H
HailMary
Guest
You want ONE VERSE to say all that?
whoa
- Status
whoa
N
NotWorthy
Guest
How about, “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven”?
H
HailMary
Guest
[SIGN]AMEN[/SIGN]
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Yes he wants just one verse. Yet he believes in “Bible Alone” but cannot provide ONE VERSE that says we should go by the bible alone…
He probably can’t provided that ONE VERSE that says we are “SAVED BY FAITH ALONE” either…
M
MariaG
Guest
I assume you are refering to “all” part and not the Holy part? Or do you object to Mary being called Holy One also?
M
Miserissima
Guest
No, it’s explaining that oral tradition, as noted in scripture, works in perfect tandem with scripture.
And how is anyone trying *refute *the scriptures…by saying that the scriptures don’t stand alone, but stand with sacred (oral) tradition? One is not independent of the other.
That’s what I said over here. I said, “Here are two issues: 1)Mariology and the 2)Sola Scriptura.” and yet you glossed right over it.
Yes. in fact, we believe that, “the Bible is God-inspired, inerrant when interpreted correctly by the Church…but not inerrant by the Protestant definition. [It] is a physical vehicle that God uses to provide us with His grace. As such, God uses the Bible to teach us about his Son, and His saving actions within human history. Catholics believe that the Bible has multiple layers of meaning, including, but not limited to, the literal meaning.” (From here.)
I didn’t mean to mock you, and apologize if I wan’t clear. I meant to take a lighthearted jab at how we’re trying to communicate with each other. That Abbott and Costello routine is pretty accurate, if I say so myself.
M
MariaG
Guest
No Christian Church ever made an argument for SS for centuries, over 1500 years to be exact yet you think it is scriptural.
On the one hand, you demand explicit scriptural evidence, yet do not demand the same for your own beliefs.
Mary as the Queen of Heaven appeared much sooner in history than SS did. And as already stated, by a Protestant no less, read your bible again if you don’t think it is scriptural.
But asking those who are alive in Christ to pray for us is exactly the same as asking those who are here on earth. Alive in Christ is alive in Christ.
Funny, when asked for proof of this and shown it was in the first century, didn’t you say you didn’t realize the Church had gone wrong so soon? So in fact, the timetable does not really matter to you, you start from the supposition that the Catholic church is wrong no matter what, when or what scripture is provided.
Greek tells us alot
You should seriously look at it before making such a rash statement.From CA Library Immaculate Conception and Assumption
Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.
And I disagree with you. When you take context, and history into account, the Catholic interpretation is the only one that makes sense.
Because the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church
SeriouslyWhich verses in particular? I lost track. The Full of Grace one? Yes, they have.
Rejected out of hand? Rather than studying them to actually see if there is a scriptural case?
As someone who has actually taken the time to study them as scripture exhorts us to do, how on earth can you tell me that my interpretation of scripture is wrong when you have rejected them out of hand without even studying them and asking the Holy spirit to lead you to all truth as I have?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Now that we’re getting back to the subject, does anyone know the meaning in Ancient Israel of the word “Hail”. I seem to recall someone saying that “Hail” was a greeting one used when addressing one’s superior.
If this is true, then that would lend great weight to the Catholic claim of the status of the Mother of our Lord.
If this is true, then that would lend great weight to the Catholic claim of the status of the Mother of our Lord.
M
MariaG
Guest
You are welcomeHi,
Thank you so much for getting back to me. Yes I just wanted to know your basic initial reactions to this persons comments. I think he may be a rogue catholic throwing stuff out there that he doesnt fully understand.
That was my take too. Especially when he used the word Dispentrix, a word that doesn’t exist in Catholic teachings.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
He just continues to ignore the exegesis of the word kecharitomene. An honest Greek Lexicon would delve into the word itself and give a proper definition of the word. All of the Greek Lexicons I have come across only treat the root word “charitoo”. The Greek stems are ignored. So again as posted by PeterDaRock on post #6.
When Gabriel appears to Mary, the first words he says to her are “Chaire, kecharitomene!” Caire, kecaritomene!]. Chaire (which means both “rejoice” and “hail”) is the salutation, like the word “hello” in “hello, Cathy!” The word that follows, kecharitomene, is the direct address. In the previous example, the name “Cathy” is the direct address. A direct address is usually a name or title (or pronoun taking the place of a name or title) which represents the identity of the person being spoken to. Gabriel identifies Mary with a single term: not the name “Mary,” but the word kecharitomene.
Here, a common translation problem occurs. Gabriel only uses one word to refer to Mary, but most English translations do not. One particularly bad translation renders kecharitomene as “highly favored daughter.” Kecharitomene is extended from one word to three. The direct address in the translation is “daughter,” a word which does not appear in the Greek at all (as will be shown below). “Daughter” is then modified with a relevant word. This doesn’t really do kecharitomene justice. The same is true of translations which make the direct address “you” or “one” and modify it with adjectives or appositive phrases.
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.
This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be “you are certified to teach.” “Are” indicates a present state, “certified” shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.
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.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
As for Mary being without sin. Since Mary was more than likely at age 13 at the annunciation and was given the stature of full grace before the annunciation, it is up the JA4 to provided scriptural evidence that Mary did sin after she gave birth to Jesus. He is likely to find as much scriptural evidence that she sin as he is likely to find scriptural evidence that Jesus sinned.
M
MariaG
Guest
I spent some time on this, and couldn’t find anything on it:shrug: But my search skills online are not as good as some:blush:
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Biblical search on the word “Hail” in the NT?
Mat 26:49 And forthwith coming to Jesus, he said: Hail, Rabbi. And he kissed him.
Mat 27:29 And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand. And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, king of the Jews.
Mat 28:9 And behold Jesus met them, saying: All hail. But they came up and took hold of his feet, and adored him.
Mar 14:45 And when he was come, immediately going up to him, he saith: Hail, Rabbi; and he kissed him.
Mar 15:18 And they began to salute him: Hail, king of the Jews.
Luk 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Joh 19:3 And they came to him, and said: Hail, king of the Jews; and they gave him blows.
M
Miserissima
Guest
Hi JoeyWarren. I respect your argument, and tried it over in another thread with JA4. (Unfortunately, it didn’t work. And, I should have dome more research on the forums rather than all over online nad hardcover books. It’s the same info, but I wouldn’t have had to work so hard to find it!)
JA4 ultimately said that, “Luke 1:28 has nothing to do with being sinless.” You’re all more senior members than I am. As I rarely get into spirited debates, I just keep waiting for the magic phrase or something to help the concept “click” and help him to understand. It’s not happening, this time.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
You can’t “click” it yourself. Just present your arguments, and the Holy Spirit will do the “click”-ing.
Don’t forget, there are others that read this thread that do not post. Some of these will have the exact same questions as JA4. Address your posts to them, if you tire of addressing them to JA4.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
That’s the ticket!:extrahappy:
J
justasking4
Guest
What does SS have to do with Mary?
Were not talking about my beliefs but about the catholic church’ teaching on Mary.
Would happen to know when this “Mary as the Queen of Heaven” did begin?
This is false for the mere fact scripture doesn’t teach it and you have no way to know if those who have died can hear your prayers.
It depends what you are referring to here. For example it was brought up that in the catecombs there is a picture of a person praying to someone. Are we to take that this was the practice of the entire church back then?
The timetable, who taught it, and why are important issues to discuss. Isn’t there something called the “development of doctrine” in the catholic church that was mentioned by cardinal Neuman? If so, then these are pertient issues to discuss.
Greek tells us alot
Now show me in this definition that she was without sin all her life?
You can claim this but it can’t be supported. For one thing the catholic church has according to one estimate only infallibly interpreted 8 verses. If that is true, there are literally hundreds catholics cannot be sure what they mean since these have never been interpreted.
Because the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church
i think it was full of grace.
The case for trying to support the marian doctrines does not hold when you take the context etc into consideration.
My question is: how do you know you have interpreted a scripture correctly if your church has never interpreted that scripture?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Just curious. If it’s Scriptural, what does it matter when it began?
But, to answer your question, I think it began shortly after it was clarified within the Church Hierarchy the True Nature(s) of Jesus. The whole hypostatic union and what-not. The Church could not clarify the status of Mary until She resolved Her understanding of Jesus.
So, saints in heaven are not alive in Christ? Is that what you’re saying? Where does Scripture tell us that?
M
MariaG
Guest
As I said, my Church has in fact interpreted those scriptures.
As for how I would know if my Church had not interpreted any other particular scripture verse, I humbly ask the Holy spirit to lead me to all truth. If that truth did not contradict the teachings of the Church which scripture tells me are the pillar and foundation of truth, I could be confident in my interpretation.
And you? How do you know your interpretation is correct?
M
MariaG
Guest
As I said, my Church has in fact interpreted those scriptures.
As for how I would know if my Church had not interpreted that particular scripture verse, I humbly ask the Holy spirit to lead me to all truth. If that truth did not contradict the teachings of the Church which scripture tells me are the pillar and foundation of truth, I could be confident in my interpretation.
And you? How do you believe you know your interpretation is correct?
- Status