C
- Status
I
inkaneer
Guest
I
inkaneer
Guest
The real reason you don’t want to talk to me is because you don’t have an answer. I never used Babelfish to translate Koine Greek into English. I used it to prove that the word used in the Textus Receptus was indeed kecharitomeni as Catholics claim and not charitoo as the protestants allege. I even showed that the translators of the KJV pourposely changed the word from kecharitomeni to charitoo. These other issues, as you call them were included in my post to show why the protestants changed the word and the meaning from the TR to the KJV. Apparently I upset your apple cart in the process so now you are going to shun me. So be it. But remember it is you who cling to a failed belief system, not I.
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
When Gabriel appears to Mary, the first words he says to her are “Chaire, kecharitomene!” Caire, kecaritomene!]. Chaire (which means both “rejoice” and “hail”) The word that follows, kecharitomene, is the direct address to the person(Mary in this case).
A direct address is usually a name or title (or pronoun taking the place of a name or title) which represents the identity of the person being spoken to. Gabriel identifies Mary with a single term: not the name “Mary,” but the word kecharitomene.
Here, a common translation problem occurs. Gabriel only uses one word to refer to Mary, but most English translations do not. One particularly bad translation renders kecharitomene as “highly favored daughter.” Kecharitomene is extended from one word to three. The direct address in the translation is “daughter,” a word which does not appear in the Greek at all (as will be shown below). “Daughter” is then modified with a relevant word. This doesn’t really do kecharitomene justice. The same is true of translations which make the direct address “you” or “one” and modify it with adjectives or appositive phrases.
caritow
The root word is charitoo caritow], which means “to grace, favor.” On this much, it seems, all agree. All the common English translations of the word therefore, regardless of whether the translators are Catholic or Protestant, use some form of “grace” or “favor” in them.
ke
Gabriel is viewing the finished results. This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be “you are certified to teach.” “Are” indicates a present state, “certified” shows that the state is the result of a completed past action. If as some say it refers to the fact that Mary was highly favoured just for the fact that she had been chosen to the mother of the Messiah, it could not be said to be a completed past action, yes God choicing Mary for this role could be said to be in the past tense, but the action could not to be said to be completed until Mary had said “Let it be done according to your will”
mene
The suffix on charitoo, mene, makes this a passive participle. “Passive” means that the action is performed on the subject, in this case Mary, by another agent, The verb is “grace” and the implied subject is Mary. The passive usage means that “someone graced Mary,” rather than “Mary graced.”
Brian
P
PhilVaz
Guest
OK, since this thread remains alive for a few days, I will post what Calvinst/Reformed (at the time) Max Thurian says of Luke 1:28
=============================
CHAPTER 2 – Full of Grace
The similarity between the prophecy of Zephaniah (3:14) and the angel’s announcement to Mary, turns the past participle passage, ‘filled with grace,’ into a kind of title: ‘Hail thou…daughter…’ — ‘Hail thou, full of grace!’
Mary, the daughter of Zion, receives from the angel a new kind of name which characterizes both her vocation and her purpose. The Hebrew text, at the outset of the account, contained quite recognizably an alliteration which the Greek has rendered very well: ‘Ranni muchanah’ or ‘Ranni chaninah.’
And the Greek text translates with the same kind of sound: ‘Chaire kecharitomene.’ i.e. ‘Hail thou, full of grace.’
If one wanted to render this into English with comparable alliteration one could do so in this way viz. ‘Exult, thou that art exalted in grace!’
This phrase ‘full of grace’ represents quite clearly a definite title which, because of its alliterative similarity to the messianic salutation which precedes it, emphasizes that the reason for Mary’s joy is to be that very grace of God of which she is to be the quite especial object. If Mary is greeted by the messianic form (Chaire), it is because she is the ‘Incarnation’ of the very Daughter of Zion and she receives therefore a peculiar title (Kecharitomene) which indicates the especial grace with which God has endued her.
Mary is the one ‘Filled-with-grace’ and she may well rejoice at the joy proclaimed by the prophets to her who should become the Mother of the Messiah, that Daughter of Zion, the symbol of the people who wait for their God, which the Virgin has become by pure grace.
This title which is given her is unique. The verb ‘charitoun’ from which the perfect participle is taken for this title of Mary, is only found in one place in the New Testament (Eph 1:6). The phrase is therefore quite exceptional. It is worth noting that all the Greek denominative verbs in ‘oo’ have always this sense of fullness or abundance: ‘haimatoo’ – to stain with blood, ‘thaumoastoo’ – to fill with wonder, ‘spodoo’ to cover with ashes, are but a few examples.
It is this same sense of abundance which we find in this single text in the New Testament, apart from the story of the Annunciation where the verb ‘charitoun’ is used…
Mary, thus receiving the title of ‘full-of-grace’ is at the same time placed in a privileged relationship of sharing in this fullness of grace which is found in the Beloved, and united with all Christians who can also find in Christ this same fullness. However, Mary receive this state as a title: that is to say, she becomes as it were a living and sure sign of this fullness of grace which has its origin only in Christ Himself.
=============================
Max Thurian – Mary, Mother of All Christians (Herder, 1963)
I take this Calvinist scholar over White any day. At the time he wrote this he was considered one of the top Protestant theologians in the world, and was invited to sit in on Vatican Council II. Catholic biblical scholar Fr. Raymond Brown called his book on Mary “not only the best Protestant evaluation of the Mariological question, but far better than many Catholic treatments” (see Brown, Gospel of John [Anchor Bible, 1969], page 107).
Hint: Thurian became a Catholic I think in the 1980s.
Phil P
=============================
CHAPTER 2 – Full of Grace
The similarity between the prophecy of Zephaniah (3:14) and the angel’s announcement to Mary, turns the past participle passage, ‘filled with grace,’ into a kind of title: ‘Hail thou…daughter…’ — ‘Hail thou, full of grace!’
Mary, the daughter of Zion, receives from the angel a new kind of name which characterizes both her vocation and her purpose. The Hebrew text, at the outset of the account, contained quite recognizably an alliteration which the Greek has rendered very well: ‘Ranni muchanah’ or ‘Ranni chaninah.’
And the Greek text translates with the same kind of sound: ‘Chaire kecharitomene.’ i.e. ‘Hail thou, full of grace.’
If one wanted to render this into English with comparable alliteration one could do so in this way viz. ‘Exult, thou that art exalted in grace!’
This phrase ‘full of grace’ represents quite clearly a definite title which, because of its alliterative similarity to the messianic salutation which precedes it, emphasizes that the reason for Mary’s joy is to be that very grace of God of which she is to be the quite especial object. If Mary is greeted by the messianic form (Chaire), it is because she is the ‘Incarnation’ of the very Daughter of Zion and she receives therefore a peculiar title (Kecharitomene) which indicates the especial grace with which God has endued her.
Mary is the one ‘Filled-with-grace’ and she may well rejoice at the joy proclaimed by the prophets to her who should become the Mother of the Messiah, that Daughter of Zion, the symbol of the people who wait for their God, which the Virgin has become by pure grace.
This title which is given her is unique. The verb ‘charitoun’ from which the perfect participle is taken for this title of Mary, is only found in one place in the New Testament (Eph 1:6). The phrase is therefore quite exceptional. It is worth noting that all the Greek denominative verbs in ‘oo’ have always this sense of fullness or abundance: ‘haimatoo’ – to stain with blood, ‘thaumoastoo’ – to fill with wonder, ‘spodoo’ to cover with ashes, are but a few examples.
It is this same sense of abundance which we find in this single text in the New Testament, apart from the story of the Annunciation where the verb ‘charitoun’ is used…
Mary, thus receiving the title of ‘full-of-grace’ is at the same time placed in a privileged relationship of sharing in this fullness of grace which is found in the Beloved, and united with all Christians who can also find in Christ this same fullness. However, Mary receive this state as a title: that is to say, she becomes as it were a living and sure sign of this fullness of grace which has its origin only in Christ Himself.
=============================
Max Thurian – Mary, Mother of All Christians (Herder, 1963)
I take this Calvinist scholar over White any day. At the time he wrote this he was considered one of the top Protestant theologians in the world, and was invited to sit in on Vatican Council II. Catholic biblical scholar Fr. Raymond Brown called his book on Mary “not only the best Protestant evaluation of the Mariological question, but far better than many Catholic treatments” (see Brown, Gospel of John [Anchor Bible, 1969], page 107).
Hint: Thurian became a Catholic I think in the 1980s.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
So we have Calvinist/Reformed scholar Max Thurian to blame for calling “Kecharitomene” a title for Mary (he does so many times in that above chapter), and the Keating argument about “Full of Grace” (contra James White) is found in Ludwig Ott:
Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”)
The expression (Greek kecharitomene) in the angel’s salutation, represents a proper name, and must on this account express a characteristic quality of Mary. The principal reason why the pleasure of God rests in special fashion on her is her election to the dignity of the Mother of God (Theotokos). Accordingly, Mary’s endowment with grace proceeding from God’s pleasure must also be of unique perfect. However, it is perfect only if it be perfect not only intensively but also extensively, that is, if it extends over her whole life, beginning with her entry into the world.
From Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 200
Phil P
Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”)
The expression (Greek kecharitomene) in the angel’s salutation, represents a proper name, and must on this account express a characteristic quality of Mary. The principal reason why the pleasure of God rests in special fashion on her is her election to the dignity of the Mother of God (Theotokos). Accordingly, Mary’s endowment with grace proceeding from God’s pleasure must also be of unique perfect. However, it is perfect only if it be perfect not only intensively but also extensively, that is, if it extends over her whole life, beginning with her entry into the world.
From Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 200
Phil P
C
Canto
Guest
The Greek shows Mary was graced in the past before the announciation.
Did God just wake up one day and think 'hmmmm I ‘spose I should grace Mary’
Logically her conception seems to be the time (supported by Sacred Tradition).
In the scriptures we see of God forming us in the womb, knowing us before we are even born etc, etc
If Mary was graced at her conception and the Bible/Tradition doesn’t tell us that she lost that grace, then for her whole existance God’s grace was with her.
Romans 6:14 tells us that with grace, sin will not have dominion over us.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Phil, bud, friend! That is great !!
I expect JW won’t accept that, and it isn’t church teaching per se, either. But it does explain why Mr. Keeting might have used it. Since Ott is a researcher and compiler of Dogmatic statments, (and opinions), do you know if this is his take on it – or does he cite another source from which he comes to that conclusion?
Also, Max thurian, – this is a snapshot of his work, and perhaps he didn’t notice the alliterative responce of “daughter Zion” is actually not as close as the statement he quite in Ephes 1:6
Ephes 1:6 εις επαιν-ον δοξ-ης της χαριτ-ος αυτ-ου ης ε-χαριτω-σε-ν ημας εν τω η-γαπη-μεν-ω.
The similarity here is even closer than the coincidental alliteration he mentions with daughter Zion. The first is used as a noun, from whence comes charity (love).
The second is an Aorist form 3rdPersonSingular, I think.
Notice: St Paul uses the idea of the highest love in a sequence with both the noun verb, and finally the participle of the closest word in Greek.
xarit-os → e-xaritw-se-n → AgapH.
In Hebrew idiom & LXX texts the use of favor in one’s sight is an expression of love of a pure kind; James White quotes perfect participles which show the close connection of being called loved BY God and salvation in Paul’s mind – yet he totally misses the link Paul makes here!?! Wow.
The sequence leads directly to the blood of Christ; exactly as I was mentioning with respect to the beloved and elect. The only difference is that of mary, the Favor/love is her tilte and already present at the time the angel speaks to her.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
HT << Phil, bud, friend! That is great !! I expect JW won’t accept that, and it isn’t church teaching per se, either. But it does explain why Mr. Keating might have used it. Since Ott is a researcher and compiler of Dogmatic statments, (and opinions), do you know if this is his take on it – or does he cite another source from which he comes to that conclusion? >>
It is a direct quote from Ludwig Ott. So Keating got the “perfection of grace” and “perfected both intensively and extensively” back to her conception from Ott. Keating is spelled with an A.
HT << Also, Max thurian, – this is a snapshot of his work, and perhaps he didn’t notice the alliterative responce of “daughter Zion” is actually not as close as the statement he quote in Ephes 1:6 >>
Luke 1:28 and the various Marian “types” is a start, a seed for the doctrine. When one studies the entire history of the development of Marian doctrine, it becomes clear why the Church made the Immaculate Conception a dogma. Thurian’s book is great, appealing mainly to the biblical Greek/Hebrew, and Marian types of the Old Testament with chapter titles as: “Daughter of Zion,” “Full of Grace,” “Poor Virgin,” “Dwelling of God,” Handmaid in the Faith," “Mother of the Lord,” etc.
Thurian also quotes prominent statements of the original Protestant Reformers on Mary: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger (Cranmer’s brother-in-law, Zwingli’s successor), Charles Drelincourt (Reformed 17th century), etc.
“In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary’s holiness and perpetual virginity. Whatever the theological position which we may hold today, in regard to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary it is right to know, perhaps to our great surprise, that these two Catholic dogmas were accepted by certain Reformers, not of course in their present form but certainly in the form that was current in their day.” (Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of All Christians, page 197)
I do not see why anyone who respects the original Protestants and studies the historical Church and the Fathers (e.g. Mary and the Fathers of the Church by Gambero) would have any problem with these Marian doctrines. And that goes for “Churchmouse” and any other “James White” defenders in this thread.
Phil P
It is a direct quote from Ludwig Ott. So Keating got the “perfection of grace” and “perfected both intensively and extensively” back to her conception from Ott. Keating is spelled with an A.
HT << Also, Max thurian, – this is a snapshot of his work, and perhaps he didn’t notice the alliterative responce of “daughter Zion” is actually not as close as the statement he quote in Ephes 1:6 >>
Luke 1:28 and the various Marian “types” is a start, a seed for the doctrine. When one studies the entire history of the development of Marian doctrine, it becomes clear why the Church made the Immaculate Conception a dogma. Thurian’s book is great, appealing mainly to the biblical Greek/Hebrew, and Marian types of the Old Testament with chapter titles as: “Daughter of Zion,” “Full of Grace,” “Poor Virgin,” “Dwelling of God,” Handmaid in the Faith," “Mother of the Lord,” etc.
Thurian also quotes prominent statements of the original Protestant Reformers on Mary: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger (Cranmer’s brother-in-law, Zwingli’s successor), Charles Drelincourt (Reformed 17th century), etc.
“In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary’s holiness and perpetual virginity. Whatever the theological position which we may hold today, in regard to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary it is right to know, perhaps to our great surprise, that these two Catholic dogmas were accepted by certain Reformers, not of course in their present form but certainly in the form that was current in their day.” (Max Thurian, Mary: Mother of All Christians, page 197)
I do not see why anyone who respects the original Protestants and studies the historical Church and the Fathers (e.g. Mary and the Fathers of the Church by Gambero) would have any problem with these Marian doctrines. And that goes for “Churchmouse” and any other “James White” defenders in this thread.
Phil P
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Well! I did that rather consistently through the whole thread and never noticed.
My apologies to Mr. Keating; I didn’t mean to slur his name in preference to Mr. Whites! It would appear that I am an equal opportunity offender.
Mea culpa, mea culpa (sp?)
I do not see why anyone who respects the original Protestants and studies the historical Church and the Fathers (e.g. Mary and the Fathers of the Church by Gambero) would have any problem with these Marian doctrines. And that goes for “Churchmouse” and any other “James White” defenders in this thread.
Well, the usual response I get from TUIP people is that they don’t respect anyone; they only respect the bible. The so called 4 points had nothing to do with Calvin, Luther, et. all … Now, I don’t know – but I suspect that tuLIP service is paid to the founders when convenient. I suppose that puts me in a non-hypocritical position (at least) as far as this “odd” alliance CM seems to want to pin on me… and the official mouth of the “Roman” church that White wants to wash Mr. KeAting with.
Today is August 7th. It has now been exactly one year since my wife asked me for her right – and we conceived my only daughter. I have 5 boys and one baby girl – Marygrace (one word) though SocialSec made it TWO anyway. Today is also my wedding anniversary, and the day my first son was baptized; so today I am going to spend as his birthday, the fire of my heart from ~15 years ago.
Half the OCD thoughts I have been fearing will be over today; If I can survive it without an ulcer … next week will be a bit better. If you have a moment, say a prayer that My wife is merciful and doesn’t ask too much of me.
Love and Prayers,
–Andrew.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Now, that’s two unbiased opinions
Phil Vaz forgets that Max Thurian, an ecumenist, for all practical purposes, was essentially Catholic for decades, regardless of his upbringing. He converted to Roman Catholicism in 1988 and became a priest. Neither of these sources take away from White’s argument.CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
You DON’T use Babelfish to translate Koine Greek. You aren’t proving anything by using it.
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
No, I’m not dialoguing with you because you took away any chance of taking you serious when you used Babelfish to translate Koine Greek. It don’t want to waste my time.
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Considering that there are those here who continue to beat a dead horse on the issue of “kecharitomene”, including those who don’t seem to understand what White is pointing out in his article and would rather villify or play on words with the Greek, I submit this LINK (hopefully it will remain considering White is an integral part of the arguments here) which, again, adds to White’s already very valid argument. Pay careful attention to what is being said and the citations given by men, such as Ott. Playing on the perfect passive participle (kecharitomene) and then leading it through hoops, is not an argument, especially in light of a vocative participle and no main verb. Kecharitomene does not give any evidence for Mary’s alleged sinlessness.
CM
CM
C
Canto
Guest
Chartoo means that God (v.30) graced Mary
The Greek shows she was graced in the past
So in your opinion when was the most likley time in the past that Mary was graced
C
Canto
Guest
vintage.aomin.org/In_sententius.html
No place on White’s website to post (unlike Keating’s CA) so here goes.
Paragraph 1: What is White insinuating here?
Para 2: In White’s humble opinion.
Para 3: Anti-biblical – with what authority does he make these claims. The Church is the foundation of truth – that’s the Bible talking there
Para 4: Point being…
Para 5: So Mr White pertains to know what Mary would desire? Mr White, Mary is NEVER placed in competition with Christ, let me repeat Mr White NEVER (excuse caps).
Para 6: “we would not wish to put Mary in the same category as aborted children and those born with mental problems” White admits that the Bible doesn’t prove Mary sinned, but he says it doesn’t need too 
“Pat Madrid is forced to utilize “interpretive methods”” of course White never does this, does he?
Para 7-9: point being – not everything is explicitly in the Bible – so? If something doesn’t have 20 zillion explicit verses does that somehow make it less true? Of course not. As for being the entirety, Madrid focuses specifically though briefly on parts of Luke ch1.
Para 10-11: In White’s opinion.
Para 12-14: On Greek grammatical grounds what Keating says is perfectly allowable. Charitoo = God’s grace says White – and sin and grace are opposed remember. Mr White no one has alleged that Chartioo means sinlessness so Eph 1:6 won’t cut it. Echaritosen and Kecharitomene are two different words. White says we have a Vocative (a title) participle. If it’s simply a greeting why does Mary wonder “what this greeting could be.” Btw what’s with all the Mormon stuff, what is White insinuating? White also takes a dig at the Church. As for the perfect, it was addressed well by DMAR198.
More personal opinions follow.
Para 18-19: “I don’t see Mary foreshadowed in creation, do you?” Yes I do Mr White, no doubt you have read the first Chapter of John’s Gospel. monkallover.blogspot.com/2006_12_03_archive.html
Mary the New Eve: home.inreach.com/bstanley/eve.htm
Para 20-22: Direct evidence says Mr White. How about when St James says that we are not justified by faith alone. Seems to be direct evidence that we are not justified by faith alone. As for Gen 3:15 if the Woman is Mary and the seed is Christ then is there partial enmity or full enmity between them and Satan.
Para 23-26 Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Is the ark not immaculate Mr White? Is White arguing that OT types have to mirror the NT 100%? Mr White: the Bible is also silent on the canon of the Bible. At the Council of Rome in 382 AD Pope Damascus decreed the canon – 27 NT books and 46 OT books. White seems to forget that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Error cannot be bound in heaven.
Para 27: :“We are forced to wonder again as to how Mr. Madrid is defining the phrase “early Christians.” If we take “early” to mean “prior to the year 400,” we find that he has no basis for his statements.” says White. Oh really…
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).
Para 27: Official teaching for 150 years says White. Straw man. The Bible canon came in 382 AD.
“Given the results of our review, it seems clear that Pat Madrid’s “examination” of the “biblical evidence” for the doctrine with the Calvary Chapel pastor took a very short period of time.” says White. Maybe the Pastor or Madrid was pressed for time so Madrid gave the gist.
No place on White’s website to post (unlike Keating’s CA) so here goes.
Paragraph 1: What is White insinuating here?
Para 2: In White’s humble opinion.
Para 3: Anti-biblical – with what authority does he make these claims. The Church is the foundation of truth – that’s the Bible talking there
Para 4: Point being…
Para 5: So Mr White pertains to know what Mary would desire? Mr White, Mary is NEVER placed in competition with Christ, let me repeat Mr White NEVER (excuse caps).
Para 6: “we would not wish to put Mary in the same category as aborted children and those born with mental problems”
White admits that the Bible doesn’t prove Mary sinned, but he says it doesn’t need too “Pat Madrid is forced to utilize “interpretive methods”” of course White never does this, does he?Para 7-9: point being – not everything is explicitly in the Bible – so? If something doesn’t have 20 zillion explicit verses does that somehow make it less true? Of course not. As for being the entirety, Madrid focuses specifically though briefly on parts of Luke ch1.
Para 10-11: In White’s opinion.
Para 12-14: On Greek grammatical grounds what Keating says is perfectly allowable. Charitoo = God’s grace says White – and sin and grace are opposed remember. Mr White no one has alleged that Chartioo means sinlessness so Eph 1:6 won’t cut it. Echaritosen and Kecharitomene are two different words. White says we have a Vocative (a title) participle. If it’s simply a greeting why does Mary wonder “what this greeting could be.” Btw what’s with all the Mormon stuff, what is White insinuating? White also takes a dig at the Church. As for the perfect, it was addressed well by DMAR198.
Para 15-17: Luke 1:42 – a slight of hand trick alleges White. White criticises Madrid for saying Mary is the holiest of all women. White admits the phrase means something like “you are most blessed of all women.” Surely the most blessed would be the most holiest
More personal opinions follow.Para 18-19: “I don’t see Mary foreshadowed in creation, do you?” Yes I do Mr White, no doubt you have read the first Chapter of John’s Gospel. monkallover.blogspot.com/2006_12_03_archive.html
Mary the New Eve: home.inreach.com/bstanley/eve.htm
Para 20-22: Direct evidence says Mr White. How about when St James says that we are not justified by faith alone. Seems to be direct evidence that we are not justified by faith alone. As for Gen 3:15 if the Woman is Mary and the seed is Christ then is there partial enmity or full enmity between them and Satan.
Para 23-26 Mary is the ark of the new covenant. Is the ark not immaculate Mr White? Is White arguing that OT types have to mirror the NT 100%? Mr White: the Bible is also silent on the canon of the Bible. At the Council of Rome in 382 AD Pope Damascus decreed the canon – 27 NT books and 46 OT books. White seems to forget that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. Error cannot be bound in heaven.
Para 27: :“We are forced to wonder again as to how Mr. Madrid is defining the phrase “early Christians.” If we take “early” to mean “prior to the year 400,” we find that he has no basis for his statements.” says White. Oh really…
“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.” Hippolytus, Orations Inillud, Dominus pascit me (ante A.D. 235).
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.” Origen, Homily 1(A.D. 244).
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.” Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8 (A.D. 370).
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.” Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, 71:216 (ante AD 373).
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.” Ambrose, Sermon 22:30 (A.D. 388).
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace,4 2[36] (A.D.415).
Para 27: Official teaching for 150 years says White. Straw man. The Bible canon came in 382 AD.
“Given the results of our review, it seems clear that Pat Madrid’s “examination” of the “biblical evidence” for the doctrine with the Calvary Chapel pastor took a very short period of time.” says White. Maybe the Pastor or Madrid was pressed for time so Madrid gave the gist.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Churchmouse, I don’t buy an argument about Greek because someone quotes a “rule” from who knows what source, with whatever bias, etc.
If J.W. has a point in the Greek – he needs to show UNAMBIGUOUSLY why his rule holds – eg: examples. This is the reason I don’t accept his argument; If it were me stating the “rule” everyone would have a right to ask me to back it up with PROPER evidence.
Since you are speaking for the part of J.W. That means YOU need to produce evidence which at least supports the grammar rule that is cited, not ones which show a superlative use of the word as J.W. has done.
With respect to the highlighted portion:
Even in sentences with a main verb of a different tense than the perfect participle, the tense of that participle has a meaning. Never does J.W. in his argument state that his rule applies in the case where there is no main verb; nor does he show an example. It’s a rabbit out of a hat trick.
Look, I’ll take a harder example – a perfect participle that has a verb of a* different* tense – and ask you to apply J.W.'s rule to it. And I’ll argue the contrary to make a simple point.
KJV
Matth 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
Matth 10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
Matth 10:26 μη ουν φοβηθητε αυτους ουδεν γαρ εστιν κε-καλυμ-μεν-ον ο ουκ αποκαλυφθησεται και κρυπτον ο ου γνωσθησεται
The orange word is a perfect participle, just like ke_Charito_Men_E
The feminine ending has been replaced by a masculine ending in this example, but otherwise it is exactly the same part of speech.
As a perfect past participle, it is either a noun or adjective kind of idea.
In this sentence it modified by “the” eg:“ο”
“The[things] having-been-(perfectly)-hidden” will be exposed.
The active verb in the sentence happens to be: IS (Present tense, not past).
Or even Future with respect to the uncovering.
But in order for the sentence to make any sense at all, it must be that the item is hidden in the past with respect to some “present” (possibly continuing) moment. – and the hiding is still important (ongoing importance).
This should be obvious: Because one can’t uncover what ISN’T yet covered, and there would be no point – for everyone would see it until it was successfully covered. And secondly, Jesus isn’t saying that the Pharisees will never succeed in lying to someone and hiding the truth for a time – Just that their’ perfect hiding will be undone by him in the future. There is a judgment day.
So: the past participle is linked to whatever present one thinks of in this sentence – but it still carries the idea of a perfectly hidden thing which must have been in the past with respect to any hypothetical present.
Now, since this is true when the tenses DISAGREE, how can J.W. possibly show that when a perfect participle has NO COMPETITION from a different verb, that it doesn’t mean what it says!
I mean, there are “present participles” which could be used if they meant the present is when the hiding happens… there is no need to use a Past Perfect.
Give a clear example of what J.W. is really saying – his argument is NO better than K.K.'s in my eyes.
Oh yeah!
Hail King of the Jews is a title.
Hail Rabbi or (PEACE) rabbi or (REJOICE) rabbi from the lips of Judas is a flattering title to greet the Lord with in the garden Betrayal.
I am still waiting for any example from you that it is even possible that kecharitomenH is NOT a title with respect to Mary.
You want us to see who has the better argument between the two: J.W. and K.K.
So far, I see that Karl has a supporting (although not definitive) argument – but J.W. needs to raise the bar.
Since the superlative is one use of the past perfect – it CAN mean SHE-who-has-been-graced-the-MOST. eg: Among women. Therefore Keeting’s argument is potentially correct. For if there was a woman who was graced LONGER than Mary, she would not truly be the most graced among women temporally.
Again, I am not saying she must be according to that word ALONE – but I am saying the argument is reasonable and supporting.
Since you are claiming J.W. has a better argument, then it must be better than potentially correct – that is to say, you must show his is more plausible than OTT’s which Keating
used;Please show examples as I am doing and explain the meaning of J.W.'s statements.
As I said, I am willing to study this a bit. I think for myself, and I CHECK what people say.
peace; and I look forward to some clear examples.
I
inkaneer
Guest
But you are wrong. I only used Babelfish to change the word from Greek caharacters to english charaters. It’s the same word. You are using this as a pretext because you were proved wrong and you are too stubborn to admit it. But you still have the problem of explaining why the protestant translaters of the KJV changed scripture. The ramifications of this that you cannot claim that any protestant bible is inerrant because they all contain at the very least this one error. They contain more errors than that but that’s another subject.
P
PaulBaylis
Guest
This is not the first discussion that goes nowhere because of the heresy of sola scriptura. Let us repeat, and you accept, that we are not required to rely on the bible, at least for matters not directly related to salvation. That is the domain of tradition and revelation. Over the millenia, we have come to affirm certain truths through relevations to the Church Fathers and numerous saints and mystics.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.
Our Lady of Lourdes to Saint Bernadette Subirous: “I am The Immaculate Conception.”
- Status