James White on Lk 1:28 and Kecharitomene

[Rohn]

Phatcatholic, does your friend believe in sola scriptura? If so, why is he appealing to the authority of James White? Unintentionally, your friend could be acknowledging that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures alone is insufficient and that this inspiration needs to be supplemented by comments from James White. Is what James White writes infallible?
It would appear that to accept sola scriptura one would need to have an excellent understanding of the finer points of Greek (and Aramaic and Hebrew) grammar. In the case of verses like Lk 1:28, a vernacular Bible could not be relied upon.
Jesus Christ would not require each individual to have such esoteric knowledge before he/she could rely upon the Scriptures alone.

He is I AM

 

[alaindelong]

Respectfully, it doesn’t refute anything.

Protestants would say yes! We do those things…but are they NECESSARY to be justified?

No…the basis for our justification is Christ.

So…refute?
No…

“the way you see it”

Yes.

Where does Jesus send the “goats” ? They did not see the face of Christ in all our suffering neighbors. Sins of omission can send us to hell even if we have faith. If the fruits of our faith or works of love are not extended to all souls in need of our Christian charity, we are leaving Christ unattended. Matthew 25:31-46 is our final judgement, our final report card. It DOES refute justification by faith alone or Sola Fide.

 

[alaindelong]

Most Catholic apologists do not try to gather the Immaculate Conception from this word alone; Karl Keating is pretty much alone there, for he says Mary can only be called “full of grace” if she was ALWAYS full of grace. I say that that is a biiiig stretch. So do most apologists.

But most apologists do see this as a key passage in understanding Mary’s total sinlessness, they just get it in a different way; if they try to gather the Immaculate Conception from this passage at all, they don’t get it from the word “kecharitomene” alone, (as Karl Keating tried to do,) but from the word AND the fact that it is used as a title, expressing something about Mary’s character; i.e that by nature she is full of grace, and therefore does not have the sin nature that the rest of us have inherited.

From my perspective, that too is a bit of a stretch; so here is how I view it: the word, being in the perfect tense, implies a perfection of grace or favor. (That is why the perfect tense is called perfect: because it implies a completion of the verb, in this case, of God’s favor or grace.) Yet God would not completely favor Mary, nor would He see her as completely full of grace, if she was at all sinful; for if she had any sin on her, then He would not favor that part of her, and thus His favor or grace would not have been complete in her. So the title implies that Mary was sinless at that point; that is all.

Can we connect this directly to the Immaculate Conception? I don’t think so; the Immaculate Conception would have to be assumed.

It is the same as when Christ says, “Which of you accuses me of sin?” (John 8:46) That doesn’t prove that He was ALWAYS sinless; it is evidence for His lifelong sinlessness only because if He was always sinless, we would expect Him to say something like this sometimes. In the same way, Luke 1:28 is evidence of Mary’s Immaculate Conception merely because it proves that she was sinless at that point, as she would have been, if she was immaculately conceived. Her title “full of grace” is a consequence of her Immaculate Conception, and for there to be a consequence of something, then that something must have preceded it.

I hope that helps. God bless!
-Dmar198

If God chose Mary as the first tabernacle for the incarnation of His Devine son, the Word made flesh, why is it so hard to understand her Immaculate Conception? Would you go to Communion in a state of sin?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

If God chose Mary as the first tabernacle for the incarnation of His Devine son, the Word made flesh, why is it so hard to understand her Immaculate Conception? Would you go to Communion in a state of sin?

I would, but not if in mortal sin. See the CCC.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2672

But one can’t have only venial sins unless they are already baptized.
I would tend to think the proof is more that Jesus took Mary’s flesh to be his own that would demand the purity in relation to the Law of Moses; for his body is in union with him – whereas all other physical substance comes from the outside and the unclean is ejected into the latrine.

As Jesus said of the Kosher Laws: It is not that from the outside which makes one unclean; but that which comes from within.

Think also of the book of Hebrews; The Israelites in the desert were all in sin; they all were given the Manna by God through Moses. Those in mortal sin were executed along the way and never reached the promised land.
But some of them Did; Moses renames a young man “Jesus” (Joshua=Jesus) as a high role model; but it is clear that others who were sinners made it into the promised land following him.

 

[Bengoshi]

The Bible and “full of grace”
The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase “full of grace” does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen’s case it signifies that he was “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase “full of grace” come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations
The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena “Hail full of grace.’” Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.

So what do the other translations say about Luke 1:28? Let’s find out.

The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear - “having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you.”
The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament - And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
American Standard Version - “And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee.”
English Standard Version - “And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!
Today’s English Version - ‘"The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”
King James Version- “And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”
New American Standard Bible - "And coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
New International Version - "The angel went to her and said, Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.
New King James Version - "And having come in, the angel said to her, Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!
Revised Standard Version - "And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!’
New Revised Standard Version - And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
The New Century Version - The angel came to her and said, “Greetings! The Lord has blessed you and is with you.”
New Living Translation - Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!’”
The Cambridge Paragraph Bible - And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, 'thou that art 'highly favoured, 'the Lord is with thee: ‘blessed art thou among women.
The Holman Christian Standard Bible - “And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you.”
International Standard Version - ‘"The angel’’ came to her and said, “'Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!”
What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean “full of grace” which is “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

5923 χαριτόω (charitoō): vb.; Str 5487; TDNT 9.372—LN 88.66 show kindness graciously give, freely give (Eph 1:6); as a passive participle, subst., “one highly favored.”1
5487 χαριτόω [charitoo /khar·ee·to·o/] v. From 5485; TDNT 9:372; TDNTA 1298; GK 5923; Two occurrences; AV translates as “be highly favoured” once, and “make accepted” once. 1 to make graceful. 1a charming, lovely, agreeable. 2 to peruse with grace, compass with favour. 3 to honour with blessings.2
Therefore, we conclude that the Roman Catholic Church has manufactured far too much doctrine concerning Mary out of the erroneous translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible and that the RCC needs to recant its false teaching concerning Mary.

Conclusion
Mary was a very blessed woman. She was graced with the privilege of being able to bear the Son of God. We should never forget her high privilege in this respect. However, we must not elevate her to a level beyond that which is prescribed in Scripture. To do so is to be in error, the very error that is taught in the Roman Catholic Church.

We urge Roman Catholics not look to Mary. Instead, they should look to Jesus alone. He alone is the sinless one, the perfect one, the Lord, the mediator, the forgiver of our sins. It is he alone to whom we should appeal and trust for the forgiveness of our sins. We should not look to any creature, no matter how blessed that creature may be.

 

[Canto]

The Bible and “full of grace”
The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

Yes, we’ve never denied this but Kechartiomene illustrates amongst other things that Mary is full of grace.

The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena “Hail full of grace.’” Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original.

The Church derives the doctrine from Christ and his apostles not Jerome’s Latin. Ancient translations such as the Vetus Latin, Aramaic Peshita and Arabic not to mention Tyndale and Coverdale translate 1:28 as full of grace.

Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.

Catholics do not worship Mary, this would be grave heresy and those partaking would be excommunicated.

The translation is not false. The Greek is one word, so it cannot fully be transalted into English. Full of grace is more accurate than favoured one.

So what do the other translations say about Luke 1:28? Let’s find out.

The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear - “having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you.”

This of course is a translation. My inerlinear (not Catholic) says having been graced.

As for the other translations you mention the King James for example says Much Graced in the margin and the American Standard Version says or endowed with grace in the margin.

The Amplied Bible which you didn’t menation notes that charitoo (the root word) is literally endowed with grace. The Westminster says full of grace, as does the Spencer translation and the Christian Community Bible. The Geneva Bible says might be rendered full of favour and grace in the margin.

What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean “full of grace” which is “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

Charitoo means to fill with grace. The perfect denotes fullness. Thus full of grace. Being a perfect passive particple Mary recieved the grace from God in the past (tradition 2 Thes 2:15 says her conception) and she remained in the state of grace.

Try putting all that into one English word and keeping it vocative.

The *first *thing Strongs says of charitoo is “to grace”

Mary was a very blessed woman. She was graced with the privilege of being able to bear the Son of God. We should never forget her high privilege in this respect. However, we must not elevate her to a level beyond that which is prescribed in Scripture. To do so is to be in error, the very error that is taught in the Roman Catholic Church.

In reading scripture we see that Mary was immaculate, the Ark (of the new covenant), queen of heaven, Mother of God in the flesh, assumed into heaven etc. It’s there for all to see, it’s what scripture prescribes. These doctrines are there, though no Protestant has ever given a list of all the doctrines contained in the Bible, yet they believe in sola scriptura.

BTW Thank God for the Catholic Church for selecting the 27 books of the New Testament.

carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128 :yawn:

 

[alaindelong]

Where does Jesus send the “goats” ? They did not see the face of Christ in all our suffering neighbors. Sins of omission can send us to hell even if we have faith. If the fruits of our faith or works of love are not extended to all souls in need of our Christian charity, we are leaving Christ unattended. Matthew 25:31-46 is our final judgement, our final report card. It DOES refute justification by faith alone or Sola Fide.

I challenge any Protestant to debate Justificaion by faith alone, Sola Fide based on Matthew 25:31-46. No other biblical references allowed.

 

[Churchmouse]

I know that the original post was referencing Dr. White and his refutation, but I don’t know why everyone continues to bring him up because–at this point–it isn’t about Dr. White but about the refutation he gives, which is very valid. Also, there is no reason to bring up “dishonesty”, SS, justification, or whatever. It seems that, whenever Dr. White is involved, maligning his character becomes an means to an end. IOW, one tends to paint him “ugly” to avoid the argumentation. Thus far, no one has proven that Mary is given a title or that kecharitome means anything more, but there are certainly remarks regarding White’s character.

CM

 

[inkaneer]

The Bible and “full of grace”
The phrase “full of grace” in Greek is “plaras karitos” and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase “full of grace” does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen’s case it signifies that he was “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase “full of grace” come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations
The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena “Hail full of grace.’” Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, not Latin, but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation, not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help, not Christ who is truly full of grace.

You seem to make a big deal of Greek vs Latin. Why so? Latin is derived from the Greek and is more like Greek than Greek is to English. Also Jerome was no dummy. Highly learned and originally taught by Jewish rabbis he was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin and possibly a few others. Unlike the protestant translators, he stood at a time when Greek and Latin were both active languages. In addition Jerome stood much closer to the Apostolic age and much further from the protestant rebellion than any of the protestant translators. To put it into modern parlance Jerome had no dog in the fight over Mary that would later develop [about 1100 years later] with protestants. However, that cannot be said for the protestant translations of the Bible. They are tainted with the protestant bias that was to develop about Mary and other things that were “too Catholic” and were not the beliefs of the early “reformers”. For instance Martin Luther had this to say about Mary’s sinlessness:

“But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin…” [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works]

Ulrich Zwingli would write:

“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.” [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.]

Later in the protestant rebellion it was determined that proclaiming Mary’s sinlessness was “too Catholic” and Mary went from being “full of grace” to the watered down translation of being only “highly favored”. That is akin to saying that the Mona Lisa is a nice picture and not the masterpiece that it really is.

I personally have always thought protestants were very hypocritical about Mary. Protesants admit to being sinners [some even claim to be ‘wretched sinners’] but yet they claim that they can go to the Father with a request and He will answer them. The Bible verse most quoted for this is Matthew 7:7-11:

"7 “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Mt 7:7-11

And they fully expect that if they ask God for bread He will give them bread and not a stone. They believe that God will do that for them, ‘wretched sinners’ as they are but when it comes to God’s only begotten Son, God doesn’t give Him bread [a sinless mother] he gives Him a stone [a sinner]. Maybe you disagree that a sin filled mother would be less in God’s eyes than one who is sinless? But I don’t think you would. One more thing on this. Jesus didn’t pay for our sins in Mary’s womb. He paid for it on the cross. So how hypocritical can you get to expect God would give sinners the best but stick it to His only begotten Son ???

Thus it is far more reasonable to think that Jerome, far removed [by over a millenium] from the protestant anti Mary bias, and fluent in Greek and Latin translated the passage correctly and by doing so avoided the hypocrisy inherent in the protestant position.

In addition, the KJV contains an error in Luke 1:28; The KJV lexicon lists the word “Charitoo” as being used in the Greek. Since when? The Textus Receptus has the word as ‘kecaritwmenh’ or in English ‘kecharitomene’. So why does the KJV change the word? Or a more poignant question would be, why does the KJV HAVE to change the word?

Jerome got it correct alright. Protestant bigotry against things that were Catholic and their desire to distance themselves from Catholicism caused them to alter the word of God from that of the first protestants and now almost 500 years later the tail is trying to wag the dog.

 

[NDN]

So, I’m currently in a debate on the meaning of the Greek word kecharitomene (“full of grace”) in Lk 1:28 and the implications for Marian dogma. My opponent recently provided the following argument by James White:

However, if we look at Mr. Keating’s presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word caritow, but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, kecaritomene. Note that Keating alleges that the “Greek indicates a perfection of grace.” He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek “indicates a perfection of grace.” First, participles primarily derive their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something is (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202), but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 (“Come, you who are blessed by my Father…”), 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (“For we know, brothers loved by God…”), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord…”) emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a “perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively” (to borrow from Mr. Keating’s presentation). The application of Keating’s thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary “must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace’ or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way,” he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid. Therefore, Madrid’s statement, “This is a recognition of her sinless state,” falls for lack of support. The angel addressed Mary as “highly favored,” for, as he himself said, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.”

You can read White’s entire article here. At any rate, if I am understanding White correctly, his argument can be restated like this:

If Mt 25:34; 1 Thes 1:4; and 2 Thes 2:13 all have the same perfect passive tense as Lk 1:28, why don’t we understand those verses the same way we understand Lk 1:28, as indicating a permanent state of fullness, completion, or perfection of the verb in question?

Have I properly understood his argument? How would you respond to this argument?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Mr White is looking back from 1700+ yrs at the language, and reading his own theology into it. I for one, will be content to trust St Jerome, and his tranlation. He was translating from the original languages from a 4th cent perspective, and he was literate, and fluent in all the languages that the original manuscripts were written in. He was still a part of the culture that wrote the NT, and he knew exactly what they were saying. Mr. White is only guessing from a protestant stand point, and has never been a part of the ancient culture. Pax Christi

 

[PhilVaz]

churchmouse << but I don’t know why everyone continues to bring him up because–at this point–it isn’t about Dr. White but about the refutation he gives, which is very valid >>

White’s argument on the Greek was addressed and answered in these posts:

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

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

My quotes from the Fathers (i.e. Gregory Thaumaturgus [205-270 AD], the Akathist hymn [5th or 6th century AD], Theodotus of Ancyra [early 5th century AD], Romanos the Melodist [c. 560 AD], and John the Theologian [c. 400 AD] ) show the “Hail, Full of Grace” text was interpreted of an all-holy, immaculate, sinless Mother of God through the centuries. There are other arguments besides Luke 1:28, the Greek, and the Fathers on that text.

The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (Juniper Carol and Bishop Ullathorne)

Phil P

 

[Churchmouse]

Mr White is looking back from 1700+ yrs at the language, and reading his own theology into it. I for one, will be content to trust St Jerome, and his tranlation. He was translating from the original languages from a 4th cent perspective, and he was literate, and fluent in all the languages that the original manuscripts were written in. He was still a part of the culture that wrote the NT, and he knew exactly what they were saying. Mr. White is only guessing from a protestant stand point, and has never been a part of the ancient culture. Pax Christi

NDN,

Dr. White is doing nothing of the kind, but only letting the language, given the text, speak for itself, Jerome notwithstanding (considering he is the one allowing his theology to dictate how it should be translated). Again, we can’t broadbrush history the way you have.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

churchmouse << but I don’t know why everyone continues to bring him up because–at this point–it isn’t about Dr. White but about the refutation he gives, which is very valid >>

White’s argument on the Greek was addressed and answered in these posts:

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

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

My quotes from the Fathers (i.e. Gregory Thaumaturgus [205-270 AD], the Akathist hymn [5th or 6th century AD], Theodotus of Ancyra [early 5th century AD], Romanos the Melodist [c. 560 AD], and John the Theologian [c. 400 AD] ) show the “Hail, Full of Grace” text was interpreted of an all-holy, immaculate, sinless Mother of God through the centuries. There are other arguments besides Luke 1:28, the Greek, and the Fathers on that text.

The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (Juniper Carol and Bishop Ullathorne)

Phil P

Phil,

I’ve seen the posts, but they don’t seem to be working with the text. I only reviewed, rather cursory, your article and didn’t find a refutation. I will look at it a bit more indepth when I have some more time. I will reply later if I find something relevant to the thread.

CM

 

[NDN]

NDN,

Dr. White is doing nothing of the kind, but only letting the language, given the text, speak for itself, Jerome notwithstanding (considering he is the one allowing his theology to dictate how it should be translated). Again, we can’t broadbrush history the way you have.

CM

It was the peoples of St Jeromes theology and culture who wrote the scriptures in the first place. All of the ancients understood it the same way St Jerome did, that is why it has constantly been taught this way, even before the bible was written and compiled by the Church. Pax Christi

 

[Churchmouse]

It was the peoples of St Jeromes theology and culture who wrote the scriptures in the first place. All of the ancients understood it the same way St Jerome did, that is why it has constantly been taught this way, even before the bible was written and compiled by the Church. Pax Christi

You’re broadbrushing again. To say “ALL” doesn’t prove that “ALL” did. Yet, let’s bring it back to relevance. Who was the first to say that Mary was endowed with a “title” and used Scripture to assert that it was indeed a “title”?

CM

 

[inkaneer]

NDN,

Dr. White is doing nothing of the kind, but only letting the language, given the text, speak for itself, Jerome notwithstanding (considering he is the one allowing his theology to dictate how it should be translated). Again, we can’t broadbrush history the way you have.

CM

First, Dr. White is certainly biased. He is writing 400+ years after the protestants rebellion. As a dedicated protestant he has a dog in the fight and so is biased. Jerome writing in about 400 AD is writing over a millenium [1100 years] before the protestant rebellion. Jerome is not biased because unlike Dr. White he has no dog in the fight. Second, the protestant translation is doubly biased because they changed scripture. The 1550 Textus Receptus from which the KJV was supposedly translated had the Greek word ‘kecaritwmenh’ [kecharitomene] in Luke 1:28 but the KJV lexicon says the Greek word is ‘caritovw’ [Charitoo]. So why the change? Why does the KJV have to change the Greek word ‘kecaritwmenh’ to ‘caritovw’? Maybe ‘kecaritwmenh’ was ‘too Catholic’ and had to be watered down.

 

[Churchmouse]

First, Dr. White is certainly biased. He is writing 400+ years after the protestants rebellion. As a dedicated protestant he has a dog in the fight and so is biased. Jerome writing in about 400 AD is writing over a millenium [1100 years] before the protestant rebellion. Jerome is not biased because unlike Dr. White he has no dog in the fight. Second, the protestant translation is doubly biased because they changed scripture. The 1550 Textus Receptus from which the KJV was supposedly translated had the Greek word ‘kecaritwmenh’ [kecharitomene] in Luke 1:28 but the KJV lexicon says the Greek word is ‘caritovw’ [Charitoo]. So why the change? Why does the KJV have to change the Greek word ‘kecaritwmenh’ to ‘caritovw’? Maybe ‘kecaritwmenh’ was ‘too Catholic’ and had to be watered down.

We’re going in circles here. Jerome’s view can be viewed as biased considering his Mariology. Mary’s role was evolving, but this doesn’t, ipso facto, mean that this was what was held by the earliest church. Thus, we go to the Greek and evaluate what these terms mean and realize what it doesn’t mean–that it was “titular.” Neither does it give anything more then what is plainly stated in Scripture.

CM

 

[YADA]

We’re going in circles here. Jerome’s view can be viewed as biased considering his Mariology. Mary’s role was evolving, but this doesn’t, ipso facto, mean that this was what was held by the earliest church. Thus, we go to the Greek and evaluate what these terms mean and realize what it doesn’t mean–that it was “titular.” Neither does it give anything more then what is plainly stated in Scripture. CM

This post is really too funny … Jerome is biased due to his Mariology some 1400 years ago and White’s view is closer to the first Christians some 1900 years removed from them …

And the quote about being “plainly stated” … if it is so plainly stated then how did Jerome get it so “Wrong”? How did the Church that Christ founded not understand this? All of those early Christians - so many - they just could not comprehend the clear and plan statement How did Luther and the other Reformers so clearly not get this either ?

The only thing you got correct was the developing “Mariology” … Protestanism has been developing Mariology for some time … Mary has gone from being recognized as “Ever Virgin” to a “Prolific Mother of many Chidren” to a woman that was raped by a Roman soldier … Mary has transformed from the Ark of the New Covenent [designed Perfectly Pure and to God’s Specifications - bearing the Word of God Made Flesh, the High Priest and the Bread from Heaven] to an Incubator - merely an tool used without thought … Now that is ‘development’ :doh2:

 

[po18guy]

To do so is to be in error, the very error that is taught in the Roman Catholic Church.

Every Catholic will gladly admit the Church’s error in teaching if you just show us where the bible teaches sola scriptura. Word for word. Chapter and verse, please. And, no, you may not use 2 Timothy 3:16 - that says “all scripture” and NOT scripture is all.

We urge Roman Catholics not look to Mary.

Well then, don’t look to your pastor or congregation - go direct to Jesus.

Instead, they should look to Jesus alone. He alone is the sinless one, the perfect one, the Lord, the mediator, the forgiver of our sins. It is he alone to whom we should appeal and trust for the forgiveness of our sins. We should not look to any creature, no matter how blessed that creature may be.

We will happily set aside your ignorance of the Catholic faith for the sake of discussion. However, by your own “bible doctrine”, you may NEVER ask anyone to pray for you, and you may NEVER pray for anyone else. You say that is ridiculous? Yes, it is ridiculous. Would it shock you to learn that we do nothing other than to ask Mary to pray for us to her Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

And, in case you are tempted to dredge up the old “necromancy” blasphemy, know this: Mary is not dead. “For, to Him (God), all are alive”. That’s in the bible, correct? (Luke 20:38) So, if “neither life nor death can separate us from the love of God” (Romans 8:38), those who are perfected in heaven can also intercede with Christ on our behalf.

Have some respect for your elders in the faith. You trying to teach us is like a 15 year old telling 60 year old grandpa all about life.

 

[Bengoshi]

I challenge any Protestant to debate Justificaion by faith alone, Sola Fide based on Matthew 25:31-46. No other biblical references allowed.

The following is a commentary from IVP New Testament Commentaries:

*In the context of Jesus’ teachings, especially in the context of Matthew (as opposed to Luke), this parable addresses not serving all the poor but receiving the gospel’s messengers. Elsewhere in Matthew, disciples are Jesus’ brothers (12:50; 28:10; compare also the least–5:19; 11:11; 18:3-6, 10-14). Likewise, one treats Jesus as one treats his representatives (10:40-42), who should be received with hospitality, food and drink (10:8-13, 42). Imprisonment could refer to detention until trial before magistrates (10:18-19), and sickness to physical conditions brought on by the hardship of the mission (compare Phil 2:27-30; perhaps Gal 4:13-14; 2 Tim 4:20). Being poorly clothed appears in Pauline lists of sufferings (Rom 8:35), including specifically apostolic sufferings (1 Cor 4:11). The King thus judges the nations based on how they have responded to the gospel of the kingdom already preached to them before the time of his kingdom (Mt 24:14; 28:19-20). The passage thus also implies that true messengers of the gospel will successfully evangelize the world only if they can also embrace poverty and suffering for Christ’s name (compare Matthey 1980).

The stakes involved in our witness are eternal. The horrifying conclusion (25:46) is the damnation of people who did not actively embrace messengers of the gospel but nevertheless were oblivious to how they had offended God. The goats thus depart (7:23) into eternal fire (the worst possible conception of hell; see comment on 3:8, 10, 12), but tragically, God had not originally created them for the fire or the fire for them (compare 4 Ezra 8:59-60). Rather, it had been prepared (compare Mt 25:34) by God for the devil and his angels (compare 2 Pet 2:4; 1QM 13.11-12).

We too must “receive” one another with grace. In the context of the surrounding parables, welcoming Christ’s messengers probably involves more than only initially embracing the message of the kingdom: it means treating one’s fellow servants properly (24:45-49). Unless we “receive” one another in God’s household, we in some way reject Christ whose representatives our fellow disciples are (18:5-6, 28-29). Paul likewise reminds the Corinthians that to be reconciled to him is to be reconciled to God himself (2 Cor 5:11–7:1).*