James White on Lk 1:28 and Kecharitomene

[rmax70]

I’m sorry you don’t see my point.

As far as there being Catholic apologist that disagree about things. So what?

As far as someone teaching like Harold Camping or James White inside the Catholic Church. Well at least you can take that to the Bishop. At least you can know that is not the teaching that has been handed down from Christ and the Apostles.

I believe you are much, much safer inside the Church that Christ instituted than you are on the outside.

Instead of following Christ and loving people you just might end up following a professional debater.

Russ

 

[James924]

Repeat after me:

Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments

What are you, twelve years old? Look at how you’re talking in your last several posts. Please calm down and change your tone.

 

[po18guy]

I guess this is not going to go anywhere.

You all keep asserting over and over the same thing yet…the original post was left untouched.

Does the passage support the leap that the RC church makes to “sinlessness”?

NO. As has been stated.

That was the answer 25 posts back and remains the answer.

The text doesn’t support any such thing.

PS: Assertions don’t make arguments.

How can one understand the Catholic/Orthodox/Martin Luther original teaching as long as one clings to “bible only”, which is NOT how Christ founded His Church? The bible tells you that it is incomplete several times. The Church was begun without a bible and the bible was never intended by its various authors to be a “stand alone” resource. THAT is why the argument seems to be going nowhere. Do Catholic/Orthodox believe more than the outline that is in the bible? You bet. It is a shame that many loving Christians believe less than that.

Yes, this may be off-topic in the strict sense, but it can explain why non-Catholics have trouble here.

 

[po18guy]

Would this be possible or would it be like on this thread for example…where every Catholic has their own private interpretation, even contradicting each other within the same thread?

By Protestant standards, it is 100% OK for everyone to believe differently. So, why do you have a problem with it?

In reality, the Church teaches doctrine, which can be found in the Catechism, along with explanations of their origin. The fact that not everyone here is on the same page does not condemn what is on the page. Rather, it shows that we have a lot of teaching to do.

You are free to argue 'til you drop, but a simple read of the catechism would answer your numerous questions. Do you want a copy?

 

[rpavich]

There is “private interpretation” of individual texts since the Church doesn’t decide the precise meaning of any text of Scripture (except perhaps a few). What we have is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception itself, which is not based on any one text of Scripture,

Well…that settles that thread.

 

[rpavich]

Repeat after me:

Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
Assertions are not arguments
What are you, twelve years old? Look at how you’re talking in your last several posts. Please calm down and change your tone.

I would be able to if those on this forum realized that just repeating something over and over doesn’t make a good argument…

Can you answer the original posters specific question?

 

[rpavich]

You are free to argue 'til you drop, but a simple read of the catechism would answer your numerous questions. Do you want a copy?

No, being Ex-Catholic, I’ve had one.

I found them to be light on actual scriptural substance, and heavy on assertions.

 

[po18guy]

No, being Ex-Catholic, I’ve had one.

I found them to be light on actual scriptural substance, and heavy on assertions.

That’s certainly too bad. I will pray for you.

 

[po18guy]

Can you answer the original posters specific question?

It has been answered. The posts are there. You just don’t agree with them. Must everything be found in the bible? Where does the bible say that?

 

[rpavich]

Where does the bible say that?

To use the same argument that’s been used here multiple times:

“It’s so obvious duh!!!”

Seriously though; you must be aware of the arguments on both sides…if not…there is a good book by James White called Sola Scriptura, you can see both sides of the fence while reading it…and make your own decision.

 

[steve_b]

Yes…as you’ve stated…that’s your assertion…but yet to be proven by the text.

you’re merely denying the definition of the Gr perfect tense for kecharitomene.

rpavich:

The text merely says “highly favored one”…I have no problem with that…

1. 
   *]Just how highly favored is the mother of God? Answer that for me.
   *]Re: favored vs grace, would you respond to the following post. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5499986&postcount=61
   
   
   rpavich:
   

   It’s all the dogma that’s read into it that I’m questioning.
   
   The poster who said that the doctrine doesn’t come from the text but the church tradition was the most honest so far in just stating the fact.

   The doctrine comes from both Scripture AND Tradition. That’s what the Church teaches.
   
   But here is a scripture association you should ponder
   
   agapebiblestudy.com/charts/Virgin%20Mary%20as%20the%20Ark%20of%20the%20New%20Covenant.htm
   
   The OT ark of the covenant had to be pure. Ex 25:10-11
   
   The NT ark of the covenant (Mary), Is she to be made any less pure than the OT ark of the covenant?
   
   Gabriel’s greeting to Mary (Lk 1:28) tells us that she is perfectly graced. This is who she is already and will continue to be in the sight of God. All purity to give the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, His humanity. God did this for Mary in advance.
   
   “Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever”. [Jude 24-25]
   
   
   rpavich:
   

   to KEEP ASSERTING what has **yet to be established **is not doing a whole lot.

   To keep denying what has been established is not doing YOU any good

 

[po18guy]

To use the same argument that’s been used here multiple times:

“It’s so obvious duh!!!”

Seriously though; you must be aware of the arguments on both sides…if not…there is a good book by James White called Sola Scriptura, you can see both sides of the fence while reading it…and make your own decision.

Are you a devotee of James White? That is good information to know, if true. It lets us know where you are coming from.

As to the entire concept of sola scriptura, we know it by its fruits, which are division. We know the spirits by their fruits. The fruit of sola scriptura is the argument that you have with the Church that Christ founded.

Rather, how about you, who profess to love Christ, examine the founding of the Church, the shape of the early Church and the writings of the first and second generation of Christians?

We all know SS very well, and we reject it out of hand. Christ did not teach SS and the bible does not teach SS. "nuff said.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[PhilVaz]

PhilVaz << What we have is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception itself, which is not based on any one text of Scripture… >>

rpavich << Well…that settles that thread. >>

Well not really. What I am saying is that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not based on any one text of Scripture (including Luke 1:28), just as the full doctrine of the Trinity is not based on any one text of Scripture (including Matthew 28:19). Note: there is more in the Bible on God and the Trinity than on the Mother of God, so I don’t want to equate the two in terms of biblical support (the Trinity vs. the Marian doctrines). What I did say is there are varying levels of support and defense of the Immaculate Conception from the Bible, the Fathers, and the development or history of doctrine within the Catholic Church.

Also, I don’t believe you HAVE read the entire thread, since as I re-read the thread, James White (quoted in post #1 by phat) has been answered quite thoroughly in several posts (before mine). My posts on the Church Fathers just add icing to the already decorated cake of answers.

I said the Fathers agree with Keating on Luke 1:28, not James White. Once again:

Akathist hymn (5th or 6th century AD):

Hail, O you, through whom Joy will shine forth!
Hail, O you, through whom the curse will disappear!
Hail, O Restoration of the Fallen Adam!
Hail, O Redemption of the Tears of Eve!
Hail, O Peak above the reach of human thought!
Hail, O Depth even beyond the sight of angels!
Hail, O you who have become a Kingly Throne!
Hail, O you who carry Him Who Carries All!
Hail, O Star who manifest the Sun!
Hail, O Womb of the Divine Incarnation!
Hail, O you through whom creation is renewed!
Hail, O you through whom the Creator becomes a Babe!
Hail, O Bride and Maiden ever-pure!

Theodotus of Ancyra (early 5th century AD):

Hail, our desirable gladness;
Hail, O rejoicing of the churches;
Hail, O name that breathes out sweetness;
Hail, face that radiates divinity and grace;
Hail, most venerable memory;
Hail, O spiritual and saving fleece;
Hail, O Mother of unsetting splendor, filled with light;
Hail, unstained Mother of holiness;
Hail, most limpid font of the lifegiving wave;
Hail, new Mother, workshop of the birth.
Hail, ineffable mother of a mystery beyond understanding;
Hail, new book of a new Scripture, of which, as Isaiah tells, angels and men are faithful witnesses;
Hail, alabaster jar of sanctifying ointment;
Hail, best trader of the coin of virginity;
Hail, creature embracing your Creator;
Hail, little container containing the Uncontainable.
(Homily 4:3; PG 77:1391B-C; Gambero, page 267-8)

Phil P

 

[rpavich]

Are you a devotee of James White? That is good information to know, if true. It lets us know where you are coming from.

So, I recommend a book and now I’m a devotee?

Plueezzeee…nice reasoning.

As to the entire concept of sola scriptura, we know it by its fruits, which are division.

As I pointed out…it’s fruits are no more evident than the supposed unity of Rome…how many Catholic divisions are there? Presently 242 for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.

So can we dispense with this lame argument?

We all know SS very well, and we reject it out of hand. Christ did not teach SS and the bible does not teach SS. "nuff said.

Right…

 

[rpavich]

Well not really. What I am saying is that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not based on any one text of Scripture (including Luke 1:28), just as the full doctrine of the Trinity is not based on any one text of Scripture

But THIS THREAD was an exegetical question about ONE PASSAGE.

Not a question about “Maryology” in general…

Clearer?

 

[po18guy]

So, I recommend a book and now I’m a devotee?

Plueezzeee…nice reasoning.

Since your default position is that the Catholic Church is wrong, I was simply asking a question. Yes or no will suffice. It’s called full disclosure and honesty. You know our affiliation. We simply ask yours.

As I pointed out…it’s fruits are no more evident than the supposed unity of Rome…how many Catholic divisions are there? Presently 242 for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.

Sorry, but those are heretics, and they have separated themselves from the Catholic Church due to disobedience. What does this have to do with the truth the Church teaches? And, since your source is not the bible, I don’t believe your numbers.

So can we dispense with this lame argument?

In charity, it is you who are arguing.

 

[Tram_Is_the_Way]

Originally Posted by po18guy
Three points: 1. We keep falling back to the Greek, because that is the language of the existing texts. However, Gabriel greeted Mary in her native Aramaic.

Is this a fact or a theory? Do you have a citation?

The majority of HIstorians and Scholars attest to the issue that Jesus and his Apostles spoke Aramaic with Greek being a second language.

It is like the Mexicans in the USA, when they are amongst each other, they speak the Mexican dialect of Spanish for ease of communication. There is no reason to suspect that Jesus did not speak in Aramaic when he spoke to his chosen.

Common sense would doubt that Gabriel spoke to Mary in Greek.

 

[PhilVaz]

rpavich << But THIS THREAD was an exegetical question about ONE PASSAGE. Not a question about “Maryology” in general… Clearer? >>

Yes, then I recommend you read the following posts in this thread.

dmar198 posts #18 and #24 and his subsequent posts/replies to you and others

Huiou Theou posts #26 and #27 and his subsequent posts/replies to you and others

White’s argument against Keating has been addressed and answered.

Phil P

 

[steve_b]

how many Catholic divisions are there? Presently 242 for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.

your source?

Just so that you know, If one is divided from the Catholic Church they aren’t Catholic…by definition

 

[rpavich]

Since your default position is that the Catholic Church is wrong, I was simply asking a question. Yes or no will suffice. It’s called full disclosure and honesty. You know our affiliation. We simply ask yours.

Fair enough…
No

Sorry, but those are heretics, and they have separated themselves from the Catholic Church due to disobedience. What does this have to do with the truth the Church teaches?

This was IN ANSWER TO THE "Sola Scriptura is responsible for the split and denominations" argument that keeps getting tossed about here. I was MERELY POINTING OUT how that logic was fallacious.

1.) You have not proven that SS has done that; it’s a logic leap.
2.) If that’s the road the poster wants to go down then what causes all of the Catholic splits??? The Magisterium??

No…of course not; you’d see that as an unwarrented leap of logic…I was merely illustrating it. Hence; I said “dispense with this bad argument”

PS: I understand what you’re saying about the “inflated number due to heretics”…but to be fair; Steve Ray, Tim Staples, and others site the Protestant figure without a twinge in their conscience, even though evidently everyone knows about the inflated numbers…

Now which one of you is going to tell Steve Ray and Tim Staples to quit quoting that number?

And, since your source is not the bible, I don’t believe your numbers.In charity, it is you who are arguing.

I used the same source that Steve Ray and Tim Staples, and other’s do…the “World Christian Encyclopedia”

However, I agree with you…LET’S ALL quit siting those numbers, shall we?