Marian dogma

[steve_b]

No, it does not mean that it is permanent, either in Greek or in biblical Greek. This is quite obvious even with examples of exactly the same form of the perfect from exactly the same work:

Luk 11:21 οταν ο ισχυρος καθωπλισμενος φυλασση την εαυτου αυλην εν ειρηνη εστιν τα υπαρχοντα αυτου
Luk 11:22 επαν δε ο ισχυροτερος αυτου επελθων νικηση αυτον την πανοπλιαν αυτου αιρει εφ η επεποιθει και τα σκυλα αυτου διαδιδωσιν

The state identified by καθωπλισμενος in v.21 is overturned in v.22.

Luk 12:2 ουδεν δε συγκεκαλυμμενον εστιν ο ουκ αποκαλυφθησεται και κρυπτον ο ου γνωσθησεται

The state identified by συγκεκαλυμμενον is overturned by the next verb.

Luk 19:30 ειπων υπαγετε εις την κατεναντι κωμην εν η εισπορευομενοι ευρησετε πωλον δεδεμενον εφ ον ουδεις πωποτε ανθρωπων εκαθισεν λυσαντες αυτον αγαγετε

The state identified by δεδεμενον is overturned in the same verse.

They are all perfect, not permanent. The Greek perfect, like the English perfect, refers to a state in existence at the narrative moment (the story’s “now” time) as a result of an action or event before that time. It does not say anything at all about what happens thereafter. It does not make the state permanent.

Does that mean that the state of grace expressed in κεχαριτωμενη is temporary? No. In other locations in Luke, in other parts of biblical Greek, and in other Greek texts, perfects are used for states which do not get overturned. Any idea of permanence has to come from somewhere other than that word, which simply fails to address that concept.

This is fairly accurate for the Greek, but inaccurate for the English.

In English, completed past action is represented by the past simple, “I did it.” In contrast, the perfect form, “I had done it”, “I have done it”, “I will have done it”, etc, expresses a state in one time created by an action or event at a previous time. The only continuation necessitated in either language is from the pre-narrative time to the narrative time, not thereafter.

The Angel Gabriel addresses Mary as “full of grace”. That’s who she is. And Gabriel recognizes that.

κεχαριτωμένη = perfect passive participle. Only used once in scripture. That’s for Mary

In Greek : ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inter-tense.htm

Perfect Tense
the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.

Passive voice ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#INDICATIVE

Grammatical voice indicates whether the subject is the performer of the action of the verb (active voice), or the subject is the recipient of the action (passive voice). If the subject of the sentence is being acted upon, then the verb is referred to as being in the passive voice.

 

[Mystophilus]

κεχαριτωμένη = perfect passive participle. Only used once in scripture. That’s for Mary.

The perfect passive participle of *that particular verb *is only used once in Scripture. In fact, I have yet to see it in any other text. Perfect passive participles of *other *verbs *are *used in Scripture; it is not a rare form.

In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence.

Yes, for a present perfect, the results are now in existence, with no reference to their possible existence at any *later *date. For a past perfect, the results were then in existence, with no reference to their possible existence at any *later *date. For a future perfect (which I think might not actually show up in Scripture), the results will then be in existence, with no reference to their possible existence at any *later *date. So, to repeat, the Greek perfect, like the English perfect, refers to a state in existence at the narrative moment (the story’s “now” time) as a result of an action or event before that time, and so its continuation is only explicit *until *that narrative moment.

Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action

**No. ** “I have lived here for about ten years” does **not **mean that my living here is complete. This is a fairly common mistake about English grammar, made especially by people who transfer the idea from Latin grammar, in which the perfect does refer to a completed past action.

In English, completed past action is shown by the past simple: “I lived here for about ten years”.

The perfect forms instead express the connection between the narrative moment and a prior activity or event: “He had done it when I arrived”, “He has done it”, “He will have done it when I arrive”. There is a good, simple explanation of it here.

While there are differences between the English and Greek verb systems (particularly around the continuous aspect and the middle voice), none of those affects κεχαριτωμενη, which is very simply a perfect passive participle.

 

[steve_b]

The perfect passive participle of *that particular verb *is only used once in Scripture. In fact, I have yet to see it in any other text. Perfect passive participles of *other *verbs *are *used in Scripture; it is not a rare form.

Yes, for a present perfect, the results are now in existence, with no reference to their possible existence at any *later *date. For a past perfect, the results were then in existence, with no reference to their possible existence at any *later *date. For a future perfect (which I think might not actually show up in Scripture), the results will then be in existence, with no reference to their possible existence at any *later *date. So, to repeat, the Greek perfect, like the English perfect, refers to a state in existence at the narrative moment (the story’s “now” time) as a result of an action or event before that time, and so its continuation is only explicit *until *that narrative moment.

**No. **“I have lived here for about ten years” does **not **mean that my living here is complete. This is a fairly common mistake about English grammar, made especially by people who transfer the idea from Latin grammar, in which the perfect does refer to a completed past action.

In English, completed past action is shown by the past simple: “I lived here for about ten years”.

The perfect forms instead express the connection between the narrative moment and a prior activity or event: “He had done it when I arrived”, “He has done it”, “He will have done it when I arrive”. There is a good, simple explanation of it here.

While there are differences between the English and Greek verb systems (particularly around the continuous aspect and the middle voice), none of those affects κεχαριτωμενη, which is very simply a perfect passive participle.

κεχαριτωμένη = perfect passive participle.

here’s where I got my answer & definition to perfect passive participle
ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

My response therefore #41 was not my opinion

 

[JoeT777]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to “Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”” because the idea predates Luther by a very long time. It is at least as old as Augustine.

Indeed, it has always been understood that original sin is the privation of original justice and that it is transmitted to us today. That means of transmission is not through nature per se, it is not something in the human genome, a virus, or some yet identified seminal material. Original sin is however transmitted through the flesh in way more spiritual then natural; we receive the punishment of original sin as being a member of the community of men. I believe I cited (De Malo, 4, 1).

Err, no.

Most assuredly Luther and his progeny of protesters err. Putting 500 years distance between the error and us today doesn’t turn error into truth. Truth is immutable and not subject to change over time regardless of the number of mystical bubbles we put Truth in.

First, the ninth Article of Religion says, “it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit”. It does not imply that humankind were created evil, and instead says that we are “inclined to evil”. Thus, the article continues, “and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation”: the article expressly states that the sin, not the person, is what deserves God’s wrath and damnation.

The ninth article clearly says God made man’s nature evil (see the highlighted text). For which, continues the article, it requires that an unjust God judge with wrath and condemnation for the very nature that He supposedly placed in man.

Second, as an Anglican, I am not obliged to believe the Thirty-Nine Articles, not required, for example, to think that “The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

Spoken in the true spirit of the protester. “It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself”

Which would be wholly unnecessary.

Why shouldn’t we factor Mary into the claimants reaching for the thrown of God?

This is a fallacy of the excluded middle.

There is no violation of the principle tertium non datur because there is no third option between the two opposing propositions… Either Christ is God/man and can be viewed as such or He is not. Jesus Christ is not a mystic who appears in a puff of smoke. We don’t have demigods or partial gods in Christianity. If Christ is Divine then He IS original Justice and his human formation cannot have the suggestion of original sin because they are irreconcilable - you cannot have original justice and simultaneously not have original justice. If Jesus is human kind not of the same order as Adam before the fall then he bears original sin and is not divine.

If we assume that such a taint exists and we assume that the Virgin has it and we assume that the Virgin would naturally transfer it, we are under no logical obligation to assume that the same God who could create spontaneous life within her would be unable to filter it out whilst allowing the divinely-incarnated foetus to grow in a natural manner.

The male role in procreation merely delivers the ‘spark of life’ - nothing more. This is the sole function of the male, insemination. No genetic material remains with the ovaries [which is the mother’s flesh]. The ‘spark’ starts the generative division of cells forming from the mother’s fleshy cell which is wholly an individual rational being within the ovary. The child’s veins are filled with blood generated within him; there is no transfer of blood from the mother to the child.

The incarnate Christ is ‘begotten’ not made in this same way procreation is described above. He isn’t injected into a bubble, no human child is. The incarnate Son of God is the expressed image of God [Cf. Hebrews 1:3]. God provided the spark of life necessary to generate life, that life was the personification of His Wisdom perfectly joined with flesh of Mary. The blood that flows through His veins IS Life, as Christ IS ‘Life’.

But, let me add still more to the Angel’s greeting declaring Mary ‘full of grace’. You should agree that every cell that is Jesus Christ IS ‘EVERLASTING LIFE’. The Person Christ found in Mary’s womb fills her with LIVING GRACE. Like all human births fetomaternal cells traffic from the child to the Mother - a ‘natural’ human phenomenon. In Christ this ignites a spiritual life wholly and completely blessed because each cell IS LIFE and confers everlasting spiritual life. Christ is the personification of grace which moves through her body and soul, her entire person is blessed as no other.

JoeT

 

[Mystophilus]

Indeed, it has always been understood that original sin is the privation of original justice and that it is transmitted to us today.

And Catholic theology states that we are born with, and has stated that since long before Luther, as noted.

The ninth article clearly says God made man’s nature evil (see the highlighted text).

Nope. The article explicitly states that Original Sin is a “corruption” which removes mankind from “original righteousness”: it represents God’s creation as righteous, not evil.

There is no violation of the principle tertium non datur because there is no third option between the two opposing propositions… Either Christ is God/man and can be viewed as such or He is not.

Which could possibly be relevant were it the topic commented upon. Since, however, the topic commented upon was your supposedly dichotomous dyad of “Mary is born with the stain of original sin” or “the incarnation was a bubble of ‘protection’ …] such a bubble would be the means by which God created God”, it remains a fallacy of the excluded middle.

Err,no

Most assuredly Luther and his progeny of protesters err. Putting 500 years distance between the error and us today doesn’t turn error into truth. Truth is immutable and not subject to change over time regardless of the number of mystical bubbles we put Truth in.

Truth may be unchanging, but you apparently have no qualms about changing it: the “Er” form which I used, as visible here, is not the form into which you have altered my response and then falsely represented my form as being, in an apparent attempt to score some sort of point.

Indeed, the point does win you the privilege of not talking to me any more.

 

[Mystophilus]

My response therefore #41 was not my opinion

I am going to guess that you mean that as a disclaimer, not as a fallacious argument from authority, but your comment does not actually indicate which it is.

Assuming that you mean it as the former, that’s fair enough.

 

[steve_b]

I am going to guess that you mean that as a disclaimer, not as a fallacious argument from authority, but your comment does not actually indicate which it is.

Assuming that you mean it as the former, that’s fair enough.

There’s no disclaimer. I gave may references.

I referred to ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm when making my case on the definition of NT Greek **perfect passive participle **for a unique word used to describe the Blessed Mother.

You otoh

quote English grammar rules here as if that refutes what I posted.

Yours is the truly fallacious argument.

 

[Vico]

Hi so I’ve been becoming a Catholic for a while and at one point I got a list of the dogmas and certain truths and started working through it to make sure I understood everything I would be implicitly declaring I believe if/when I am confirmed. I’ve whittled it down to three dogmas and three certain truths that I don’t understand at all. The dogmas are these:

Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin.
Mary is the Immaculate Conception.
After the birth of Jesus, Mary remained a Virgin.

Basically I’d really like to know where these teachings came from and what their significance is and influence. My family are protestant and I attend a protestant Christian college and take theology classes there sometimes and I have protestant friends and I’m really going to be facing a lot of questions so I’d like to at least be confident in my beliefs whether I can convince other people or not.

I will post my other questions in other threads.

Thank you in advance!

1. Mary is truly the Mother of God. – The Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.
2. Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of man. – The Apostle’s Creed, Luke I, 26, Luke I, 34, Is. 7, 14, Mt. I, 18, St. Ignatius of Antioch. Smyrn. I, I, St. Justin, Dial. 43; 66-68; 77; Apol. I 33; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. III 2,1 ; Origen, Contra Celsum I 34 et seq. S. tho III 28, I.
3. Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. – S. tho III 28. 2, Fifth General Council at Constantinople (554 A.D.) “Perpetual Virgin”, Council of Chalcedon, Lateran Synod (649 A.D.), Pope Paul IV (1555 A.D.)
4. Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. – S. tho III 28, 3, Fifth General Council at Constantinople (554 A.D.) “Perpetual Virgin”, Council of Chalcedon, Lateran Synod (649 A.D.), Pope Paul IV (1555 A.D.), Origen (In Luc. hom. 7.), St. Ambrose (De inst. virg et S. Mariae virginitate perpetua), St. Jerome (De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae adv. Helvidium), St. Augustine (De haeresibus 56, 84), St. Epiphanius (Haer. 78 ; against the Antidicomarianites), St. Basil: “The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” (Hom. in S. Christi generationem n. s.). Cf. St. John Damascene, De fide orth. IV. 14. .
5. Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin. – 1854 A.D., Pope Pius IX, promulgated *Ineffabilis

• 1. Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. – 1950 A.D. Pope Pius XII, promulgated Munificentissimus Deus

 

[Mystophilus]

There’s no disclaimer. I gave may references.

I referred to ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm when making my case on the definition of NT Greek **perfect passive participle **for a unique word used to describe the Blessed Mother.

Oh, so you mean that you cited a website as an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy, regardless of the counter-evidence of the language itself in Luke 11:21-22, 12:2, and 19:30 which you have failed even to address, and that your repeated reposting of the link is not a disclaimer that the argument is not yours, but is instead some sort of attempt to make the assertion more convincing than the evidence to the contrary by saying it again and again?

Yeah, that’ll work.

You otoh

quote English grammar rules here as if that refutes what I posted.

Actually, no, I very clearly did not. I stated that the website shows “a good, simple explanation” of the perfect form in English. The refutation of the daft claim that “the English perfect …] indicates a completed past action” was left to the example “I have lived here for about ten years”, and the fact that that “does not mean that my living here is complete.” Still, if you don’t like the website, you can read any halfway competent grammar of English and that will explain to you the difference between past simple and present perfect.

Yours is the truly fallacious argument.

I find it interesting that you assert this without any demonstration of the alleged fallacy, whilst simultaneously asserting that website as an authority for your previous comments without any demonstration, and singularly failing to address the evidence to the contrary of your claim, and then you accuse my argument of logical failure.

Possibly, “logic” means something different in this strange place where “I have worked here all my life” means that the action is completed, “release the bound donkey” means that binding is permanent, and repeating something makes it more true.

 

[Dorothy]

1. Mary is truly the Mother of God. – The Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.
2. Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the co-operation of man. – The Apostle’s Creed, Luke I, 26, Luke I, 34, Is. 7, 14, Mt. I, 18, St. Ignatius of Antioch. Smyrn. I, I, St. Justin, Dial. 43; 66-68; 77; Apol. I 33; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. III 2,1 ; Origen, Contra Celsum I 34 et seq. S. tho III 28, I.
3. Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. – S. tho III 28. 2, Fifth General Council at Constantinople (554 A.D.) “Perpetual Virgin”, Council of Chalcedon, Lateran Synod (649 A.D.), Pope Paul IV (1555 A.D.)
4. Also after the Birth of Jesus Mary remained a Virgin. – S. tho III 28, 3, Fifth General Council at Constantinople (554 A.D.) “Perpetual Virgin”, Council of Chalcedon, Lateran Synod (649 A.D.), Pope Paul IV (1555 A.D.), Origen (In Luc. hom. 7.), St. Ambrose (De inst. virg et S. Mariae virginitate perpetua), St. Jerome (De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae adv. Helvidium), St. Augustine (De haeresibus 56, 84), St. Epiphanius (Haer. 78 ; against the Antidicomarianites), St. Basil: “The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” (Hom. in S. Christi generationem n. s.). Cf. St. John Damascene, De fide orth. IV. 14. .
5. Mary was conceived without stain of Original sin. – 1854 A.D., Pope Pius IX, promulgated *Ineffabilis

• 1. Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven. – 1950 A.D. Pope Pius XII, promulgated Munificentissimus Deus

Thanks be to God!

 

[steve_b]

Oh, so you mean that you cited a website as an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy, regardless of the counter-evidence of the language itself in Luke 11:21-22, 12:2, and 19:30 which you have failed even to address,

Yeah, that’ll work.

context context context

Gabriel addresses Mary as she is already in front of God and will remain that way

None of the passages you quote contradict that. Lk 11: 21 & 22 begin as hypotheticals
Lk 12:2 refers to revelation will be perfectly given, nothing left out. How does that contradict the the Immaculate conception and the ongoing sinlessness of Mary?

Re: Lk 19:30 what’s your point there?

Lk 11:21 starts out with “when” ( a hypothetical) ὅταν ὁ ἰσχυρὸς καθωπλισμένος φυλάσσῃ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ αὐλήν, ἐν εἰρήνη ἐστιν τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ·
Lk 11:22 starts out wirh “but when” (a hypothetical)ἐπὰν δὲ ἰσχυρότερος αὐτοῦ ἐπελθὼν νικήσῃ αὐτὸν, τὴν πανοπλίαν αὐτοῦ αἴρει ἐφ’ ᾗ ἐπεποίθει καὶ τὰ σκῦλα αὐτοῦ διαδίδωσιν.
Lk :12:2 talking about revelation will be perfect Οὐδὲν δὲ συγκεκαλυμμένον ἐστὶν ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται καὶ κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ γνωσθήσεται.
Lk 19:30 And your point? λέγων· ὑπάγετε εἰς τὴν κατέναντι κώμην ἐν ᾗ εἰσπορευόμενοι εὑρήσετε πῶλον δεδεμένον, ἐφ’ ὃν οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἀνθρώπων ἐκάθισεν, καὶ λύσαντες αὐτὸν ἀγάγετε.

 

[steve_b]

Actually, no, I very clearly did not. I stated that the website shows “a good, simple explanation” of the perfect form in English.

The dogma isn’t based on English grammar. Good grief!!!
M:

The refutation of the daft claim that “the English perfect …] indicates a completed past action” was left to the example “I have lived here for about ten years”, and the fact that that “does not mean that my living here is complete.” Still, if you don’t like the website, you can read any halfway competent grammar of English and that will explain to you the difference between past simple and present perfect.

This isn’t about English grammar. It’s about NT Greek grammar.
M:

I find it interesting that you assert this without any demonstration of the alleged fallacy, whilst simultaneously asserting that website as an authority for your previous comments without any demonstration, and singularly failing to address the evidence to the contrary of your claim, and then you accuse my argument of logical failure.

I specifically answered you in my previous post . Your apologetic obviously didn’t come from you. Who did you copy your apologetic from? They didn’t do you any favors.
M:

Possibly, “logic” means something different in this strange place where “I have worked here all my life” means that the action is completed, “release the bound donkey” means that binding is permanent, and repeating something makes it more true.

Here’s the word used in Lk 19:30. λύσαντες.
ἐλυομην is the perfect tense of that word. But the perfect tense wasn’t used. So what’s your point?

If perfect tense HAD been used, with the definition of perfect tense being applied, then it would mean the colt would never be bound again So again, what’s your point? How does that undo what I posted earlier about Mary’s IC and continued sinlessness? If anything it would support my position.

Don’t take my word for any of this. Open the link. Read if for yourself

 

[Mystophilus]

The dogma isn’t based on English grammar. Good grief!!!

This isn’t about English grammar. It’s about NT Greek grammar.

I specifically answered you in my previous post . Your apologetic obviously didn’t come from you. Who did you copy your apologetic from? They didn’t do you any favors.

Here’s the word used in Lk 19:30. λύσαντες.
ἐλυομην is the perfect tense of that word. But the perfect tense wasn’t used. So what’s your point?

If perfect tense HAD been used, with the definition of perfect tense being applied, then it would mean the colt would never be bound again

You imagine that ελυομην is perfect, when it is imperfect, the perfect of the 1st person singular active being λελυκα, you conflate the **aorist **participle λυσαντες with the perfect passive participle δεδεμενον already mentioned, you evidently cannot read and therefore do not comprehend the operation of καθωπλισμενος in Lk 11.21, συγκεκαλυμμενον in Lk 12:2, or δεδεμενον in Lk 19:30, you imagine that I am copying my ideas from someone else when you are the only one doing that, you imagine that the website from which you are copying your ideas says that the perfect refers to a permanent state rather than the “present [but not necessarily future] state”, you conflate the refutation of the daft claim that “the English perfect …] indicates a completed past action” with comments about dogma, and you imagine that I have been talking about dogma at all!

I am done.

I have asked Gorgias to come and explain the basics of Greek grammar to you. Since he is Catholic, I imagine that there is a possibility that you might listen.

 

[steve_b]

You imagine that ελυομην is perfect, when it is imperfect, the perfect of the 1st person singular active being λελυκα, you conflate the **aorist **participle λυσαντες with the perfect passive participle δεδεμενον already mentioned, you evidently cannot read and therefore do not comprehend the operation of καθωπλισμενος in Lk 11.21, συγκεκαλυμμενον in Lk 12:2, or δεδεμενον in Lk 19:30, you imagine that I am copying my ideas from someone else when you are the only one doing that,

I don’t imagine anything. I gave the links in Greek, to each word in each of those scripture passages that you quoted. I then asked you what your point was several times in giving those passages …true? Have you explained yourself after showing you the actual tense of the words used in those sentences you quoted? No

You claim you didn’t copy your narrative from another source? Okay, then that narrative is all your own? Fine, then why didn’t you explain yourself when I asked you multiple times “What’s your point?”

You posted those passages as somehow refuting what I said. I addressed those passage directly. They don’t refute what I wrote.

When Gabriel addressed Mary, He didn’t begin with a term indicating what follows is a hypothetical. He addressed Mary’s condition as being graced, in the Greek perfect tense.

there’s a huge difference between Greek perfect tense and English perfect tenses.

Definitions of each follow
M:

you imagine that the website from which you are copying your ideas says that the perfect refers to a permanent state rather than the “present [but not necessarily future] state”,

I don’t imagine anything here. Your problem is, you’re mixing English grammar with Greek. grammar

NT Greek Perfect Tense
the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. Unlike the English perfect, which indicates a completed past action, the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.

You obviously disagree with that definition. Then prove the definition is wrong.
M:

you conflate the refutation of the daft claim that “the English perfect …] indicates a completed past action” with comments about dogma,

Who is arguing for the English perfect tenses? You NOT Me

I said the Dogma, is not based on the English understanding of perfect tenses but the Greek understanding of perfect tense.

In English there are 3 perfect tenses

Present Perfect: I have seen it.
(Present tense of to have plus participle. Action is completed with respect to the present.)
Past Perfect: I had seen it.
(Past tense of to have plus participle. Action is completed with respect to the past.)
Future Perfect: I will have seen it.
(Future tense of to have plus participle. Action is completed with respect to the future.)

And THERE is your problem

 

[Good_Fella]

These are Catholic Church teachings. You won’t be able to support these beliefs through Scripture, only through the teachings of the Church. So if you believe in the authority of the Church, then you must believe in the teachings of it. Now to an outsider, you first have to convince them that the Church has authority. That’s another issue all together!

Our Marian dogmas are supported by Scripture as the objective norm of our Catholic faith. But God’s written word, though materially sufficient, is formally insufficient to serve as the final rule of faith, which is the Catholic Church; since much that is revealed in Scripture is implicit and ambiguous. If by support you mean there is no explicit evidence in the Scriptures pertaining to our Marian dogmas, we agree. Meanwhile, the Church interprets Scripture in light of sacred Tradition from which the former proceeds as a confirmation of our faith.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[eddie_too]

the marian doctrines come to the Church through the apostles. the apostles knew Mary personally in their daily lives. they knew Mary did not sin. it made perfect sense to them that the body in which the Lord actually dwelled would be perfectly pure. they knew that Mary did not have other biological children besides Jesus. they also knew that Mary’s grave was found empty.

these doctrines were not made up solely through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within the Church. they originated from the actual life experiences of the apostles. like the doctrines of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the forgiveness of sins, et. al., a deeper understanding came forth in the Church through the workings of the Holy Spirit. the origins of these doctrines however were the actual life experiences of the apostles. those life experiences included the teachings of and encounter with the Lord Jesus and ordinary human interactions with His Mother.

 

[eddie_too]

the Sacred Scriptures are only one of the sources of our RC faith. the teachings and traditions of the apostles and their successors are equally as important as the Sacred Scriptures if one is to receive the fullness of the faith.

 

[Gorgias]

The dogma isn’t based on English grammar. Good grief!!!

Good point, since English perfect tenses and Greek perfect/pluperfect tenses don’t match up exactly, from a semantic perspective.

Here’s the word used in Lk 19:30. λύσαντες.
ἐλυομην is the perfect tense of that word. But the perfect tense wasn’t used. So what’s your point?

Actually, I think he’s referring to δεδεμένον, not λύσαντες.

The point, then, is that the donkey is referred to as “having been tied up.” The force of the perfect there is that, in the past, the act of securing the donkey occurred, with the result that the donkey is tied up; that result persists into the present. I think we all agree on this, right?

If perfect tense HAD been used, with the definition of perfect tense being applied, then it would mean the colt would never be bound again

Umm… no.

Use of the perfect here only implies that, at some point in the past, the donkey was secured, and at the time being referenced, it would continue to be tied up. From the perspective of grammar, there is no assertion about whether the state of ‘being tied up’ is something that will continue in the future, nor does it speak (at all) about the action of ‘being secured’ and whether that action will happen again or not. That’s beyond the scope of the perfect tense (although it’s possible that, in context, the sentence or passage might be making that assertion).

Mystophilus:

I have asked Gorgias to come and explain the basics of Greek grammar to you. Since he is Catholic, I imagine that there is a possibility that you might listen.

Having read the thread, I’m still uncertain exactly what ya’ll are arguing about. If I understand correctly, Mystophilus is making a point about Greek grammar, and steve is making a point about theology (and attempting to support the theology by an appeal to Greek grammar). If I’m reading steve correctly, he seems to be going a bit too far, ascribing to grammar a meaning that fits the theology, but which is not supported by the grammatical expression.

Mary is κεχαριτωμένη. Gabriel is asserting that the past action (of God having given her grace) resulted in a state (she is ‘graced’), and that state continues to the present (i.e., the time of the Annunciation). Theologically, there is more going on, but grammatically, that’s all that’s being asserted here.

 

[pablope]

You imagine that ελυομην is perfect, when it is imperfect, the perfect of the 1st person singular active being λελυκα, you conflate the **aorist **participle λυσαντες with the perfect passive participle δεδεμενον already mentioned, you evidently cannot read and therefore do not comprehend the operation of καθωπλισμενος in Lk 11.21, συγκεκαλυμμενον in Lk 12:2, or δεδεμενον in Lk 19:30, you imagine that I am copying my ideas from someone else when you are the only one doing that, you imagine that the website from which you are copying your ideas says that the perfect refers to a permanent state rather than the “present [but not necessarily future] state”, you conflate the refutation of the daft claim that “the English perfect …] indicates a completed past action” with comments about dogma, and you imagine that I have been talking about dogma at all!

I am done.

.

Okay…so after agruing ad nauseam back and forth…the grammar, etc, and what it means or what it does not mean…does it lead you to the truth? Has it lead you to the truth of the marian dogmas?

Does determining the grammar ad nauseam lead one to the truth?

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, I’m quoting myself. Don’t judge me, man…

steve b:

If perfect tense HAD been used, with the definition of perfect tense being applied, then it would mean the colt would never be bound again

Umm… no.

Use of the perfect here only implies that, at some point in the past, the donkey was secured, and at the time being referenced, it would continue to be tied up. From the perspective of grammar, there is no assertion about whether the state of ‘being tied up’ is something that will continue in the future, nor does it speak (at all) about the action of ‘being secured’ and whether that action will happen again or not. That’s beyond the scope of the perfect tense (although it’s possible that, in context, the sentence or passage might be making that assertion).

Looking over this again, I think I misread Steve. He’s talking about λύσαντες, not δεδεμενον, so… it would seem that his point is “if perfect tense had been used when talking about loosing, then it would mean the colt would never be bound again.”

However, this is a mistaken understanding of the time frame of the perfective. If ‘loosed’ were expressed in the perfective tense, it would imply only that the colt had been loosed at some (indeterminate) time in the past, and that the result of the loosing was still in effect at the time of the sentence. It would not imply that the colt would henceforth never be bound in the future – the perfect doesn’t express any expectation about the future.

(In the case of Mary, we make a theological case about her continuing to be “full of grace” for all time, but the tense of the Greek participle isn’t what makes that case.)

Hope this helps…

G.