Marian dogma

[steve_b]

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

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?

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).

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.

Is your summation the be all to end all?

Given this definition of NT Greek perfect tense

NT Greek Perfect Tense (emphasis mine)
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.

from ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

here’s my observation:

1. 
   *]If the past completed action "continues on , i.e “endures” in full effect, and the finished results are “in existence,” then where in the definition is the suggestion or the expectation or presumption that the finished action will end i.e. won’t continue, won’t endure?
   *]If an action is anticipated to end, and isn’t anticipated to continue, i.e. won’t endure “in full effect” **then **another tense of a verb is available and should be used instead, …NOT using the perfect tense… would you agree?
   
   consider the following, it offers another summary to your summary
   
   “It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitōmenē as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament)
   
   from catholicexchange.com/mean-full-grace
   
   Here’s my observation and question
   
   Where in the definition of the NT Greek perfect tense, does it presume the end of a “completed past action that will NOT continue on / or endure, in full effect”?

 

[Gorgias]

Is your summation the be all to end all?

Wait – I offer an explanation of a Koine Greek tense, and your response is an ad hominem attack? This is sure starting off well…

Look… I don’t know what you think you’re defending – or what you think I’m refuting – but let’s be clear: we both believe in the Immaculate Conception and in Mary’s sinlessness. In order to defend these teachings, Gabriel’s greeting to Mary is an important piece of the puzzle, and a linguistic analysis of his greeting is helpful to our proof. However, in and of itself, kecharitōmenē doesn’t prove these doctrines. It only demonstrates that Mary was given grace at some point prior to Gabriel’s visit and that the effects of that grace continued to the time of the Annunciation.

In order to understand what is being said here, it might be helpful to review what these cases are attempting to express:

simple tenses express action: actions in the past, in the present, or in the future
perfect tenses express a state that results from a completed action: a state in the past, a state in the present, and a state that exists in the future.

The pluperfect tense says “there is a completed action, and the results exist in the past”.
The perfect tense says, “there is a completed action, and the results exist in the present.”
The future perfect (which is relatively rare in Koine Greek) says, “there is a completed action, and the results will exist in the future.”

These tenses are making assertions about the time in which the results exist (past, present, or future). They don’t make assertions about whether the results exist in another time frame besides the one they’re addressing.

Given this definition of NT Greek perfect tense

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.

It’s a good definition. It’s a shame that you haven’t read it. Let’s look at it carefully:

“the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect”. This is a statement about the present. At the present, the results of the action are continuing on.

“In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence.” Notice what your definition is saying: the finished results are now in existence. Now in existence.

Notice that your definition doesn’t mention anything about whether or not the effects will continue to be in existence in the future. That’s because the perfect tense doesn’t address future effects.

here’s my observation:

If the past completed action "continues on , i.e “endures” in full effect, and the finished results are “in existence,” then where in the definition is the suggestion or the expectation or presumption that the finished action will end i.e. won’t continue, won’t endure?

Great point! I’d almost think you understood the grammatical point! No, there’s nowhere in the definition that suggests that the finished action won’t continue! Of course, that’s because the perfect tense doesn’t suggest anything about future effects, in the positive or in the negative!

In other words, the use of the perfect tense neither asserts that the resulting state will or will not persist in the future.

*]If an action is anticipated to end, and isn’t anticipated to continue, i.e. won’t endure “in full effect” **then **another tense of a verb is available and should be used instead, …NOT using the perfect tense… would you agree?

No. Which tense are you suggesting? Are you proposing that there is a tense in Koine Greek that says “completed action; effects in present; effects persist into the future” and another that says “completed action; effects in present; effects will fail to persist into the future”?

consider the following, it offers another summary to your summary

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitōmenē as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament)

I don’t have access to the Blass and DeBrunner text. Your quote is interesting, though. Did you realize that the Catholic Exchange article doesn’t quote Blass and DeBrunner – it quotes Vaz’s quote of Blass and DeBrunner? That’s exceedingly odd: why quote someone else’s quote of a secondary text? Why not quote the text itself? Generally, that’s only because you don’t have access to the text itself… which means that you don’t know the context of that quote, and can only rely on the fact that somebody else has quoted him. So, do Blass and DeBrunner say that the results are permanent? No, they don’t. Vaz makes that claim, and surprisingly, misuses others’ quotes on Greek grammar to support it.

Here’s my observation and question

Where in the definition of the NT Greek perfect tense, does it presume the end of a “completed past action that will NOT continue on / or endure, in full effect”?

Again, that’s precisely the point: it does not presume anything – continuation or lack of continuation in the future.

It’s the theological argument, not the linguistic one, that asserts continuation. Thanks for helping demonstrate that this is the case!

 

[paperwight66]

To be honest, I think that the King James version ‘Highly favoured’, is much more helpful

 

[Gorgias]

To be honest, I think that the King James version ‘Highly favoured’, is much more helpful

How so?

 

[Dorothy]

To be honest, I think that the King James version ‘Highly favoured’, is much more helpful

“Full of grace” sounds accurate to me. There are many women in the bible who are highly favored.

 

[Abu]

The futility of railing against “full of grace” as the Angel Gabriel’s salutation to Mary has been amply demonstrated and going against the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *(CCC) shows the absurdity involved.

paperwight66 #62
To be honest, I think that the King James version ‘Highly favoured’, is much more helpful

Then as a confused Catholic, learn from the CCC:
**'490. **To become the mother of the Savior, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”. In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace’.
[My emphasis]
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/490.htm

 

[Good_Fella]

In order to defend these teachings, Gabriel’s greeting to Mary is an important piece of the puzzle, and a linguistic analysis of his greeting is helpful to our proof. However, in and of itself, kecharitōmenē doesn’t prove these doctrines )the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s sinlessness) It only demonstrates that Mary was given grace at some point prior to Gabriel’s visit and that the effects of that grace continued to the time of the Annunciation.

The pluperfect tense says “there is a completed action, and the results exist in the past”.
The perfect tense says, “there is a completed action, and the results exist in the present.”
The future perfect (which is relatively rare in Koine Greek) says, “there is a completed action, and the results will exist in the future.”

These tenses are making assertions about the time in which the results exist (past, present, or future). They don’t make assertions about whether the results exist in another time frame besides the one they’re addressing.

Let’s look at it carefully:

“the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect”. This is a statement about the present. At the present, the results of the action are continuing on.

“In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence.” Notice what your definition is saying: the finished results are now in existence. Now in existence.

Notice that your definition doesn’t mention anything about whether or not the effects will continue to be in existence in the future. That’s because the perfect tense doesn’t address future effects.

Great point! I’d almost think you understood the grammatical point! No, there’s nowhere in the definition that suggests that the finished action won’t continue! Of course, that’s because the perfect tense doesn’t suggest anything about future effects, in the positive or in the negative!

In other words, the use of the perfect tense neither asserts that the resulting state will or will not persist in the future.

In Luke 1:30 the angel says, “Fear not Mary, for you have found favor with God.” In other words, the angel is reiterating what he said when he first greeted Mary, that God has bestowed grace on her as a favor for a special vocation. This vocation is the Divine Maternity which actualized at the precise moment when Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.” The completed action of having been bestowed with grace may continue on the condition that Mary becomes the mother of our Lord. In his Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius lX cites the Divine Maternity as the “Supreme reason for the privilege” of the Immaculate Conception. We should keep in mind that when God predestined Mary to be the mother of Christ, He knew that she would pronounce her fiat that first instant He fashioned and sanctified her soul. The angel confirms this in Luke 1:30. Thus *kecharitomene *can be paraphrased as “enduringly endowed with grace” (cf. Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament). It is because Mary did become the mother of our Lord, that the perfect past participle does “show a completeness with a permanent result” (Blass & DeBrunner) and denotes “continuance of a completed action” (cf. H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar). Finally, the expression *kecharitomene *is in the vocative case. The angel is addressing Mary as the embodiment of all that this expression denotes. When he greets her, he doesn’t call Mary by her name, but by her spiritual state. Our names are something that we have had since the beginning, and normally they are something that we keep until the end of our lives. Although technically the grammatical exponent itself doesn’t function to indicate anything definite about the future, the person who is using the language could be suggesting something in his use of it.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Gorgias]

The angel confirms this in Luke 1:30. Thus *kecharitomene *can be paraphrased as “enduringly endowed with grace” (cf. Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament). It is because Mary did become the mother of our Lord, that the perfect past participle does “show a completeness with a permanent result” (Blass & DeBrunner) and denotes “continuance of a completed action” (cf. H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar).

Thanks, GoodFella!

Whom are you quoting here?

 

[Good_Fella]

Thanks, GoodFella!

Whom are you quoting here?

A. DeBrunner & F. Blass,* Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature*, p.166, 175 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961)

H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, pp.108-109, sec. 1852b (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968)

I’m not quoting Phil Vaz, if that’s what you mean.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not quoting Phil Vaz, if that’s what you mean.

LOL! Yeah, I know you’re not quoting him – since his stuff is online. So, that’s all yours, except for the three quoted phrases?

Would you please give the context of the quote you provide from Blass & DeBrunner (“the perfect past participle does ‘show a completeness with a permanent result’”?) Since I don’t have access to the book, I’d really appreciate seeing what’s there in the context of that phrase…

Thanks!

 

[steve_b]

Wait – I offer an explanation of a Koine Greek tense, and your response is an ad hominem attack? This is sure starting off well…

Look… I don’t know what you think you’re defending – or what you think I’m refuting – but let’s be clear: we both believe in the Immaculate Conception and in Mary’s sinlessness. In order to defend these teachings, Gabriel’s greeting to Mary is an important piece of the puzzle, and a linguistic analysis of his greeting is helpful to our proof. However, in and of itself, kecharitōmenē doesn’t prove these doctrines. It only demonstrates that Mary was given grace at some point prior to Gabriel’s visit and that the effects of that grace continued to the time of the Annunciation.

NT Greek Perfect Tense (emphasis mine)
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.

from ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

“the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect”

The definition also says “the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.”

iow, The completed past action continues on in full effect.and that includes the present. But it doesn’t stop at the present. It continues on in full effect
G:

In order to understand what is being said here, it might be helpful to review what these cases are attempting to express:

simple tenses express action: actions in the past, in the present, or in the future
perfect tenses express a state that results from a completed action: a state in the past, a state in the present, and a state that exists in the future.

The pluperfect tense says “there is a completed action, and the results exist in the past”.
The perfect tense says, “there is a completed action, and the results exist in the present.”
The future perfect (which is relatively rare in Koine Greek) says, “there is a completed action, and the results will exist in the future.”

These tenses are making assertions about the time in which the results exist (past, present, or future). They don’t make assertions about whether the results exist in another time frame besides the one they’re addressing.

those terms also covered in the link I provided above
G:

“the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect”. This is a statement about the present. At the present, the results of the action are continuing on.

BINGO!!! it doesn’t stop with the present it continues on in full effect.
G:

" Notice what your definition is saying: the finished results are now in existence." Now in existence.

it’s not my definition. It’s a quote properly referenced

Yes it’s now in existence, but finish the thought you just made previously. “the results of the action are continuing on.” And I would add in full effect"
G:

Notice that your definition doesn’t mention anything about whether or not the effects will continue to be in existence in the future. That’s because the perfect tense doesn’t address future effects.

It’s NOT my definition. I gave my source for that definition

When does Mary stop being full of grace? When does the completed past action stop enduring in full effect?
G:

the use of the perfect tense neither asserts that the resulting state will or will not persist in the future.

What part of “the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect” sounds like the future isn’t being considered?

 

[Gorgias]

“the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect”

The definition also says “the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.”

iow, The completed past action continues on in full effect.and that includes the present. But it doesn’t stop at the present. It continues on in full effect

The phrase “it continues on in full effect” – in the context of the definition of Koine Greek’s perfect tense – is referencing the time between the completed action and the present time (of the expression): it continues on in full effect from the time of the completed action and through the present time. When you say “it doesn’t stop at the present,” you’re betraying a lack of understanding. The perfect tense only addresses the effect in the present; it does not attempt to address effect in the future.

BINGO!!! it doesn’t stop with the present it continues on in full effect.

:doh2:

If you want to make a theological argument about Mary’s grace persisting beyond the Annunciation, be my guest. I agree with that theological argument. However, you can’t make the argument solely on the use of a verbal form in perfect tense; perfect tense only says “the effect exists now.”

Yes it’s now in existence, but finish the thought you just made previously. “the results of the action are continuing on.” And I would add in full effect"

Immaterial to this discussion, if by “in full effect” you’re trying to say that necessarily, that implies that the effect continues into the future.

When does Mary stop being full of grace? When does the completed past action stop enduring in full effect?

You’re making a theological argument. Good on ya.

You can’t make this theological argument based solely on the fact of the perfect tense. That tense simply doesn’t make that kind of assertion.

What part of “the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect” sounds like the future isn’t being considered?

The part that asserts that “continuing on” references a period of time – from the time of the completed action (in the past) to the effect (in the present).

That period of time, for the perfect tense, only addresses the effect up through the present. It doesn’t mean that the effect ends in the present, or that it continues beyond the present. It simply doesn’t address what happens after the time of the statement; in that way, the perfect tense acts similarly to a present tense verb. A present tense verb makes no statement about what happens later – that’s what future tense is for. If we wanted to make the linguistic argument for Mary’s sinlessness, we’d have to be looking at a future perfect verbal form (which would, unfortunately, lead to all sorts of complications, but that’s a whole different topic).

As I’ve said (a number of times): I’m not disputing the theological case you’re making here; just that your attempt to make it **solely **from the presence of the perfect verbal form is defective.

 

[steve_b]

The phrase “it continues on in full effect” – in the context of the definition of Koine Greek’s perfect tense – is referencing the time between the completed action and the present time (of the expression): it continues on in full effect from the time of the completed action and through the present time. When you say “it doesn’t stop at the present,” you’re betraying a lack of understanding. The perfect tense only addresses the effect in the present; it does not attempt to address effect in the future.

If you want to make a theological argument about Mary’s grace persisting beyond the Annunciation, be my guest. I agree with that theological argument. However, you can’t make the argument solely on the use of a verbal form in perfect tense; perfect tense only says “the effect exists now.”
Immaterial to this discussion, if by “in full effect” you’re trying to say that necessarily, that implies that the effect continues into the future.
You’re making a theological argument. Good on ya.
You can’t make this theological argument based solely on the fact of the perfect tense. That tense simply doesn’t make that kind of assertion.
The part that asserts that “continuing on” references a period of time – from the time of the completed action (in the past) to the effect (in the present).
That period of time, for the perfect tense, only addresses the effect up through the present.It doesn’t mean that the effect ends in the present, or that it continues beyond the present.

Since you agree perfect tense “does not mean the effects end in the present” then there is no argument.
G:

It simply doesn’t address what happens after the time of the statement; in that way, the perfect tense acts similarly to a present tense verb. A present tense verb makes no statement about what happens later – that’s what future tense is for.

Perfect tense is NOT present tense. Definitions taken from the same source I’ve been quoting

Present Tense
"The present tense usually denotes continuous kind of action. It shows ‘action in progress’ or ‘a state of persistence.’ When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time. "

NT Greek Perfect Tense (emphasis mine)
the progress of an action has been completedand 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
G:

If we wanted to make the linguistic argument for Mary’s sinlessness, we’d have to be looking at a future perfect verbal form (which would, unfortunately, lead to all sorts of complications, but that’s a whole different topic).

You already agree that the perfect tense, doesn’t mean that the effect ends in the present
So where’s the problem?
G:

As I’ve said (a number of times): I’m not disputing the theological case you’re making here; just that your attempt to make it *solely *from the presence of the perfect verbal form is defective.

If you define “present” as Mary’s life until she dies, then no one is going to say when she is in heaven that she ceases to be full of grace.

So where’s the argument?

 

[Good_Fella]

Gorgias:

Would you please give the context of the quote you provide from Blass & DeBrunner (“the perfect past participle does ‘show a completeness with a permanent result’”?) Since I don’t have access to the book, I’d really appreciate seeing what’s there in the context of that phrase

Blass and Debrunner have the morphological aspectual (not tense marked) stem of kecharitomene in mind: ke. This is the perfect stem of the root verb charitoo which may denote a perpetuation of a completed past action. The perfect stem is distinguished from the aorist stem which we have in Ephesians 1:6, for example: escharitosen:* es*. In this active indicative form the aorist stem describes a completed action which has come to pass and is finished. It is temporal in aspect and a momentary result. The aorist stem does not signify a permanent state of grace. The perfect aspect, on the other hand, exclusively denotes a state which prevails after an event has taken place and which is caused by this event.

What I understand is that the perfect may denote an action as already finished at the present time, but it may also express the continuance of the result down to the present time without necessarily ending here. Our Lord’s expression “It is written” is literally ‘It has been written’. And what has been written remains in force beyond the present time. Thus the perfect may implicitly include the future and be connected to it conceptually in its aspectual form. Ephesians 1:6 refers to our predestination to grace as opposed to glory. The active indicative aorist which modifies the root verb refutes the false idea of once-saved-always-saved. Not everyone perseveres in grace. Hence, *escharitosen *does not imply a permanent state of this grace for all believers.

Here are a couple of scriptural comparisons I’ve formed between the perfect and aorist aspects of verbs to better distinguish them:

***“By grace you have been saved.” (Perfect)
Ephesians 2,5 ***

Christ’s formal redemption of the world continues on.

---

“After that you believed (Aorist), you were sealed (aor.) with the Holy Spirit.”
Ephesians 1, 13***

The believing and sealing are definite and completed acts confined to the present moment. Some of those who believed may eventually have lost their faith. But Paul is not concerned with that in this statement.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Gorgias]

Perfect tense is NOT present tense.

No, of course it isn’t. Yet, it works in ways that are analogous to present tense. Let’s compare the tenses:

• Past tense speaks to an action in the past. Pluperfect tense speaks to a past effect (of an action in the past).
• Present tense speaks to an action in the present. Perfect tense speaks to a present effect (of an action in the past).
• Future tense speaks to an action in the future. Future perfect tense speaks to a future effect (of an action).

See how it works? The perfect tenses speak to effects: pluperfect (effect in the past), perfect (present effect), future perfect (future effect). Get it?

Since you agree perfect tense “does not mean the effects end in the present” then there is no argument.

You already agree that the perfect tense, doesn’t mean that the effect ends in the present
So where’s the problem?

The problem is that you aren’t asserting that the use of the perfect tense allows for an effect that continues into the future: you’ve been asserting that the perfect tense requires future effect. If you want to make the theological argument that the effects of Mary’s “being graced” extend to the future, then you’re doing well. Likewise, if you want to argue that the use of the perfect demonstrates that God’s grace has remained in Mary from the time it was given to the time of the Annunciation, and allows for the continuation of that grace in the future, you’re still safe. However, if you make the argument that the use of the perfect tense requires future effect, then you’ve gone beyond what the grammar of the expression is saying.

There is an argument here only in that you are asserting something about Koine Greek grammar that is incorrect. This exposes your argument to criticism – not on the theological principle that you’re attempting to assert, but on the (able-to-be-disproved) approach you’re taking. That does your project disservice, inasmuch as it may lead one to disregard the principle by virtue of the fact that they are able to disprove your approach.

If you define “present” as Mary’s life until she dies, then no one is going to say when she is in heaven that she ceases to be full of grace.

Now you’re really off the reservation. That kind of interpretation is one that might only be considered through contextual analysis and through a particular theological lens. However, it’s illustrative of the way that your argument has already left the realm of grammatical analysis and is well far afield. The grammar has no hope of making this sort of analysis, or of expressing this kind of meaning.

Therefore, please be fair and represent your argument as an analysis that gives voice to a theological thought that begins with grammar and proceeds onward from there, rather than one that is argued solely from the grammar of the expression itself.

 

[steve_b]

The problem is that you aren’t asserting that the use of the perfect tense allows for an effect that continues into the future: you’ve been asserting that the perfect tense requires future effect.

I never said it is required. I kept asking you, to show me where the future is denied in the perfect tense…

Here are my 3 responses to you #60 ,#70 , #72 ,

note particularly in #70 when I asked

What part of “the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect”

sounds like the future isn’t being considered?

As you can see, I never said future is required. I used considered. Or to use your term “allows for”
G:

If you want to make the theological argument that the effects of Mary’s “being graced” extend to the future, then you’re doing well. Likewise, if you want to argue that the use of the perfect demonstrates that God’s grace has remained in Mary from the time it was given to the time of the Annunciation, and allows for the continuation of that grace in the future, you’re still safe.

That’s my argument. That’s been my argument all along.
G:

However, if you make the argument that the use of the perfect tense requires future effect, then you’ve gone beyond what the grammar of the expression is saying.

That is a strawman argument. I never said requires. Go back and look at my posts.
G:

Now you’re really off the reservation. That kind of interpretation is one that might only be considered through contextual analysis and through a particular theological lens. However, it’s illustrative of the way that your argument has already left the realm of grammatical analysis and is well far afield. The grammar has no hope of making this sort of analysis, or of expressing this kind of meaning.

Therefore, please be fair and represent your argument as an analysis that gives voice to a theological thought that begins with grammar and proceeds onward from there, rather than one that is argued solely from the grammar of the expression itself.

You’ve already agreed to my argument when you acknowledged,

if you want to argue that the use of the perfect demonstrates that God’s grace has remained in Mary from the time it was given to the time of the Annunciation, and allows for the continuation of that grace in the future, you’re still safe.

so IOW

the completed past action of Mary being full of grace, and that action enduring with full effect from beginning to end of her life.

and one can further say

Theologically speaking, we know that being full of grace doesn’t end at her death.

 

[Gorgias]

steve b:

That is a strawman argument. I never said requires. Go back and look at my posts.

No, it is anything but a strawman! You see, I didn’t build that house – you did! Oh, it’s true you may have never used the word ‘required’, but you certainly made the assertion that ‘future effect’ is a necessary part of the meaning of the perfect tense. Here are two examples for you, to help jog your memory:
steve b:

here’s my observation:
If an action is anticipated to end, and isn’t anticipated to continue, i.e. won’t endure “in full effect” then another tense of a verb is available and should be used instead, …NOT using the perfect tense… would you agree?

You’re interpreting “in full effect” as meaning “anticipated to continue”. That’s a misinterpretation of the tense. “In full effect” only applies to the present effect, and it does not imply anything about the future.

(BTW – I asked you to provide an example of what you were promising – that there’s “another tense [that] is available” that means that the effect “is anticipated to end and isn’t anticipated to continue,” but you haven’t taken up the challenge. So… what tense are you talking about? There isn’t one, now, is there? )
"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

This is the most egregious of your assertions: you’re claiming that ‘loosed’ in the perfect tense (i.e., “the colt has been loosed”) implies that there will never be a future binding. In other words, you’re asserting that the ‘present effect’ is raised to the level of ‘perpetual effect’ by virtue of the use of the perfect tense. That’s patently absurd. No such implication exists. You can see how silly that would be, can’t you? You’d practically never be able to use that tense, if that were the case!

That was the whole point of the example of Luke 19:30 – Jesus spoke of a colt that ‘has been bound’ (δεδεμένον, a passive perfect participle!) – specifically in the context of it being loosed by the apostles! Clearly, future ‘continuing’ effect is explicitly what Jesus is denying will happen!

So, there are your examples: two cases in which you clearly demonstrate your notion that the perfect tense speaks to future effect (as well as a proof that this is not at all what perfect tense is all about).

I kept asking you, to show me where the future is denied in the perfect tense…

If the future is never addressed in the perfect tense, how could it possibly deny it? How could it ever be asserted that the absence of comment about the future implies any kind of statement about expectations for the future?

the completed past action of Mary being full of grace, and that action enduring with full effect from beginning to end of her life.

Actually, the past action is ‘being graced’ (by God), and the resulting effect is ‘having grace’. That’s all we can say, from a grammatical perspective, although there’s quite a bit more that we can say – and do say! – from a theological perspective.

 

[steve_b]

No, it is anything but a strawman! You see, I didn’t build that house – you did! Oh, it’s true you may have never used the word ‘required’, but you certainly made the assertion that ‘future effect’ is a necessary part of the meaning of the perfect tense. Here are two examples for you, to help jog your memory:

Anybody can see what I wrote, how I wrote it, AND the context it was written in. #60 ,#70 ,#72 ,
G:

You’re interpreting “in full effect” as meaning “anticipated to continue”. That’s a misinterpretation of the tense. “In full effect” only applies to the present effect, and it does not imply anything about the future.

Perfect tense is a Completed (or 'Accomplished) kind of past action, with continuing results.

It’s NOT just and action in “full effect” but it’s an action “continuing on in full effect”

You’re saying then, the Blessed Mother being full of grace doesn’t go past the annunciation. Therefore you’re saying that “being full of grace” doesn’t “continue on in full effect” after that. THAT is your explanation of “present”?

Please explain THAT ?
G:

(BTW – I asked you to provide an example of what you were promising – that there’s “another tense [that] is available” that means that the effect “is anticipated to end and isn’t anticipated to continue,” but you haven’t taken up the challenge. So… what tense are you talking about? There isn’t one, now, is there? )

I never promised you another tense. I stuck with the explanation that I properly referenced for the tense that is there. And I will add you had no problem with the definition I used and linked to

When the definition says a completed past action “continues on in full effect” I asked you, what part of that says it stops at the annunciation?
G:

This is the most egregious of your assertions: you’re claiming that ‘loosed’ in the perfect tense (i.e., “the colt has been loosed”) implies that there will never be a future binding.

Perfect tense doesn’t say someone can’t intervene and change a past action at some point. And you showed an example where Jesus changed an action.

Who changed Mary being sinless? Please give the action when it happened. Unless otherwise proven she is full of grace then at the time of the Angel Gabriel addressing her as full of grace, as she is now in the present,** and** that condition is ongoing in full effect.
G:

In other words, you’re asserting that the ‘present effect’ is raised to the level of ‘perpetual effect’ by virtue of the use of the perfect tense. That’s patently absurd. No such implication exists. You can see how silly that would be, can’t you? You’d practically never be able to use that tense, if that were the case!
That was the whole point of the example of Luke 19:30 – Jesus spoke of a colt that ‘has been bound’ (δεδεμένον, a passive perfect participle!) – specifically in the context of it being loosed by the apostles! Clearly, future ‘continuing’ effect is explicitly what Jesus is denying will happen!

Where was it shown that someone intervened in κεχαριτωμένη, such that it is no longer a reality for Mary?

Are you saying that presently,she is NOT fully graced?
G:

So, there are your examples: two cases in which you clearly demonstrate your notion that the perfect tense speaks to future effect (as well as a proof that this is not at all what perfect tense is all about).

Where is it shown that someone intervened in κεχαριτωμένη, such that Mary is no longer full of grace, neither presently nor ongoing?
G:

If the future is never addressed in the perfect tense, how could it possibly deny it? How could it ever be asserted that the absence of comment about the future implies any kind of statement about expectations for the future?
Actually, the past action is ‘being graced’ (by God), and the resulting effect is ‘having grace’. That’s all we can say, from a grammatical perspective, although there’s quite a bit more that we can say – and do say! – from a theological perspective.

Read the definition again.

“the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, … the Greek perfect tense indicates the continuation and present state of a completed past action.” & that action continues on in full effect.

Where is it shown that someone intervened in κεχαριτωμένη, such that Mary

• was no longer full of grace
• is no longer full of grace prersently,
• nor full of grace ongoing?

 

[Gorgias]

Anybody can see what I wrote, how I wrote it, AND the context it was written in.

Yes, I can. That’s why I’m calling you on it. It’s a shame, therefore, that you have no defense for what you’ve asserted here.

You’re saying then, the Blessed Mother being full of grace doesn’t go past the annunciation. Therefore you’re saying that “being full of grace” doesn’t “continue on in full effect” after that. THAT is your explanation of “present”?

No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. In fact, I keep reminding you that I, too, agree that Mary’s “being full of grace” does not end at the Annunciation. However, I continue to remind you that the grammar of κεχαριτωμένη is not the sole proof of this theological assertion.

Please explain THAT ?

Certainly, although I’ve already done so. What I’m saying is that the argument for Mary’s perpetual sinlessness is a theological argument, and not (primarily) a grammatical argument. The grammar aids in the theological argument; it does not, however, in and of itself, prove the theological argument.

You seem to be having a difficult time isolating these two dynamics (‘theology’ and ‘grammar’). It seems to me – and perhaps I’m mistaken – that you want grammar to prove your theology. Grammar doesn’t have any skin in that game.

However, what I’m saying is not that “the Blessed Mother being full of grace doesn’t go past the annunciation.” In fact, I’ve said – again and again on this thread! – that I agree with that theological assertion! Rather, it’s simply an objective fact that the word κεχαριτωμένη itself does not (completely) make this theological assertion. Rather, its grammar aids us in making this theological assertion. If you have a problem distinguishing between ‘grammar’ and ‘theology’, then I understand your issues dealing with this question.
steve b:

I never promised you another tense.

Umm… if you say so:
steve b:

If an action is anticipated to end, and isn’t anticipated to continue, i.e. won’t endure “in full effect” then another tense of a verb is available and should be used instead

Sure looks like you’re asserting that “another tense of a verb is available”…

Perfect tense doesn’t say someone can’t intervene and change a past action at some point.

True enough; yet, you asserted that perfect tense meant that the effect would endure eternally. Clearly, that’s an erroneous assertion.

I think our discussion here is at an end. It’s clear that we both believe in Mary’s sinlessness, but it’s likewise clear (to me) that I won’t be able to help you understand that your conflation of ‘grammar’ and ‘theology’ is in error.

May the Spirit guide you in your apologetic efforts…

 

[Good_Fella]

:**Perfect Tense **

The basic thought of the perfect tense is that 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. **

For example, Galatians 2:20 should be translated “I am in a present state of having been crucified with Christ,” indicating that not only was I crucified with Christ in the past, but I am existing now in that present condition.

www.ntgreek.org

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Galatians 2, 20

‘I have been crucified with Christ’ (Χριστωι συνεσταυρωμαι — Christōi sunestaurōmai). One of Paul‘s greatest mystical sayings. Perfect passive indicative of συσταυροω — sustauroō with the associative instrumental case (Χριστωι — Christōi).)

The Greek perfect tense has to do with the person’s present condition or state. Thus Luke is telling us that the grace Mary was endowed with in the past is the state of grace she is existing in at the time of the Annunciation. Theologically we may assume that Mary remained in this state of grace after the angel departed, since he left as soon as Mary consented to be the mother of our Lord - the Divine Maternity being the reason for this singular endowment of grace. The perfect tense itself does not function to indicate that this state of grace will necesarily continue to exist after the present time. Paul continues to be in the state of being crucified with Christ on the condition that Christ lives in him, and as long as he lives his life “by faith in the Son of God,” just as Mary continues to be in the state of sanctifying grace provided she is the mother of our Lord.

PAX
:hug3: