How can anybody possibly believe that "all have sinned"?

[JoeyWarren]

Huiou Theou,

Could you do us a favor?

Do a piece on the two verses that contain the root word “Charitoo” in a new thread.

This thread has gotten very long.

 

[sandusky]

Huiou Theou:

Jesus can baptize whomever and whenever he so chooses.
If you knew Catholic teaching, you also know of baptism of desire, and baptism of blood. eg. Many of the O.T. saints (prophets) were martyrs.

It is the rejection (explicit disobedience) to Jesus’ command about being baptized after he gave it – that excludes those who refuse water baptism from salvation. Eg. I say to you …

To sum up. The O.T. figures received a baptism, in the ark, in the Red sea, in desire, and often in martyrdom.
Which form the baptism took is not important to me.
What is important is that the baptism was effected by God to those who obeyed.

You’ve missed the point, son—baptism is as much an assurance of salvation as circumcision—none at all; but grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.
Huiou Theou:

Perhaps that is why you don’t understand what I have said to you. It isn’t H.S. that has erred, it is those who write the lexicons. I do primary research in Greek, verifying lexicons against texts – congugating verbs according to the standard grammatical rules. etc.

I verify the use of some words by checking all of scripture, LXX, NT, and some extrabiblical sources of Greek. The context, and any changes are noted to see what exactly is the denotation and connotation of every word of interest.

There is far more to Greek than a lexicon and the particular labeling of one grammar book, or another, and that particular author’s labelling of grammar – that is a start, but it will never replace primary research. That is how I know the congugation of (the end, purpose, or finish) root τελε becomes τετελεται, which is NOT the word used in John, which has an extra (s) τετελε(σ)ται. That extra σ means the stem ended in a mute.
( eg. ending in τ, δ, θ, λ ) the mute changes to sigma (σ) before adding the ending ται in a perfect participle.

I have a difficult time believing that you do Greek research in any capacity other than as a hobby; you didn’t know what a constative was, and you continually misspelled it; you didn’t know the qualification of the aorist in the indicative which makes it a constative; you cannot tell if a verb is deponent by looking at it (there is a common suffix characteristic to deponents; look it up); you say the initial prefix of consonant plus “e” can lead one to think the word may be aorist; you assert that tetelestai in Jn 19:30 is not really tetelestai but another word, and you neither tell what that other word is, nor how it is you have come to know such, and you seem to be asserting that lexicons are suspect because of that one instance.

 

[sandusky]

AlegreFe:

That verse DOES prohibit personal interpretation.

And how did you arrive at that interpretation?

AlegreFe:

Yes that is right, that verse does say that the scriptures were written by men moved by the Holy Spirit. That is why we cannot interpret the Scriptures from our own personal/private interpretations. Jesus Christ left us a Church to instruct us in the interpretation. Only the Pope and the Bishops united with the Pope can interpret Scripture to instruct us. That is where Acts 8:30-31 comes in. That is why I put both 2 Peter and Acts 8 together.

And how did you arrive at those interpretations?

AlegreFe:

That is a command to Timothy from Paul about false teachings. Paul calls Timothy his “child” because Paul taught Timothy. As a Bishop, Paul appointed Timothy to teach the Word of God. Timothy is approved by God as a successor to Paul to interpret and teach the Word.

And those?

AlegreFe:

Paul is in prison and is stressing to Timothy that he should be firm in his faith and to protect his community from false teaching without being afraid of attacks.

Keep in mind that Paul is talking to Timothy here; Paul as Bishop wrote this letter to Timothy as his successor.

And that?

AlegreFe:

We should actually be reading both letters to Timothy plus some of Acts to get the whole context of this verse. We are not “official sucessors approved” by God… but Timothy is!

Same question.

AlegreFe:

Jesus is only talking to Peter here that Satan will try to attack the Apostles who are appointed Bishops of the Church, and separate them from the Church (with the rest of us), and scatter them like sifted wheat. All those Protestant churches are sifted wheat that have been scattered like sheep without a shephard. Which is why so many different denominations exist.

And how did you arrive at that interpretation?

AlegreFe:

Jesus tells Peter that HE is the one to strengthen his brothers. Jesus is not telling any of the other Apostles here to do that. Peter is our first Pope.

And that one?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sandusky,

You’ve missed the point, son—baptism is as much an assurance of salvation as circumcision—none at all; but grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

Huios would be an unqualified ‘son’, but I didn’t exactly write that.

I agree – no assurance to you. But to an infant which is part of the main subject of this thread – baptism is assurance because it is the sacrament of faith.

I have a difficult time believing that you do Greek research in any capacity other than as a hobby; you didn’t know what a constative was, and you continually misspelled it; you didn’t know the qualification of the aorist in the indicative which makes it a constative; you cannot tell if a verb is deponent by looking at it (there is a common suffix characteristic to deponents; look it up); you say the initial prefix of consonant plus “e” can lead one to think the word may be aorist; you assert that tetelestai in Jn 19:30 is not really tetelestai but another word, and you neither tell what that other word is, nor how it is you have come to know such, and you seem to be asserting that lexicons are suspect because of that one instance.

I misspelled several things: I also misspelled Duns, in John Dunns Scotus. I still know who he is.
I am also reading this on a tiny laptop screen, in between doing several other things.

If you believe I am a hobbiest – fine but moot.
It should be easy to refute my arguments, unless there is more truth in them than you know what to do with. You have scripture, you can look up the Greek and verify the spellings.
If need be, I can show from Moody’s text exactly how to make a perfect participle from words ending in a mute – there are convenient general examples in that book. Easy for beginners.

you didn’t know the qualification of the aorist in the indicative which makes it a constative; you cannot tell if a verb is deponent by looking at it (there is a common suffix characteristic to deponents; look it up); you say the initial prefix of consonant … lexicons are suspect because of that one instance.

I did not know the name you used to classify the meaning in the indicative. I do know the meaning of indicitive from Homeric Greek – which is what I first learned on, along with moods and voice, — active, indiciative, passive, middle – etc. Are you familiar with a dual?

As to deponent:

In linguistics, a deponent verb is a verb that is active in meaning but takes its form from a different voice, most commonly the middle or passive.

Nothing about a common suffix. It’s sort of a catch all for Greek slang verbs. It is in effect, an exception list.

I did not assert that tetelestai (τετελεσται) is not really itself. Perhaps you misspelled it in one of two places?

Yes! I assert that temporal augmentation, which τε is one specific example of —> in the two different perfect participles τε-τελεσ-ται and τε-τελε-ται —> Is a clue that a given Greek word is aorist, although there is an ending to consider as well (ται) to understand what the word is.

Most dictionaries and lexicons have at least one mistake in them. Isn’t is terribly interesting how such an important word to Calvanist / Lutheran theology would not be defended by having τετελεσται properly defined, but rather substituting τετελεται instead as IF the σ were a mispelling?

I have given you all the possible endings for a grammatical spelling of the word which becomes τετελεσται. There are only 4 possibilities. You could exaustively search all four with a good concordance – eg. one that does not omit instances conveniently. (Or look for a better lexicon which defines both, and then check all definitions against every scriptural context…)

Perhaps one of these will help:
τελετα, τελεθω

 

[JoeyWarren]

one that does not omit instances conveniently.

I would like to see a Greek Concordance/Lexicon written by a person that is Greek and is an Atheist and is unbiased. Does such a thing exist?

I’ve notice that Protestants tend to give a slant in these types of books.

Who do you think is capable of writing an unbiased and exhaustive Greek Lexicon?

 

[sandusky]

Huiou Theou:

It should be easy to refute my arguments, unless there is more truth in them than you know what to do with. You have scripture, you can look up the Greek and verify the spellings.

I don’t see anything worth refuting.

In your own words:

I did not assert that tetelestai (τετελεσται) is not really itself.

For me, that is the bottom line; tetelestai is from teleō, and is used frequently throughout the N.T., including Jn 19:30.
Huiou Theou:

Nothing about a common suffix. It’s sort of a catch all for Greek slang verbs. It is in effect, an exception list.

They end in -mai. Observe them in your research.
Huiou Theou:

Yes! I assert that temporal augmentation, which τε is one specific example of —> in the two different perfect participles τε-τελεσ-ται and τε-τελε-ται —> Is a clue that a given Greek word is aorist, although there is an ending to consider as well (ται) to understand what the word is.

The “reduplication,” of the initial consonant in the stem, followed by the “e,” (as you show above te) indicates the perfect; one should never mistake that for an aorist.

 

[AlegreFe]

Good morning, fellow Catholic bashers! How are you doing?
I am not doing so well, as I am sick. So, for the sake of ending all conversation graciously, you can go on believing that I am wrong and you are right.
But, just for the record, I don’t deny Mary and how the CC views her. I’m simply questioning it to better understand how that conclusion was arrived upon.

I’m done conversing with you on this point but you made it very clear that you did not believe in the Immaculate Conception and you insisted that Mary was capable of sinning. So with that, how can you say that you don’t deny Mary and how the Catholic Church views her? You’ve made that clear in your posts.

Shall I quote your posts here so that you can see what you have written so far against Mary?

I’m sorry, but this really hurts me. But who cares about me? Not I. I certainly don’t put myself above Jesus. You are only hurting Jesus with your accusations about Mary having the possibility of sinning.

It’s not me that is right. That is not the point. The point is that the CHURCH is right and YOU are WRONG! You cannot argue against Jesus Christ and HIS Church!

I pray for you and I also ask Mary to pray for you.

(I’m done… note to self, “put on ignore list but keep praying”)

 

[AlegreFe]

AlegreFe;1825345:

That verse DOES prohibit personal interpretation.

And how did you arrive at that interpretation?
And how did you arrive at those interpretations?
And those?
And that?
Same question.
And how did you arrive at that interpretation?
And that one?

First off, why do you always cut off my post tag? I put it back on with my post here.

Secondly, did you even bother to read my posts? Didn’t any of that make sense to you in the least? Don’t you know that Paul was in prison when he wrote that letter to Timothy? He was only talking to Timothy and not to you. Timothy was appointed by Paul and approved by God to be the Bishop in succession to Paul.

Lastly, I have the same answer to all of those questions, the Church’s teachings, and NOT my own private interpretations!

How do you come to your conclusions as to what those verses mean to you?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sandusky,

I didn’t mistake it for an aorist – what are you saying?
I called it a perfect participle – of course τε can be used to make a perfect – I claimed τετελεσται is a perfect participle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorist

The third marker of the aorist is reduplication … an example in Greek is the verb αγω agō “I lead”, which has the aorist ηγαγον ēgagon “I led,”

The general claim that τε always makes a perfect may or not be true – I know several scriptural grammar books which assert that. But there are only three distinct words that fit the pattern in the bible – one of which is under discussion, the other two of which do not add an extraneous σ.

τετελε… The word under discussion.
τετειχ… ζ contains an σ, so this is not an exception.
τετευχ… no proof here either.

There is no point in chasing the deponent trail at this moment either. True or not, it doesn’t change my perspective.

So, perhaps I will learn something new.
From the paradigm I have worked with to produce a perfect participle, a root like:

τελεθω, is required to conjugate to τετελε(σ)ται – it is the mute θ, which makes the (σ) possible from the general pattern I have seen.

From the words I have checked, the insertion of κ occasionally happens in forming the perfect, but never σ unless a mute is involved. There is no mute in τελεω.

So, I would need a larger corpus outside of scripture to verify your statements – even the few extra biblical texts I have to check do not support your conclusion that τελεω is the root.

I am verifying lexicons and grammars against examples – exactly as I have said.

I also note, you have not taken up my request to prove logically the doctrine of original sin – without the Catholic church’s authority – which naturally allows an exception for Mary.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Sandusky,…I also note, you have not taken up my request to prove logically the doctrine of original sin – without the Catholic church’s authority – which naturally allows an exception for Mary.

I am looking forward to this as well. Your move Sandusky.

 

[apophasis]

Apophasis,

I am neither Pelagian, nor semi-Pelagian.  I do accept the church's authority with respect to the text in Romans.

I just don’t like the bad Greek made easy type of approach I am seeing.

However, one need not repeat identically Adam’s sin to be guilty of it. One only need only allow someone they are responsible for to sin mortally by consent – without telling or protecting them – to have the likeness of Adam’s sin.

The text: “even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense…” shows clearly that the author is separating those who HAVE sinned like adam (repetition) from those who have not.

The repetition would not be identical, in the sense that no one else is the first biological father of the whole human race.
But the essence of Adam’s transgression can be repeated.

No, you completely fail to understand Paul, theologically, no matter how much Greek you appeal to. Your Greek can’t help you there.

I agree that men repeat the “essence” of Adam’s sin (i.e., rebellion against God), but it is not the repetition of the essence that causes death to ALL men in Rom. 5:12. Paul explicitly teaches:“Therefore just as through ONE man sin (not sins) entered into the world, and death through sin (not through continuous like rebellion), and so death spread to ALL men because ALL SINNED (i.e., in Adam)” (Emphasis mine)The “likeness” of Adam’s sin is not referring to “essence,” but that Adam sinned by transgressing a definite commandment. Adam was the ONLY man who became a sinner by transgressing a definite, divine Commandment. ALL the rest of us are BORN sinners - in him.

Paul goes on in Rom. 5 to differentiate theologically between the transgression of the ONE and the obedience of the ONE. Both having their Federal results: death and condemnation to all in the ONE who sinned; Justification and Life to all in the Other through His ONE act of obedience.Rom. 5:17-18 "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."Paul’s plain and simple theology remains the same whether study it in the original language or in English. There’s no language barrier here or some secrete Koine Greek nuance.

Nor am I certain that the meaning of Genesis is purely literal – in the sense of a physical tree, with a physical fruit.

And that’s why you are unable to understand Paul’s teaching. His teaching in Rom. 5:12-21 is based on a literal interpretation of man’s fall in Genesis, including Adam’s sinful participation in eating of a literal tree.

In Rom. 5:12-21 there are only two men, only two acts, with only two results. Through the one, death; through the Other, justification of life.

Where in the Genesis account do you see that the author, himself, indicates that he is speaking metaphorically or allegorically?

 

[mrs_abbott]

I’m done conversing with you on this point but you made it very clear that you did not believe in the Immaculate Conception and you insisted that Mary was capable of sinning. So with that, how can you say that you don’t deny Mary and how the Catholic Church views her? You’ve made that clear in your posts.

Maybe it’s because these conversations are done over cyberspace and you can’t see the person but did you ever think that I might have been denying them to see how to better explain them? I am not a good apologist and I ask these questions to better understand how to defend doctrines and dogmas. Seriously, did you ever think of that?

AlegreFe:

Shall I quote your posts here so that you can see what you have written so far against Mary?

No, I can read. Thank you very much!

AlegreFe:

I’m sorry, but this really hurts me. But who cares about me? Not I. I certainly don’t put myself above Jesus. You are only hurting Jesus with your accusations about Mary having the possibility of sinning.

Again, I am Catholic and believe what the CC says about Mary. In fact, I got hooked on praying the rosary after years of despising it, since I thought it was a long prayer.

AlegreFe:

It’s not me that is right. That is not the point. The point is that the CHURCH is right and YOU are WRONG! You cannot argue against Jesus Christ and HIS Church!

Why are you so angry? Did you not read my response? This is not a charitable conversation anymore. I’m sorry that you’ve taken this so personally.
Btw, you failed the apologetics test. I wanted to see if Catholics could explain the truth to me without getting upset. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

AlegreFe:

I pray for you and I also ask Mary to pray for you.

(I’m done… note to self, “put on ignore list but keep praying”)

Don’t pray for me. Pray for all the apologists in the world that they have the strength and courage to stay in the fight against Satan and his evil powers.

 

[apophasis]

Huiou Theou:

Apophasis,
In Greek you are “from denial”. A dishonarable habit of bringing up unmentionables for self service by denying that you will do it. I see you surpass your title.

Actually it’s not my “title,” but my “observation” while on this forum.

"because ALL SINNED (in Adam). The proof being, according to Paul, that death reigns over all mankind in its natural state, even over infants."

This is a slanderous insult to the God Bearer, and the saviour.

How so? Every funeral home and every graveyard proves Paul’s accuracy that - “In Adam” death reigns.

Yes, death is a penalty for committing Sin –

That’s not what Paul teaches: “….for the wages of sin (singular) is death” (Rom. 6:23); "…for all sinned (past tense) and are falling short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23); and ".…so death spread to all men because all sinned" (not "all are committing sins, Rom. 5:12b).

Death is the penalty that spread to ALL men because of ONE man’s sin - the Scriptures are clear.

But the glory of Paul’s teaching is that because of ONE Man’s obedience (the cross), justification and eternal life are gifts to ALL men who believe in Him; because “in Him” reigns LIFE, not death (as in the one who sinned). According to the Scriptures, men are seen by God as either “in Adam” (dead) or “in Christ” (made alive).

There is nothing in Paul’s writing which proves that only sinners suffer death.

Actually, Paul states it quite differently: "For through the ONE man’s disobedience the many were made sinners."And elsewhere he writes:“For as in Adam ALL DIE” (1 Cor. 15:22).

Scripture says of God’s faithful – they shall not taste corruption. So it was that Elija ascended in the firey chariot. So it is that you can not find his body. Nor Mary’s.

Elijah was an anomaly, as was Enoch, as will be that generation of believers in the Body of Christ that will not “sleep” (1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:17).

It’s poor logic, indeed, to claim that if you can’t find the remains of a body the conclusion must be that he/she did not die. Scripture reveals the anomalies, and Mary is not listed as one of them. If God had not intervevened in Alijah’s and Enoch’s lives they too would have physically died. No man born of Adam can naturally escape death: “…for in Adam ALL DIE.”

Most Catholics believe Mary died and then assert that she, subsequently, “assumed” bodily into heaven. But even in that theoretical belief (unprovable as it is) she died and was therefore listed with those who sinned “in Adam.” It leaves no room for the “Immaculate Conception.”

That sin brought death into the world, I agree. But that it applies to Mary as a personal fault, I have no evidence.

Unless you can actually prove she did not, nor could not, die you have all the “evidence” you need right there in Paul’s writings.

I would not dare insult the Mother of my saviour, especially now.

Now you’re just arguing from your emotions - not facts.

Notice, the sword which pierces Mary’s soul also. She is to suffer for the sake of others in some fashion, and this suffering affects her soul – the very soul which is the life principle of the body. Mary may have died, but it does not say for her own sin. What does her piercing reveal about you?

“…and a sword will pierce even your own soul” is parenthetical and refers to Mary’s grief before the cross. Simeon is obviously not speaking literally here since a physical sword cannot pierce an immaterial soul. But "to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed" has to do with Christ in that verse (not Mary) and is connected to the previous verse (Lk. 2:34).

 

[sandusky]

AlegreFe:

Secondly, did you even bother to read my posts?

Yes.

AlegreFe:

Didn’t any of that make sense to you in the least?

Yes.

AlegreFe:

Don’t you know that Paul was in prison when he wrote that letter to Timothy?

Yes.

AlegreFe:

He was only talking to Timothy and not to you. Timothy was appointed by Paul and approved by God to be the Bishop in succession to Paul.

I see; so then, using that logic, none of the scripture applies to us because it was not written
“to us;” does that sum up your understanding?

AlegreFe:

Lastly, I have the same answer to all of those questions, the Church’s teachings, and NOT my own private interpretations!

I see; so then, with what you have said to me in other posts, would I be accurate in saying that with respect to things theological your brain shuts off, and you run purely on faith? That seems to be what you are saying; is that correct?

AlegreFe:

How do you come to your conclusions as to what those verses mean to you?

Through prayer, meditation, and study.

 

[sandusky]

Huiou Theou:

Sandusky,

I didn’t mistake it for an aorist – what are you saying?
I called it a perfect participle – of course τε can be used to make a perfect – I claimed τετελεσται is a perfect participle

The following is what you said in your very first post to me:

In κε-χαριτω-μενη the repeat beginning sound (ke), is temporal
augment which leads one to suspect that the word is aorist –

With each tick of the clock, I doubt you more.
Huiou Theou:

The general claim that τε always makes a perfect may or not be true –

I did not say te, I said reduplication of the initial consonant plus “e”; for a researcher of Greek writing, you have no eye for written detail…tick…tick…tick…tick… … … …

What I would urge you to do is to draft a letter explaining your findings, send it to the publishers of all of the Greek lexicons, and urge them to make the appropriate changes.
Huiou Theou:

I also note, you have not taken up my request to prove logically the doctrine of original sin – without the Catholic church’s authority – which naturally allows an exception for Mary.

I did using apophasis’ reasoning with which I am in full agreement. Again, see his post #438, and #s 466, and 468.

 

[sandusky]

apophasis:

Actually it’s not my “title,” but my “observation” while on this forum.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

I see; so then, with what you have said to me in other posts, would I be accurate in saying that with respect to things theological your brain shuts off, and you run purely on faith? That seems to be what you are saying; is that correct?

Sorry, that made me laugh out loud.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sandusky,

I did not say te, I said reduplication of the initial consonant plus “e”; for a researcher of Greek writing, you have no eye for written detail…tick…tick…tick…tick… … … …

No, it isn’t that at all.
I am refusing to have extra paradigms put in my mouth – especially those that don’t apply to this particular prefix. My eye for detail is very good.

From Homeric poetry:
τελεθω – am or become.

The name of God from Hebrew, is well known to be a play on the essence of being — YHWH.

What a fitting climax to the crucifixion – to have a verb about ‘becoming’ transformed into a timeless perfect participle.
Notice in the other Gospels, nothing is mentioned about finished – but something IS mentioned about God.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

With regard to your rule, I have never seen another example of an extra σ where the particular consonant is ’ τ '. Inside or out of scripture. ( Perhaps you wanted me to use ‘κ’? as in κεχαρισται? )

But even that is moot now.

The problem before you, is that since such a word exists – and will follow the general paradigm to become τε-τελεσ-ται – there are two possibilities. For even in the Koin greek of the NT, Greek poetry is quoted. Paul & the poetry of Aratus. etc.

As for correcting lexicons at the publisher, that isn’t my job!
Besides, many are already printed – and unlike bad popes, they don’t just go away.

P.S. The defintion for τελεθω seems to have been removed from a few online dictionaries recently. Perhaps verification would best be done with lexicons printed in the past – or with a search on Homeric Greek word lists.

For a short time only, probably:[
Quia - Homeric verbs: List VI](Homeric word list.)

ταρβεω am afraid
τεθηπα am amazed at
τελεθω am become
τετιημαι am troubled

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sandusky,
In my original post, which you have only half quoted – I still correctly identified the word as perfect participle.
Yes, I was tired and typing fast, and made an incomplete assesment of that word – but the result was none the less correct. Whether or not you “doubt” me more, I did not incorrectly categorize the word.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

For me, that is the bottom line; tetelestai is from teleō, and is used frequently throughout the N.T., including Jn 19:30.

Always watch that bottom line.