Scriptural Evidence: The Immaculate Conception Of Mary

[NDfan]

When the Ephesians were favoured there is no implication in the Greek that they remained favoured.

The Greek for 1:28 shows that Mary was favoured and continued to be favoured throughout her life.

Luke 1:28 uses a perfect passive participle, Ephesians does not.

Canto actually that’s not true. The past participle used for Mary means that GOD favoring her was a completed action meaning in the past which we both agree on. Echaritosen which Paul uses in his letter to the Ephesians is not used just to describe the Ephesians. Paul states the following and I’ll quote:

6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has made us accepted in the Beloved

The word us doesn’t refer to just the Ephesians. Paul doesn’t say you are now favored indicating the Ephesians exclusively. Paul includes himself in the us using the Greek word hemesis which is a simple plural word for we, ourselves etc. So to say the ephesians didn’t continue to stay in GOD’s favor is incorrect. Echaritosen does not mean you fall out of favor. If that were the case then we (you and I) could fall out of GOD’s favor today. That’s impossible because GOD’s very purpose for sending Christ was a result of HIS favoring us. If GOD no longer favors us then Christ as our savior is not applicable anymore. Why continue to preach the Gospel at all then

To be justifed means to be freed from sin
St Paul says that were are justified by favour

If Mary recieved favour sometime in the past - the action completed and the Greek implying a fullness - and it tells us she remained favoured, how could she have sinned.

Justified does not mean to be freed from sin. Being justified simply means that before GOD we as sinners are made right by Christ. Christ does not make us sinless and the church never taught nor does it teach that. Accepting Christ fills us with grace (charis) which makes us holy.

Additionally the Greek does not imply fullness in Mary’s case. It’s a completed action. The participle acts as a descriptor. So describing Mary we would say she is favored. Charis is a noun and charitoo a verb. Charitoo is the word used to describe Mary and is used in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

Christ is the only person described as being full of GOD’s grace (charis). John uses Pleres which in greek literally means fullness. To be exact it means: perfect, lacking nothing, to be completely full. Mary is not described this way at all.

The Greek does not literally translated as full of favour, but being the perfect passive particple it implies that she is full of favour

Incorrect. Kecharitomene literally translates to highly favored. It is the verb form of charis written as a perfect past participle. I explained this already. It has no implication of a fullness and does not mean she was full of favor. You can’t be described as being full of a verb. The verb is an action GOD took. Meaning HE favored Mary. The past participle describes that it was done in the past. Mary doesn’t develop more favor from GOD as time goes on. She was and is favored. Not full of favor.

-Tyndale, who used many non traditional renderings in his translation, did full of grace.
-Covedale - full of grace
-The Latin and Syriac (when Biblical Greek was still spoken) - full of grace
-The Arabic - full of grace

Are all these translations wrong?

They are not literal word for word translations. They are thought-based translations.

Even Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI say the most literal translation is full of grace.

And they are incorrect as well. This simply shows they do not understand the Greek. The NASB Bible which is accepted by the Catholic Church uses favored one. Any word for word translation will stay with favored one as this is the strict Greek interpretation.

As Mary was favoured in the past, the action completed with and implication of fullness, and she remained so throughout her life - how does one translate this to convey all the senses yet keep the translation vocative as in the Greek?

There is no implication of fullness with the word kecharitomene. If you argue that Mary was full of favor then the same would apply in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians in which he says GOD favored us. But Paul uses present tense language which is why we see the word echaritosen instead of kecharitomene. But the root word charitoo is the same in both cases and is a verb.

Full of favour. Or an even better reneding of Charis and its derivatives - Full of grace.

Charis is not the word used here. Charis is a noun. The verb form of charis was used which is charitoo. The noun charis is not used in reference to Mary. Charis is what John uses to describe Christ as being full of using the word Pleres. You are not understanding the Greek here and it is very obvious.

If Mary is full of grace, she must have been filled sometime in the past. As the Bible doesn’t say she lost the grace, she must have remained graced throughout her life. Lastly in lieu of v.30 we see that Mary found grace (charin) with God, and thus we have her passivity.

Sounds like the perfect passive particple to me

No Mary did not lose her grace and neither did we or anyone alive now or in the future on this earth. GOD’s grace applies to us all because Christ came to deliver that grace to us to make us holy before GOD. Christ is full of grace and is the only one in scripture to be described this way.

In verse 30 the angel tells Mary that GOD has found favor with her. The greek there is Charis. But the angel does not say she is full of charis. The grace GOD found with Mary is the same grace HE finds with you and me. The implication of verse 30 is that Mary was considered holy already which would make sense given she would deliver the Messiah.

 

[NDfan]

close the reason for need of purgatory is the result of sins committed after baptism,if one was die immediatley after baptism they would have been washed clean of all sin through the regerantion of baptism and would have need of further cleansing…

Thanks FBL I wasn’t considering that specific aspect

 

[NDfan]

the question still remains"how was Mary favored by God always(from the time of her conception)"?exactly what was/is this favor?

FBL favor as a noun simply means to have a regard for someone or something. I hate to be so crude but let’s say as an example: a style that is in favor

In the verb form it would mean to perform a favor for someone or to treat with partiality etc. So I favor red wine to white wine.

If we relate that back to scripture, kecharitomene is a verb conjugated as a past participle. So simply we could say GOD took a liking to Mary. But what is interesting is that in verse 30 the Angel does say GOD found favor with Mary using the noun charis. So that would imply GOD considered her to be holy or set apart etc. But does that mean sinless? If Mary was sinless then why was she so troubled by the greeting? Luke tells us that Mary was troubled at what kind of greeting this could be.

If we stay in context of what the message is, we see that the Angel is not there to tell Mary she is sinless. The Angel is there to tell her she would give birth to the Messiah. That GOD favored her, charitoo the verb, to perform this great task. Using the past tense language just means that GOD favored Mary to do this probably from the time she was conceived.

 

[fbl9]

FBL favor as a noun simply means to have a regard for someone or something. I hate to be so crude but let’s say as an example: a style that is in favor

In the verb form it would mean to perform a favor for someone or to treat with partiality etc. So I favor red wine to white wine.

If we relate that back to scripture, kecharitomene is a verb conjugated as a past participle. So simply we could say GOD took a liking to Mary. But what is interesting is that in verse 30 the Angel does say GOD found favor with Mary using the noun charis. So that would imply GOD considered her to be holy or set apart etc. But does that mean sinless? If Mary was sinless then why was she so troubled by the greeting? Luke tells us that Mary was troubled at what kind of greeting this could be.

If we stay in context of what the message is, we see that the Angel is not there to tell Mary she is sinless. The Angel is there to tell her she would give birth to the Messiah. That GOD favored her, charitoo the verb, to perform this great task. Using the past tense language just means that GOD favored Mary to do this probably from the time she was conceived.

so far so good…now we are at the piont that God knew who was going to bear His Son into the world…
new question…how is orginal sin transfered from one generation to the next.?
NDfan i’ll be back later take care eh.and God bless.

 

[NDfan]

so far so good…now we are at the piont that God knew who was going to bear His Son into the world…
new question…how is orginal sin transfered from one generation to the next.?
NDfan i’ll be back later take care eh.and God bless.

Well if we look into scripture it appears as though sin is transmitted for lack of a better word through the seed of a man. But I think this is more poetic than anything given that a woman cannot conceive without a man. Unless of course we are speaking of Mary.

But to say the seed of man would suggest that a woman has no sin in her. That it comes from a man which has the sin. Although it could make sense given that Eve was made from the rib of Adam.

Given that to be the case then Mary would have inherited her sin from her father if we keep in line with scripture. Staying with that thought Christ would not have inherited any sin because Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit who is sinless.

What I do find interesting is that scripture does say Christ was born into sin but committed no sin. Does that simply mean Christ was born into a sinful world, or that HE was born of a sinful woman?

Blessings to you to FBL. Look forward to keeping the conversation going.

 

[Good_Fella]

(Luke 1:28) uses the Greek word “charitoo”, which means “highly favoured”, instead of the “full of grace” that you incorrectly claim as the Angel’s address to Mary.

The only “full of grace” that you will find in God’s Word, is the (John 1:14) description of Jesus: “pleres charis” = “full of grace”.

The transfer of this description of Jesus to Mary is adding to Scripture.
Only Jesus has the description of being “full of grace” in the Bible.

In the Greek text, the angel Gabriel greets Mary by saying: “Chaire kecharitomene.” The expression ‘kecharitomene’ has to do with God’s grace, for the Greek root ‘charis’ means “grace”. To be in a state of grace is to be in God’s favour. To be in God’s favour is to be sinless. To be sinless is to be in a state of grace which is the antitode to sin.

For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace.
Romans 6, 14

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift from God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.
Ephesians 2, 8-10

And Mary said:
“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my saviour.
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;
behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.”
*Luke 1, 46-49 *

It is the grace of God that warrants Mary’s declaration in the indicative mood: “I am saved.” The Gospel of Luke reveals that Mary was sinless, for a sinful person cannot make such a confident declaration as this unless she wasn’t Catholic. The evangelist portrays Mary as someone who is permanently holy and righteous before God as long as she lives. Mary is presented as acknowledging that she has been saved by the grace of God. Her salvation is already assured, not only by the redemptive merits of Christ’s death, but by her sinlessness that gains merit in and through Christ. For her declaration is presented while she is still alive. Mary was an adolescent when she conceived Jesus. Certainly Mary was full of the grace that is needed in order to be saved or else she could not have acknowledged with certainty her salvation. To be fully in a state of grace is to be fully without sin and thus in God’s favour, which Adam and Eve had forfeited. Luke presents Mary as one who is holy and righteous before God by his grace and assuredly redeemed by the merits of Christ’s Passion and Death because of her sinlessness.

Both Jesus and Mary were “full of grace” but in a different manner: Jesus in his substantial grace of union with the Father, Mary by having the fullness of grace bestowed upon her by the Holy Spirit at the first instant of her conception. The sanctifying grace Mary received at the point she was conceived preserved her from contracting original sin. When we speak of Jesus, we acknowledge one who did not have to be preserved free from the stain of original sin - the absence of God’s grace. God intervened when Mary was conceived because she was implicated in the sin of Adam but chosen to be the mother of God’s divine Son.

“Mary, a Virgin, not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolet, free of every stain of sin.”
St. Ambrose (A.D. 388)

 

[ckempston]

so far so good…now we are at the piont that God knew who was going to bear His Son into the world…
new question…how is orginal sin transfered from one generation to the next.?
NDfan i’ll be back later take care eh.and God bless.

Slight tangent from your question here, but somewhat related to it, and the original question: Now that I think about this whole argument, and a discussion I had elsewhere with Joshua, it makes less sense to require Mary be sinless due to the fact that Jesus is God, and God cannot be in the presence of sin. The argument, as I understood it, runs thus:

P1) Jesus is God.
P2) God cannot be in the presence of sin.
P3) Jesus shared Mary’s flesh, blood, breath, etc.
P4) If Mary had sin (original or actual), this would have put Jesus, who is God, in the direct presence of sin in her womb.
Conclusion) Mary must have been free of all sin, original and actual.

This could also be modified to say that Jesus has to be prevented from inheriting Original Sin. The problem with that approach is that if God could stop/protect Mary from inheriting original sin, he could have just as easily done it directly with Jesus (Occams Razor).

In any case, P1 is accepted by all in this discussion. However, in the sense that Jesus is God, I am not sure that P2 applies to this situation for the following reasons:

Jesus took the sin of the whole world upon himself on the cross, so the very situation Catholics attempt to avoid by making Mary sinless, was the very thing that Jesus Christ came to earth to do (i.e. take our sin upon him), so that objection seems to be rendered moot. In that sense, P2 cannot possibly apply. Another reason this does not apply is that all Christians, who still sin, have the indwelling Holy Spirit. So, in that way, God still comes into “contact” with sin, albeit, probably in a way that is different from the way we think of contact when we hear, “God cannot be in the presence of sin”. I would conclude that we are misapplying the idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin, and would say there is no special requirement that Mary be sinless from birth. I will also say that although I see no special requirement, I will still admit that it is possible, given the Catholic explanation and understanding.

 

[ckempston]

In the Greek text, the angel Gabriel greets Mary by saying: “Chaire kecharitomene.” The expression ‘kecharitomene’ has to do with God’s grace, for the Greek root ‘charis’ means “grace”. To be in a state of grace is to be in God’s favour. To be in God’s favour is to be sinless. To be sinless is to be in a state of grace which is the antitode to sin.

Two questions for you:

Are you in God’s Grace? Y/N
Are you sinless? Y/N

 

[MarcoPolo]

You do need to perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify this intepretation.

No, you don’t have to at all. You just have to take the time to consider all that’s there, understand typology, and read some saints throughout the centuries who expound on this with a fairly unified voice. It fits perfect with Mary as Ark of the Covenant and Eve. But that’s your opinion to consider it mental gymnastics. So we move on.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Two questions for you:

Are you in God’s Grace? Y/N
Are you sinless? Y/N

I would answer that I hope I’m in God’s grace and highly doubt I am full of grace in my past, present and future.

And I’d say I’m pretty sure I’m not sinless.

I believe it was the apologist Tim Staples who said that Luke 1:28 was not by itself, a proof text. It merely fits with the other texts that point to the same conclusion, which I mentioned in my long post early on. It’s a package deal, which together, as a whole, reveals so much more.

As someone who I’m guessing does not believe in Tradition or the authority of the Church to pass on what God has revealed of this doctrine, isn’t that ultimately the issue?

 

[Peter_J]

Well technically you are correct in that the translation does not really convey the meaning of the word kecharitomene to its fullest.

Precisely. The way I see, you object to “kecharitomene” being translated “gratia plena” on the grounds that “that isn’t what the Greek says”, and yet you want us to instead translate it as “highly favored”, which isn’t what the Greek says either.

The problem with #36 as I stated in another post is that Christ does not implement a process by which we become sinless before GOD and the church certainly doesn’t support that. We are made righteous before GOD by Christ. The church teaches that the purgation process is what ultimately cleanses us of our sin before GOD.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand. I did not say that we are sinless. I fully except that I’m going to continue sinning until the day I die. What I said is that we are in the PROCESS of BECOMING sinless.

 

[Peter_J]

But you can’t apply the meaning of Charitoo to being made sinless. The way the word is used especially with the greeting to Mary is as a past participle which as stated in my original post becomes a descriptor for the verb. Like an adjective. So it ends up becoming an attribute of the person(s). In Mary’s case she was favored probably at conception based on the past tense. The Ephesians are being told that they are now favored more present tense. But the entire meaning behind being favored is the reason GOD sent Christ to us. To redeem us. Not to make us sinless.

Does that mean we are going to continue sinning when we are in heaven?

 

[ckempston]

No, you don’t have to at all. You just have to take the time to consider all that’s there, understand typology, and read some saints throughout the centuries who expound on this with a fairly unified voice. It fits perfect with Mary as Ark of the Covenant and Eve. But that’s your opinion to consider it mental gymnastics. So we move on.

Neither the Ark, nor the Temple, are types for Mary. I demonstrated this quite easily by simply quoting Ezekiel 44 in context, which you failed to do.

 

[ckempston]

I would answer that I hope I’m in God’s grace and highly doubt I am full of grace in my past, present and future.

And I’d say I’m pretty sure I’m not sinless.

I believe it was the apologist Tim Staples who said that Luke 1:28 was not by itself, a proof text. It merely fits with the other texts that point to the same conclusion, which I mentioned in my long post early on. It’s a package deal, which together, as a whole, reveals so much more.

As someone who I’m guessing does not believe in Tradition or the authority of the Church to pass on what God has revealed of this doctrine, isn’t that ultimately the issue?

Great, so we’re decided then. Being in God’s grace does not make one sinless. Moving on then.

 

[Peter_J]

Great, so we’re decided then. Being in God’s grace does not make one sinless. Moving on then.

Personally, I never had an issue with that.

 

[ckempston]

I would answer that I hope I’m in God’s grace and highly doubt I am full of grace in my past, present and future.

And I’d say I’m pretty sure I’m not sinless.

Why do you ignore the fact that two people have clearly demonstrated that the tense of the verb in Luke 1:28 does not suggest anything you are trying to make it suggest?

I believe it was the apologist Tim Staples who said that Luke 1:28 was not by itself, a proof text. It merely fits with the other texts that point to the same conclusion, which I mentioned in my long post early on. It’s a package deal, which together, as a whole, reveals so much more.

I would definitely agree with Tim Staples. I wonder what these other texts are?

As someone who I’m guessing does not believe in Tradition or the authority of the Church to pass on what God has revealed of this doctrine, isn’t that ultimately the issue?

If the church looked like it did in the 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd century, perhaps I would find this believe in it. It does not, however. The ever expanding storehouse of doctrines does not fit with the simplicity that I see in the Bible and very early on in Christianity. I actually have no problem with Tradition, per se, I simply have a problem with the claim that everything that is believed today was believed in the 1st century. Many doctrines may be reasonable, and even not totally incompatible with scripture, but that doesn’t make them right.

 

[fbl9]

Slight tangent from your question here, but somewhat related to it, and the original question: Now that I think about this whole argument, and a discussion I had elsewhere with Joshua, it makes less sense to require Mary be sinless due to the fact that Jesus is God, and God cannot be in the presence of sin. The argument, as I understood it, runs thus:

P1) Jesus is God.
P2) God cannot be in the presence of sin.
P3) Jesus shared Mary’s flesh, blood, breath, etc.
P4) If Mary had sin (original or actual), this would have put Jesus, who is God, in the direct presence of sin in her womb.
Conclusion) Mary must have been free of all sin, original and actual.

This could also be modified to say that Jesus has to be prevented from inheriting Original Sin. The problem with that approach is that if God could stop/protect Mary from inheriting original sin, he could have just as easily done it directly with Jesus (Occams Razor).

In any case, P1 is accepted by all in this discussion. However, in the sense that Jesus is God, I am not sure that P2 applies to this situation for the following reasons:

Jesus took the sin of the whole world upon himself on the cross, so the very situation Catholics attempt to avoid by making Mary sinless, was the very thing that Jesus Christ came to earth to do (i.e. take our sin upon him), so that objection seems to be rendered moot. In that sense, P2 cannot possibly apply. Another reason this does not apply is that all Christians, who still sin, have the indwelling Holy Spirit. So, in that way, God still comes into “contact” with sin, albeit, probably in a way that is different from the way we think of contact when we hear, “God cannot be in the presence of sin”. I would conclude that we are misapplying the idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin, and would say there is no special requirement that Mary be sinless from birth. I will also say that although I see no special requirement, I will still admit that it is possible, given the Catholic explanation and understanding.

…interesting post indeed…
He took the effects of sin upon Himself which is death…Jesus took the guilt of sin upon Himself,but He Himself is without sin itself.

 

[fbl9]

Well if we look into scripture it appears as though sin is transmitted for lack of a better word through the seed of a man. But I think this is more poetic than anything given that a woman cannot conceive without a man. Unless of course we are speaking of Mary.

But to say the seed of man would suggest that a woman has no sin in her. That it comes from a man which has the sin. Although it could make sense given that Eve was made from the rib of Adam.

Given that to be the case then Mary would have inherited her sin from her father if we keep in line with scripture. Staying with that thought Christ would not have inherited any sin because Mary conceived through the Holy Spirit who is sinless.

What I do find interesting is that scripture does say Christ was born into sin but committed no sin. Does that simply mean Christ was born into a sinful world, or that HE was born of a sinful woman?

Blessings to you to FBL. Look forward to keeping the conversation going.

sounds reasonable to me…
it still doesn’t really answer the question fully for me,due to the fact every one is born with orginal sin even those born of baptised parents.

 

[Peter_J]

Why do you ignore the fact that two people have clearly demonstrated that the tense of the verb in Luke 1:28 does not suggest anything you are trying to make it suggest?

I agree with you and NDFan that “gratia plena” is not a literal translation of “kecharitomene”. But the thing is, “highly favored” is not a literal translation of “kecharitomene” either. It seems to me that the most reasonable approach is to consider them both to be permissible (albeit imperfect) translations.

BTW, it probably goes without saying but just for the record, I don’t automatically believe something just because St. Jerome believed it. (For example, St. Jerome had a rather dim view of the “Apocryphal” books, which I don’t share.)

 

[Peter_J]

Slight tangent from your question here, but somewhat related to it, and the original question: Now that I think about this whole argument, and a discussion I had elsewhere with Joshua, it makes less sense to require Mary be sinless due to the fact that Jesus is God, and God cannot be in the presence of sin. The argument, as I understood it, runs thus:

P1) Jesus is God.
P2) God cannot be in the presence of sin.
P3) Jesus shared Mary’s flesh, blood, breath, etc.
P4) If Mary had sin (original or actual), this would have put Jesus, who is God, in the direct presence of sin in her womb.
Conclusion) Mary must have been free of all sin, original and actual.

This could also be modified to say that Jesus has to be prevented from inheriting Original Sin. The problem with that approach is that if God could stop/protect Mary from inheriting original sin, he could have just as easily done it directly with Jesus (Occams Razor).

In any case, P1 is accepted by all in this discussion. However, in the sense that Jesus is God, I am not sure that P2 applies to this situation for the following reasons:

Jesus took the sin of the whole world upon himself on the cross, so the very situation Catholics attempt to avoid by making Mary sinless, was the very thing that Jesus Christ came to earth to do (i.e. take our sin upon him), so that objection seems to be rendered moot. In that sense, P2 cannot possibly apply. Another reason this does not apply is that all Christians, who still sin, have the indwelling Holy Spirit. So, in that way, God still comes into “contact” with sin, albeit, probably in a way that is different from the way we think of contact when we hear, “God cannot be in the presence of sin”. I would conclude that we are misapplying the idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin, and would say there is no special requirement that Mary be sinless from birth. I will also say that although I see no special requirement, I will still admit that it is possible, given the Catholic explanation and understanding.

I believe you are correct: God didn’t need Mary to be immaculate.