into the church and decieve.

How could the gates of Hell possibly not prevail against a Church that as an institution officially taught error?

We know that in your churches history there has been a lot of evil by its leaders but its teachings.

How could the leader of such a Church, who himself officially taught error, possibly be the Rock?

What do you mean by “Rock” here?

Take Peter himself as an example. Did he err? Yes, in his practice - by refusing to eat with Gentiles. Did he TEACH error (ie bind everyone not to eat with Gentiles?) No. Paul called him out for not practicing what he taught, not because he taught error.

Here is what the word “teach” means-- to impart knowledge or skill to somebody by instruction or example. By Peter’ example he was teaching.
Secondly and perhaps more importantly your church tries to narrowly define its authority not to teach error by limiting it to only offical pronouncements. This won’t do for the mere fact it eliminates much of the fullness of the truth it claims to possess.

 

[justasking4]

Allow me one question - you surely agree that little babies are without sin.
I do not. Allow are born with a sin nature that is inherited from Adam. See Romans 5:12.

Do you die if you touch them? Or is the mother struck dead when she conceives (as a result of getting in contact with a sinless person)?

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2580494]Sure. You see it that way you forgot to add. So you believe Peter in this passage?

yes

Do you consider the Jerusalem Council teaching infallibly?

yes

Or were they in error?

no.

 

[justasking4]

jabelltulsa;2580490]I read this as:

There is no falsity in what the Church teaches, because it has the authority given by Christ to teach these doctrines.

These doctrines are hardly secret, by the way.

Also, Peter says that false teachers arose among the people. This means from anyone (those who are not infallible).

They can be false, and they can come from false teachers. The Church can NEVER be a false teacher, because the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her.

I find many catholics who want to hide behind this kind of statements. Jesus never promised that the church would never be able to teach error. The scriptures warn of false teachers in the church itself that will decieve many. For you to believe this is to go against the clear teachings of the scriptures. Men are fallible and can and do error. To claim as you do they cannot is not grounded in the scriptures nor can it be supported by history.

If what you say is true, then why was there a counter reformation in the catholic church around the time of the reformation? To have a counter reformation in your church is saying there is something wrong with some of its doctrines and practices that need to be reformed.

 

[zemi]

Can sin exist at the same time the full measure of Grace is present in the body?

Evidently yes.

From a logical standpoint this is a faulty answer. You are begging the question here.

1. The question in discussion was “Was Mary without sin?”
2. Peter Da Rock wanted to make a certain point and asked you “Can sin exist at the same time the full measure of Grace is present in the body?”
3. You answered him by assuming the positive answer to the question in dispute, which is exactly the thing you were discussing whether it’s true.
4. Therefore your begging the question is no good logic and therefore the answer can be disregarded

I would also like to hear your answer to this without making any assumptions beforehand.

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2580483]We both know what it means and neither Armstrong claimed otherwise (of course). He made the argument from it you reject, but I’m okay with that in a sense. Moreover I’m surprised that you do not accept the cumulative evidence for her Immaculate conception

By cumulative I mean let’s say these ones:

1. “kecharitomene” argument
2. “Mary as the New ark” (i.e. a holy place designed specifically for God’s dwelling)
3. Mary as the New Eve

In every one of the above, you don’t find it in the NT. This counts heavily against you.
Lets look at some hard evidence in the NT itself that also counts against her being without sin.
Look for example at Luke 2:22-24 where she and Joseph make a offering.This offering that they are making is a “sin offering” as prescribed in Leviticus 12:8. If she was without sin, she would not have needed to do this.

Are you also aware that the dogma of her immaculate conception was not declared until 1547?

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2580432]1. Can a pesron be filled with the Holy Spirit and be a sinner? (no bearing with Mary now)
Yes. Look at Acts 2:4 where those present at Penecost were filled with the Holy Spirit. Now we can ask:
did the apostles sin after this event and filling?

Did they claim they did not?

1. I assume you accept the doctrine of original sin, don’t you? Or…?

Yes.

 

[justasking4]

zemi;2582452]From a logical standpoint this is a faulty answer.

You are begging the question here.

1. The question in discussion was “Was Mary without sin?”
2. Peter Da Rock wanted to make a certain point and asked you “Can sin exist at the same time the full measure of Grace is present in the body?”
3. You answered him by assuming the positive answer to the question in dispute, which is exactly the thing you were discussing whether it’s true.
4. Therefore your begging the question is no good logic and therefore the answer can be disregarded

This is not begging the question. He asked “Can sin exist at the same time the full measure of Grace is present in the body?”
Now what he needs to demonstrate how this could not be. The defintions of this word does not mean a person cannot sin or must be sinless.
He would also need to show from scripture that it was said she was without sin.

I would also like to hear your answer to this without making any assumptions beforehand.

Actually its catholics who are making the assumptions here about her being sinless for the mere fact there is not one verse in scripture that can used to support such a statement.

 

[zemi]

In every one of the above, you don’t find it in the NT. This counts heavily against you.
Lets look at some hard evidence in the NT itself that also counts against her being without sin.
Look for example at Luke 2:22-24 where she and Joseph make a offering.This offering that they are making is a “sin offering” as prescribed in Leviticus 12:8. If she was without sin, she would not have needed to do this.

Are you also aware that the dogma of her immaculate conception was not declared until 1547?

Not the context. The “sin” here stands for purification she had to made according to the law in Lv 12. From your reasoning and context it would follow that a woman comits a sin every time she gives a birth or has a menstruation!