James White on Lk 1:28 and Kecharitomene

[inkaneer]

---

Inkaneer wrote: "Jerome is biased? Or is Jerome only writing what was the belief of the church in that time? Show me the hue and cry that went up among the faithful if Jerome deviated from the accepted understanding of the Greek. Show me the condemnation heaped on Jerome by the early church for his "error’ if you can. The fact is you can’t because there was none.

church mouse replies: “Again, the word is “evolving.” Considering that it is coming from the authorities within the church, such as Jerome, one cannot assume that there would be a “hue and cry” over what is being promulgated. Even in Jerome’s day, Mary’s status wasn’t set in concrete and other distinctives were being theorized. Some things progressed like the proverbial frog that boiled to death.”

REPLY: Jerome was no authority in the church. He was not pope or a bishop. Other people “in the church” taught error and were condemned for it. Arius, a priest, comes to mind as does Nestorius, a bishop. But there is no condemnation of Jerome because Jerome was very orthodox. And Mary’s sinless status was set in the church. Note the words of Ephraim the Syrian

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

The 'blemish" and “stains” he is referring to is sin. Again there is no condemnation of Ephriam by the faithful. So Jerome wasn’t breaking new ground here. As for Mary’s status being set in concrete that occurred in the nineteenth century with the formal definition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That formal definition confirmed Jerome’s translation. So Jerome was not wrong.

Inkaneer wrote: “Jerome’s translation of ‘kecharitomene’ as ‘gratia plena’ was in line with the understanding of the Greek by the entire church.”

Church mouse replied: “Have you studied the writings of the “entire church”? If not, you shouldn’t comment.”

REPLY: The writings of the early church writers are available online with a search engine provision to search for dissenting opinions. I found none. Maybe you could supply some proof of dissenting opinions from the early church to support your allegations.

inkaneer writes: "For over 1100 years there was not one allegation that Jerome was incorrect. You allege Jerome was in error so show me the proof that others in his time took him to task for it.

Church mouse writes: “See the above.”

REPLY: Refer to my reply above also.

inkaneer wrote: "Now you managed to ignore my point about the protestants changing the word ‘kecharitomene’ to ‘charitoo’ in the KJV and subsequent translations. If you look up Luke 1:28 in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS the word there is definitely ‘kecharitomene’ so please explain why the translators of the KJV changed the word to ‘charitoo’.

church mouse replied: “The TR translates “And entering, the angel said to her, Hail, one having received grace! The Lord is with you. You are blessed among women!” Where do we get the “full of grace” part? Charitoo simply means “to be highly favoured, make accepted.” In both cases, it remains the same. They both claim that she has found favor and nothing is eliminated from either translation. There is nothing to build a Marian theology about other than what’s present.”

REPLY: Don’t give me the tainted translation. The Textus Receptus was in Greek. Here is Luke 1:28 in the Greek:

“και εισελθων ο αγγελος προς αυτην ειπεν χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη ο κυριος μετα σου ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν”

The word we are interested in is 'κεχαριτωμενη" and according to Babelfish translator that word [in English characters] is kecharitomeni not charitoo as in the KJV. So your translation of the Textus Receptus is in error just as the KJV is in error.

Inkaneer writes: “This is important for two reasons. First, it blows Dr. White’s argument completely out of the water for his argument is based on the word ‘charitoo’ and if ‘charitoo’ is wrong then Dr. White is wrong also.”

churchmouse replies: Evidently, he’s not wrong. Can you find a Greek scholar who would dare push either word to the extent Catholics have?"

REPLY: Sure can! Try the Byzantine Church. Then try the Greek Orthodox Church.

inkaneer wrote: "Second, if the KJV translators changed the word as the KJV lexicon shows they did, then it shows the depth of deceit that protestants sank to violate the scriptures.

church mouse replied: “No it doesn’t. The deceit lies with the party who presses either form beyond its meaning.”

REPLY: Then why change the word from kecharitomeni to charitoo? Why alter the word of God? Give me a good reason why the KJV Translators took kecharitomeni from the Textus Receptus and changed it to charitoo.

 

[po18guy]

Give me a good reason why the KJV Translators took kecharitomeni from the Textus Receptus and changed it to charitoo.

How about: King James wanted to be the ultimate authority in England, rejecting the “competitive” authority of the Catholic Church, and so approved only a translation which both supported his own authority and separated itself from the Catholic Church - even though it altered the word of God?

 

[Canto]

No, it hasn’t been proven that kecharitomene is a title. If I missed something proving that it was then kindly point me to it. Until then, it hasn’t been answered. I have studied the Greek as well and, because I don’t have the burden of finding more for Mary, I can accept it as is–the greeting of an angel to a person who was undoubtedly blessed for being chosen to birth the Christ. Nothing more and nothing less.

CM

There are various posts here that address it being a title

Good morning Mum - mum is a title
Hello your Majesty - Majesty is a title
Thank you Mr President - President is a title
Chaire Kechartiomene - Kechartiomene is a title

You say you don’t have the burden of finding more
Perhaps you have the burden of finding less

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Below is part of the Joint Seattle Statement of the
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC II) Entitled “Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ”

**
To see it all : **ecumenism.net/archive/arcic/mary_en.htm#A

                   **[5].** Within the Lucan narrative, two particular scenes invite reflection on the place of Mary in the life of the Church: the Annunciation and the visit to Elizabeth. These passages emphasize that Mary is in a unique way the recipient of God's election and grace. The Annunciation story recapitulates several incidents in the Old Testament, notably the births of Isaac (Genesis 18:10-14), Samson (Judges 13:2-5) and Samuel (1 Samuel 1:1-20). The angel's greeting also evokes the passages in Isaiah (66:7-11), Zechariah (9:9) and Zephaniah (3:14-17) that call on the "Daughter of Zion", i.e., Israel awaiting with joy the arrival of her Lord. The choice of 'overshadow' (*episkiasei*) to describe the action of the Holy Spirit in the virginal conception (Luke 1:35) echoes the cherubim overshadowing the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:20), the presence of God overshadowing the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:35), and the brooding of the Spirit over the waters at the creation (Genesis 1:2). At the Visitation, Mary's song (*Magnificat*) mirrors the song of Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1-10), broadening its scope so that Mary becomes the one who speaks for all the poor and oppressed who long for God's reign of justice to be established. Just as in Elizabeth's salutation the mother receives a blessing of her own, distinct from that of her child (1:42), so also in the *Magnificat* Mary predicts that "all generations will call me blessed" (1:48). This text provides the scriptural basis for an appropriate devotion to Mary, though never in separation from her role as mother of the Messiah.

[16]. In the Annunciation story, the angel calls Mary the Lord’s “favoured one” (Greek kecharitõmene, a perfect participle meaning ‘one who has been and remains endowed with grace’) in a way that implies a prior sanctification by divine grace with a view to her calling.
[38]…Fathers from West and East, appealing to the angelic salutation (Luke 1:28) and Mary’s response (Luke 1:38), support the view that Mary was filled with grace from her origin in anticipation of her unique vocation as Mother of the Lord. By the fifth century they hail her as a new creation: blameless, spotless, “holy in body and soul” (Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily 6,11: †before 446). By the sixth century, the title panaghia (‘all-holy’) can be found in the East."
In its conclusion the joint commission stated

76." Our study, which opens with a careful ecclesial and ecumenical reading of the Scriptures, in the light of the ancient common traditions, has illuminated in a new way the place of Mary in the economy of hope and grace. We together re-affirm the agreements reached previously by ARCIC, in Authority in the Church II 30:"

• that any interpretation of the role of Mary must not obscure the unique mediation of Christ;
• that any consideration of Mary must be linked with the doctrines of Christ and the Church;
• that we recognize the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Theotókos, the mother of God incarnate, and so observe her festivals and accord her honour among the saints;
• that Mary was prepared by grace to be the mother of our Redeemer, by whom she herself was redeemed and received into glory;
• that we recognize Mary as a model of holiness, faith and obedience for all Christians; and
• that Mary can be seen as a prophetic figure of the Church.

Brian

 

[Huiou_Theou]

There are various posts here that address it being a title

Good morning Mum - mum is a title
Hello your Majesty - Majesty is a title
Thank you Mr President - President is a title
Chaire Kechartiomene - Kechartiomene is a title

Can’t sleep; I hate mornings like this… I keep hearing things; and can’t get my mind to stop.

Matthew 26:49 … τω ιησου ειπεν χαιρε ραββι …
Matthew 27:29 …αυτω λεγοντες χαιρε βασιλευ των ιουδαιων
Mark 15:18 . . .
John 19:3 . . .

Luke 1:28 . . .

When it is not a greeting, the Greek generally tells you that!
Prove 24:19 μη χαιρε επι (NOT rejoice) → FRET, NERVOUS, like me…
Lamen 4:21 χαιρε και

I think this is what the protestants try to use
, but note there is an “and” after Xaire, :
Lamentations 4:21 χαιρε και ευφραινου θυγατερ ιδουμαιας

Oh Heck, I can’t even think.
Th …
But look up the english anb it will meke seanse …

 

[Churchmouse]

One must first have their eyes open to “see” anything. Since you apparently insist that all must agree with you and that there can be no evidence, let alone proof, against your opinion, I will pray for you.

I never so much as hinted that one must agree, but isn’t this the case when it comes to certain Catholics on these forums. Often, the non-Catholic is told that an answer has been given when, apparently, one hasn’t. And then it often turns into a personal matter, such as the non-Catholic doesn’t have the “eyes to see anything.” I guess the same can be said to you. I will pray that your eyes will be open.

Where art thou Karl Keating?

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

J.W. does argue; but how do you get the “proper” evidence from the argument at the beginning of the thread?

If J.W. had just said that the perfect tense in Greek does not specify at what time the action became permanent; I would never have argued – but he went beyond that and cited passages which don’t make his point at all. They in fact are passages where the perfect participle was true for all time. God loved his elect while they were still enemies is what his passages indicates – but when, then, did God who is love, NOT – love his elect? Scripture says that God knew all of us before we were even born!

It is precisely what J.W. chose to back statement up that is pure folly!

I haven’t seen Keeting’s entire argument to even know what all he is arguing, nor how much I agree or not – but, J.W. has seriously damaged his argument by choosing examples which are fallacious! If he makes such an egregious mistake with a well known Greek grammar rule (childs play to prove) – why would anyone believe that he is interpreting Keeting correctly?

If his arguement had demonstrated the Greek uncertantly concerning the past which the perfect implies ( eg: it can be done!!! ) – I would have a different opinion. But he tried too hard and ended up not giving supporting evidence in the quotes shown at the start of the thread – the exact thing he claimed Keeting’s argument failed based on!

That’s the definition of hypocrisy!

If you would like to point out more of the argument from Mr. White and link to someplace where this argument of Mr. Keeting is also listed; I am not adverse to looking into this further – but as it stands now, Mr. White has shown that he will cut and paste just about anything without serious consideration of the connotations, denotations, and context of the words. He has a potential argument, but no credibility in applying his knowledge analytically.

It’s odd that you comment rather strongly contra White and, admittedly, made no comparison between Keating and White. Oh, well.

Yes, considering how many here are more apt to villify Dr. White than to pay attention to what is being stated (in the Greek and otherwise) and considering that nothing you said here makes sense in view of Dr. White’s article, here is the LINK to the article in question which includes the extent of what Keating presented. Now, hopefully, in the spirit of fairness, the moderators on this forum will leave the link up considering the theme of this thread. Just as hopefully the unbiased reader will see who is clearly making the better argument.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

---

Inkaneer wrote: "Jerome is biased? Or is Jerome only writing what was the belief of the church in that time? Show me the hue and cry that went up among the faithful if Jerome deviated from the accepted understanding of the Greek. Show me the condemnation heaped on Jerome by the early church for his "error’ if you can. The fact is you can’t because there was none.

church mouse replies: “Again, the word is “evolving.” Considering that it is coming from the authorities within the church, such as Jerome, one cannot assume that there would be a “hue and cry” over what is being promulgated. Even in Jerome’s day, Mary’s status wasn’t set in concrete and other distinctives were being theorized. Some things progressed like the proverbial frog that boiled to death.”

REPLY: Jerome was no authority in the church. He was not pope or a bishop. Other people “in the church” taught error and were condemned for it. Arius, a priest, comes to mind as does Nestorius, a bishop. But there is no condemnation of Jerome because Jerome was very orthodox. And Mary’s sinless status was set in the church. Note the words of Ephraim the Syrian

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

The 'blemish" and “stains” he is referring to is sin. Again there is no condemnation of Ephriam by the faithful. So Jerome wasn’t breaking new ground here. As for Mary’s status being set in concrete that occurred in the nineteenth century with the formal definition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That formal definition confirmed Jerome’s translation. So Jerome was not wrong.

Inkaneer wrote: “Jerome’s translation of ‘kecharitomene’ as ‘gratia plena’ was in line with the understanding of the Greek by the entire church.”

Church mouse replied: “Have you studied the writings of the “entire church”? If not, you shouldn’t comment.”

REPLY: The writings of the early church writers are available online with a search engine provision to search for dissenting opinions. I found none. Maybe you could supply some proof of dissenting opinions from the early church to support your allegations.

inkaneer writes: "For over 1100 years there was not one allegation that Jerome was incorrect. You allege Jerome was in error so show me the proof that others in his time took him to task for it.

Church mouse writes: “See the above.”

REPLY: Refer to my reply above also.

inkaneer wrote: "Now you managed to ignore my point about the protestants changing the word ‘kecharitomene’ to ‘charitoo’ in the KJV and subsequent translations. If you look up Luke 1:28 in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS the word there is definitely ‘kecharitomene’ so please explain why the translators of the KJV changed the word to ‘charitoo’.

church mouse replied: “The TR translates “And entering, the angel said to her, Hail, one having received grace! The Lord is with you. You are blessed among women!” Where do we get the “full of grace” part? Charitoo simply means “to be highly favoured, make accepted.” In both cases, it remains the same. They both claim that she has found favor and nothing is eliminated from either translation. There is nothing to build a Marian theology about other than what’s present.”

REPLY: Don’t give me the tainted translation. The Textus Receptus was in Greek. Here is Luke 1:28 in the Greek:

“και εισελθων ο αγγελος προς αυτην ειπεν χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη ο κυριος μετα σου ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν”

The word we are interested in is 'κεχαριτωμενη" and according to Babelfish translator that word [in English characters] is kecharitomeni not charitoo as in the KJV. So your translation of the Textus Receptus is in error just as the KJV is in error.

Inkaneer writes: “This is important for two reasons. First, it blows Dr. White’s argument completely out of the water for his argument is based on the word ‘charitoo’ and if ‘charitoo’ is wrong then Dr. White is wrong also.”

churchmouse replies: Evidently, he’s not wrong. Can you find a Greek scholar who would dare push either word to the extent Catholics have?"

REPLY: Sure can! Try the Byzantine Church. Then try the Greek Orthodox Church.

inkaneer wrote: "Second, if the KJV translators changed the word as the KJV lexicon shows they did, then it shows the depth of deceit that protestants sank to violate the scriptures.

church mouse replied: “No it doesn’t. The deceit lies with the party who presses either form beyond its meaning.”

REPLY: Then why change the word from kecharitomeni to charitoo? Why alter the word of God? Give me a good reason why the KJV Translators took kecharitomeni from the Textus Receptus and changed it to charitoo.

Man! You lost me when you used Babelfish to translate Koine Greek. Maybe you don’t understand that the modern Greek and Koine are not the same. Using your Babelfish “translation”, the Koine text you submitted reads…
and [eiselthon] your [aggelos] to this [eipen] you enjoy [kecharitomeni] gentleman afterwards blessed they contracted [en] [gynaixin[/COLOR]
…which makes no sense whatsoever. I mean “you enjoy gentleman afterwards”???

If this is what you consider an argument, evidently I’m wasting my time. At least with you I am.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

There are various posts here that address it being a title

Good morning Mum - mum is a title
Hello your Majesty - Majesty is a title
Thank you Mr President - President is a title
Chaire Kechartiomene - Kechartiomene is a title

You say you don’t have the burden of finding more
Perhaps you have the burden of finding less

Apparently, I have yet to see “favored one” as a title. I’ve seen all sorts of titles for Mary, such as “Mediatrix or Queen of All Grace” and I would agree that these are titles, albeit Catholic imposed. But “favored one” as a title? It seems your parallels just doesn’t fit.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Can’t sleep; I hate mornings like this… I keep hearing things; and can’t get my mind to stop.

Matthew 26:49 … τω ιησου ειπεν χαιρε ραββι …
Matthew 27:29 …αυτω λεγοντες χαιρε βασιλευ των ιουδαιων
Mark 15:18 . . .
John 19:3 . . .

Luke 1:28 . . .

When it is not a greeting, the Greek generally tells you that!
Prove 24:19 μη χαιρε επι (NOT rejoice) → FRET, NERVOUS, like me…
Lamen 4:21 χαιρε και

I think this is what the protestants try to use
, but note there is an “and” after Xaire, :
Lamentations 4:21 χαιρε και ευφραινου θυγατερ ιδουμαιας

Oh Heck, I can’t even think.
Th …
But look up the english anb it will meke seanse …

Maybe it will help you sleep if you realize that, in the vernacular, the angel said something to the extent of…

“Be cheerful, Mary, you have found favor in God’s eyes and are blessed to birth the Messiah.”

Pleasant dreams…
CM

 

[inkaneer]

Jerome’s translation of the Bible has been around for 1600 years. Yet the questioning of his translation of Luke 1:28 has only occurred in the last 400+ years. Why did the early church accept Jerome’s translation and not jump all over him as they did with Arius and Nastorius and Novatian and Helvidius? Why is the history of the early church completely blank regarding any dissenting opinions. Jerome had some formidable contemporaries. Ambrose was one as was Augustine. John Chrysostom was another. Yet these men who were quick to condemn heresy are completely silent. In fact the only disagreement with Jerome was his view of the deuterocanonicals books of the OT. Jerome’s view was shaped by his Jewish rabbi teachers and not by christian teachers. Augustine and Ambrose set him straight on that but both of them are completely silent on his translation of Luke 1:28. There is no dissenting opinions, no discussion or debate on the issue. No council is called to delve into this matter. There is no controversy what so ever. Jerome’s translation is accepted as being totally orthodox…

Until the so called protestant reformation. Protestantism, abandoned Oral Tradition and Church authority and adopted a new doctrine where by scripture alone was accepted as an authority. Everything to be believed was contained in scripture. All else was to be discarded. So a problem arose. How to fit this new idea into the theology of the day? Some things were seen to be contradictory. One of them was Luke 1:28 and Romans 3:23 [the famous “all have sinned…” verse] How could Mary be said to be full of Grace [gratia plena], not to mention sinless, when Romans 3:23 clearly states that all have sinned? Because of their Lutherian concept of the total depravity of man protestants took a very strict interpretation of the Greek word for 'all" [pas] in Romans 3:23 as meaning ‘each and every single one.’ An interpretation that even the KJV lexicon admits is incorrect. So the protestant total depravity of mankind concept won out and Luke 1:28 had to be reinterpreted. Never mind that this had been believed and taught by the church since its inception; never mind that Jesus said His church would be FOREVER guided into the truth by the Holy Spirit [John 14:16, Mt 16:18,19]. Protestants had a new agenda, one of their own making.

Dr. White is only the latest link in this chain of errors that date back 400+ years. His arguments are flawed because he, like all protestants, fail to take into account the biblical fact that Jesus really did establish a church with authority and that church He established on the apostles is guided by the Holy Spirit into truth. Furthermore, Dr. White habitually accepts the man made traditions of 16th century men whose very argument that the church was wrong was so anti biblical that one would need a blindfold not to see it. But habit and truth do not always go hand in hand. It is a courageous soul indeed who abandons habit when truth beckons.

 

[po18guy]

I never so much as hinted that one must agree, but isn’t this the case when it comes to certain Catholics on these forums. Often, the non-Catholic is told that an answer has been given when, apparently, one hasn’t. And then it often turns into a personal matter, such as the non-Catholic doesn’t have the “eyes to see anything.” I guess the same can be said to you. I will pray that your eyes will be open.

Where art thou Karl Keating?

CM

So, you are praying that my eyes will be opened and that I will then believe in less? That I will have faith in less than I do now? Thanks a lot?!?!?

 

[Canto]

Maybe it will help you sleep if you realize that, in the vernacular, the angel said something to the extent of…

“Be cheerful, Mary, you have found favor in God’s eyes and are blessed to birth the Messiah.”

Pleasant dreams…
CM

Chartioo according to strongs means firstly ‘to grace’
So Mary was actually being graced
The Greek shows that the action was in the past (so not at the angel’s visit)
And while some Greek mss add blessed are you among women there is no mention in the Greek of ‘to birth the messiah.’
Also the angel doesn’t say Mary, instead he says Kechartiomene for her title instead.

 

[Bengoshi]

Because sola scriptura has been defined conclusively as error. Those who hold to it start from a position of theological error. Jesus Christ did not teach it. It is a false, man-made doctrine that is traceable to one man. Period. Its main fruits are division, not unity. What’s to debate?Because it is not even taught or mentioned in the bible, that’s why.Not the purpose of this thread, but shown from a complete bible.Says who? By what authority?Again: Says who? By what authority? Really? So the bible, which tells you in several places that it is incomplete, (Luke 3:18; John 20:30, John 21:25; Acts 2:40) therefore rightly excluded the useless and frivolous teachings of Christ? That’s crazy, man! You are dancing around the elephant in the bible living room. Sola scriptura has produced a chaotic, multi-truth, relativistic theology which states that even that which is contradictory is acceptable, as long as it rejects a single, authoritative Church as founded by Christ. Why don’t we instead question the shocking level of disagreement in the Protestant world before we default to criticizing the Catholic Church? Why must the Catholic Church always be wrong, and every corner faith community with its own pope always be right?

So, those souls who are separated from their bodies are indeed separated from the love of God? Curious, indeed. You disagree with Luther. By what authority do you disagree with Luther? The bible declares that scripture is twisted by some and must not be subject to private interpretation, yet this is exactly how much Protestant thinking is formed.Catholics do not allege omniscience, you df course. However, The rich man was in torment. This is not heaven. The rich man could not return, since he was being punished, but Lazarus could. Father Abraham allowed that it could happen, but that no one would believe even if someone returned from the dead. For 1,976 years, the authoritative Church has tested miracles and decisively declared that the communion of Saints is proven.

Lastly, your arguments are full of ad hominems, (aka: revealed truth) which, instead of attacking the points raised head on, you attack the character (or credentials) of the speaker or even your interlocutor himself. It is neither the character nor the credientials, but the sand foundation of beliefs that are being questioned. When your entire theology is based on error, what else can we do? It is a disservice to the truth to consider all beliefs as equal to revealed truth. That is relativism. We might as well give equal credit to any belief found on earth. Either God’s teaching means something and is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit, or it is a conglomeration of conflicting beliefs lead by whatever spirit happens to be present. Both cannot be true.

There remains much more that unites us than separates us, but when someone comes to a Catholic forum from the default position that Catholicism is:

1. man-made
2. idol worship
3. necromantic
4. added to scripture
5. worships humans
6. blah blah blah ad nauseam…

They are going to run head-long into a stout defense of the faith. Try asking, instead of lecturing. It works better.

I can really see your hatred for SS! Gosh! That is not even the topic or issue here! Moreover, don’t chop up my reply then take them out of context. I already told you that I agree with your statement that nothing can separate us from the love of God and yet you reply with: “So, those souls who are separated from their bodies are indeed separated from the love of God? Curious, indeed. You disagree with Luther. By what authority do you disagree with Luther?” What the heck? Moreover, I just said in another reply that I have no problems agreeing with the doctrine of Immaculate Conception and Mary as the “ever virgin” if I can indeed be convinced by preponderance of evidence.

Your loose quote which states that “The bible declares that scripture is twisted by some and must not be subject to private interpretation” maybe referring to 2 Peter 1:20, which talks about how th Scriptures came to be. I’m not sure if that was the verse you were referring to, so correct me if I’m wrong. The latin rules of hermeneutics that I mentioned to you were meant to aid us in proper interpretation. They actually came from statutory construction that I just found applicable to Scripture.

SS is based on the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture which means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology p. 99) It is taught by the Bible, just check out the cited book above because again however, this is not the issue here, so lets just stick to the topic, okay?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I

SS is based on the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture which means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology p. 99) It is taught by the Bible, just check out the cited book above because again however, this is not the issue here, so lets just stick to the topic, okay?

You want to close discussion of SS only after you have the last word.

Which protestant’s definition of SS will you use? You define it the way a Catholic would define Scripture as the revealed Truth of God. But who interprets that Truth? Which protestant’s definition of SS will you use?

A good shepherd would not leave his lambs untended; the Good Shepherd left us shepherds until He comes again. Love is the foundation of the argument for Catholicism.

 

[DanB]

It is what it is. The truth is revealed in itself, because the truth is Jesus and He was born from an unblemished vessel (Tabernacle) the womb of a virgin, named Mary. This mystery requires the belief of Faith and will never be proved in a debate of semantics and lexicons. The Church believed it in the beginning and continues to believe it today and will until the end of time. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Whitey!!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It’s odd that you comment rather strongly contra White and, admittedly, made no comparison between Keating and White. Oh, well.

Yes, considering how many here are more apt to villify Dr. White than to pay attention to what is being stated (in the Greek and otherwise) and considering that nothing you said here makes sense in view of Dr. White’s article,
…
CM

Why is it odd? There was more information on the argument from Mr. White than Keeting. There wasn’t enough information in the original post for me to determine what the context of Keetings statements were.

I saw an error, and I pointed it out.

Keetings statement is in a book that I think some friends have; I’ll have to look at it. I note J.W. did agree to the superlative usage of the perfect participle; I have a bit more respect for him now; but the article as a whole is still arguing fallaciously on many points. eg: it doesn’t matter how well proved the trinity is in comparison to the immaculate conception – what has that to do with Keetings argument? Further, Seeing a bit more of the context Keetings statements; I am not sure he was trying to prove the item he is discussing; He was voicing an opinion, regardless.

The Link you point out, is not really about Keeting-- it’s about a different apologist, with only a side snippet of Keeting.

I disagree with a few things the other Catholic apologist said; as they were imprecise.
But the same is true with J.W.; I don’t see a better argument here – what I see is a critique using cut and past of small section – with similar flaws in the argumentation to those he is trying to refute.

I do not think Keetings explanation, in that snippet, was very clear as to Why he thought what he did; but Keeting also isn’t official church teaching which J.W. seems to want to pin on him. You can search my back posts, and I have a viewpoint – but I don’t accept even bad argumentation on the Catholic side; There is no special alliance here – just that Keeting and I believe in the same doctrine; Reductionist views of scripture tend to strip all beliefs of any value, because many things are assumed in each persons belief system. It boils down to – my ideas are more plausible than yours – and tommorrow I may find something that changes someones mind.

I had a discussion with emotouk that might prime you on my general line of thinking in the posts ahead. It will give you a chance to think about what might be a convincing argument or not to me.

I didn’t sleep last night – and it had nothing to do with this thread. I do think, however, that you need to look up the passages I cited in Greek.
There is not a single example of the word Xire in a very large selection of Greek material that is followed by a noun/participle which is not a title.

Rabbi is a title.
King is a title.
Caeser is a title (even when spelled phonetically in Greek…)
etc.

Essentially, all examples are either not in the vocative (eg: the infinitive is common), they are modified by another verb and are therfore adverbial and not a greeting; or they are grouped in such a way as not to be next to a word which would be ambiguous. Greek writers made sure that the reader knew the way the word was meant.

I will also cite you, yourself, who even in the attempted translation put the word Mary in there; and all I have been arguing is that the word is either a name change, or it is a title.

Mary is spelled Micron alpha rho iota alpha (Maria). That word is not in Luke 1:28; in it’s stead is ke-charito-men-H.

Do you have a clear counter example of Jewish writing where this is violated??? Good luck; being obsessive compulsive when I get something stuck in my head – I will spend hours trying to do anything but think about it – and last night I checked a huge selection of Koine to stop from thinking about what was really bothering me.

That’s not proof, but I am pretty confident in the accuracy of my statement statistically.

Peace.

 

[Churchmouse]

Jerome’s translation of the Bible has been around for 1600 years. Yet the questioning of his translation of Luke 1:28 has only occurred in the last 400+ years. Why did the early church accept Jerome’s translation and not jump all over him as they did with Arius and Nastorius and Novatian and Helvidius? Why is the history of the early church completely blank regarding any dissenting opinions. Jerome had some formidable contemporaries. Ambrose was one as was Augustine. John Chrysostom was another. Yet these men who were quick to condemn heresy are completely silent. In fact the only disagreement with Jerome was his view of the deuterocanonicals books of the OT. Jerome’s view was shaped by his Jewish rabbi teachers and not by christian teachers. Augustine and Ambrose set him straight on that but both of them are completely silent on his translation of Luke 1:28. There is no dissenting opinions, no discussion or debate on the issue. No council is called to delve into this matter. There is no controversy what so ever. Jerome’s translation is accepted as being totally orthodox…

Until the so called protestant reformation. Protestantism, abandoned Oral Tradition and Church authority and adopted a new doctrine where by scripture alone was accepted as an authority. Everything to be believed was contained in scripture. All else was to be discarded. So a problem arose. How to fit this new idea into the theology of the day? Some things were seen to be contradictory. One of them was Luke 1:28 and Romans 3:23 [the famous “all have sinned…” verse] How could Mary be said to be full of Grace [gratia plena], not to mention sinless, when Romans 3:23 clearly states that all have sinned? Because of their Lutherian concept of the total depravity of man protestants took a very strict interpretation of the Greek word for 'all" [pas] in Romans 3:23 as meaning ‘each and every single one.’ An interpretation that even the KJV lexicon admits is incorrect. So the protestant total depravity of mankind concept won out and Luke 1:28 had to be reinterpreted. Never mind that this had been believed and taught by the church since its inception; never mind that Jesus said His church would be FOREVER guided into the truth by the Holy Spirit [John 14:16, Mt 16:18,19]. Protestants had a new agenda, one of their own making.

Dr. White is only the latest link in this chain of errors that date back 400+ years. His arguments are flawed because he, like all protestants, fail to take into account the biblical fact that Jesus really did establish a church with authority and that church He established on the apostles is guided by the Holy Spirit into truth. Furthermore, Dr. White habitually accepts the man made traditions of 16th century men whose very argument that the church was wrong was so anti biblical that one would need a blindfold not to see it. But habit and truth do not always go hand in hand. It is a courageous soul indeed who abandons habit when truth beckons.

You I’m not talking to. You are repeating yourself and you used Babelfish to translate Koine Greek. Add to this the fact that you wander off into other issues and, well, I just don’t have the time to deal with these types of dialogues.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

So, you are praying that my eyes will be opened and that I will then believe in less? That I will have faith in less than I do now? Thanks a lot?!?!?

You seem to think that your call to prayer is justified while mine is not. As I said, I have and will pray for you.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Chartioo according to strongs means firstly ‘to grace’
So Mary was actually being graced
The Greek shows that the action was in the past (so not at the angel’s visit)
And while some Greek mss add blessed are you among women there is no mention in the Greek of ‘to birth the messiah.’
Also the angel doesn’t say Mary, instead he says Kechartiomene for her title instead.

Okay, we’ll do it your way…

“Be cheerful, Mary, you have been graced in God’s eyes and are blessed to birth the Messiah.”

Being graced does not imply that it happened before she was born.

“To birth the Messiah” was meant to be the essence of the angel’s visit.

“Mary” was meant to bring out the subject in my sentence (instead of Phoebe, Leticia, Janice, etc., etc, etc.). So, back to the point, and in your structure…

“Be cheerful, Mary, favored one, you have been graced in God’s eyes and are blessed to birth the Messiah.”

There is no other reason to believe anything distinctive to Catholicism.

CM