The Virgin Mary

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Jesus was born in the likeness of men, so that men can be born into the likeness of God.

Where do either Jn 1:14, or Php 2:6-8 state what you assert they state?

The church teaches that we are to be “made” holy, not just pronounced holy. Covering the sin is a protestant invention.

The topic of the thread concerns Mary, you said:Therefore she [Mary] is called “our life and our hope”. She exemplifies what we all hope to achieve in an eternal dwelling with her blessed Son, and our hopes fulfilled.As I said before, that Mary is called ”our life and our hope,” is not a consistent teaching of the church, and, as a teaching, it is non-existent within the scripture.

guanophore:

I never said that Catholics are perfect, or that they fulfill God’s intention that we avoid sin. God is merciful, and helps us in our weakness. The church did not 'create purgatory". Furthermore, purgatory is not a place. It is a state, where any stains of this world are removed so we can be in the presence of God. Neither is purgatory “payment for sins” as Jesus paid the price in full on the cross. However, all that belongs in another thread.

I have a book entitled, Charity for the Suffering Souls, An Explanation of the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory by the Reverend John A. Nageleisen, with the Imprimatur of Joseph Rademacher, Bishop of Fort Wayne February, 1895, reprinted in 1977, and 1982, in which Nageleisen clearly teaches that purgatory is a place, and one of great pain and suffering, in which the payment for temporal sins is underway—another historical testament to the shifting winds of doctrine within your church.

guanophore:

Sin, and the tendency toward sin (concupiscence) are the consequences of original sin. All men have not sinned. How do we know this? Scripture speaks of the righteous, and Elijah, Enoch, and Moses are all taken up into heaven, where sin cannot dwell.

You refuse to submit to the teaching that all have sinned, both in Adam, and personally.
gunaophore:

We are not guilty of Adam’s sin.

Then why are we said to be, conceived in sin (Ps 51), and said to be, by nature, “children of [God’s] wrath (Eph 2)?”

guanophore:

And so they would know what is required to live righteously before God. Under the law, the just lived by faith.

That is not the scriptural reason for the giving of the law; it’s your opinion—the reason for the law, according to guanophore.

You cannot possibly accept an alternative interpretation, because it would decimate your entire soteriology.

A red-herring.

guanophore:

One thing has nothign to do with the other. The consequence of original sin is not the same as personal sin.

Your words flow easily, and unsupported from your keyboard.

guanophore:

Death is the consequence of sin, not the sin itself. The guilt of Adam’s sin is not imputed to his descendents. What has befallen us is the falling out of his sin.

Whatever that means.

 

[guanophore]

Where do either Jn 1:14, or Php 2:6-8 state what you assert they state?

Well, can we agree that the Divine Second Person of the Trinity became flesh?

If so, then is our disagreement about what God intends for mankind?

2 Peter 1:3-4

3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

The topic of the thread concerns Mary, you said:Therefore she [Mary] is called “our life and our hope”. She exemplifies what we all hope to achieve in an eternal dwelling with her blessed Son, and our hopes fulfilled.As I said before, that Mary is called ”our life and our hope,” is not a consistent teaching of the church, and, as a teaching, it is non-existent within the scripture.

In Mary’s life, we see the fulfillment of the promises in 2 Peter. She has become a partaker of His divine nature, and escaped the corruption of the world.

I have a book entitled, Charity for the Suffering Souls, An Explanation of the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory by the Reverend John A. Nageleisen, with the Imprimatur of Joseph Rademacher, Bishop of Fort Wayne February, 1895, reprinted in 1977, and 1982, in which Nageleisen clearly teaches that purgatory is a place, and one of great pain and suffering, in which the payment for temporal sins is underway—another historical testament to the shifting winds of doctrine within your church.

I think that, since we are so limited by our finite minds, and find it difficult to conceive of a spiritual state, maybe it makes more sense to describe it as a “place”. I can’t really speak to that personally, not having been there.

There is no such thing as a “temporal sin” in Catholic theology.

You refuse to submit to the teaching that all have sinned, both in Adam, and personally.

This is true. It is not part of the Apostolic teachings. It is a reformed notion that cropped up about 500 years ago, and is not approved by the Church. It would be a sin to disobey the teaching of the Church in this matter.

Then why are we said to be, conceived in sin (Ps 51), and said to be, by nature, “children of [God’s] wrath (Eph 2)?”
That is not the scriptural reason for the giving of the law; it’s your opinion—the reason for the law, according to guanophore.

context, context, context! Good questions, not belonging in this thread.

 

[Ginger2]

Guan & JM,

What translation are you looking at?

The original Greek for the specific words translated “grace” are not the same in all these verses.

In John 1:14 & Eph 1:6 the same word is translated “grace”.

Luke 1:28 translates a different word “grace” which is the same word in Eph translated “made acceptable”

If you are using something translated from the Vulgate, you need to remember that the Vulgate is a translation from the Greek.

I am unable to find my concordance, but I studied this a long time ago. I actually found out that some concordances are flawed and you have to be careful as you study. If you are really paying attention you will catch the errors by looking at the original word and comparing it to the translation as opposed to just looking at the translated word. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Guan & JM,

What translation are you looking at?

The original Greek for the specific words translated “grace” are not the same in all these verses.

In John 1:14 & Eph 1:6 the same word is translated “grace”.

Luke 1:28 translates a different word “grace” which is the same word in Eph translated “made acceptable”

If you are using something translated from the Vulgate, you need to remember that the Vulgate is a translation from the Greek.

I am unable to find my concordance, but I studied this a long time ago. I actually found out that some concordances are flawed and you have to be careful as you study. If you are really paying attention you will catch the errors by looking at the original word and comparing it to the translation as opposed to just looking at the translated word. I hope that makes sense.

The original Greek is Kecharitomene, if taken literally means…completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." ((Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses **“echaritosen,” **which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).

Here are a number of ancient experts and what they say it means; each of them is a Greek-speaker from a culture basically identical to that of St. Luke; there are a couple repeats from the previous thread, but from them I give new material, too; the passages are expositions by the authors of the meaning of Luke 1:28, generally centered on chaire, Kecharitomene:

Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-270 AD):

O purest one
O purest virgin
where the Holy Spirit is, there are all things readily ordered. Where divine grace is present
the soil that, all untilled, bears bounteous fruit
in the life of the flesh, was in possession of the incorruptible citizenship, and walked as such in all manner of virtues, and lived a life more excellent than man’s common standard
thou hast put on the vesture of purity
has selected thee as the holy one and the wholly fair;
and through thy holy, and chaste, and pure, and undefiled womb
since of all the race of man thou art by birth the holy one, and the more honourable, and the purer, and the more pious than any other: and thou hast a mind whiter than the snow, and a body made purer than any gold

bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm

 

[Ginger2]

Since I cannot find my concordance, and am writing this from memory, I think I better stick with Luke 1:28 & John 1:14.

This is what I was specifically studying, so I remember this well. The two words translated “grace” are not the same word in these verses.

 

[Ginger2]

Manny, We seem to have been posting at the same time.

Show me the Greek and let’s compare.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Ginger that is the problem with “Protestant Lexicons”. They distort the Greek and never actually cover the exact word used.

Strong’s and other’s lexicons and concordances are not on the up and up. There is a great deal of deception taking place.

**G5487 **χαριτόω charitoō khar-ee-to’-o
From G5485; to grace, that is, indue with special honor: - make accepted, be highly favoured.

This is from e-sword.

Strong’s wants you to believe that the word used in the Greek is charitoo. it is not. Strong’s is only given you the ROOT word not the ACTUAL word.

DR - And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

KJV - And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Complements of greekbible.com/

Luke 1:28 kai eiselqwn proV authn eipen, caire, kecaritwmenh, o kurioV meta sou.

χαριτόω does not equal kecaritwmenh

Note that the word in the Greek is not the same word used in Strong’s or any other “Protestant Lexicon”

The word charitoo is never used alone in the Bible. It is used twice in conjugated form with Greek prefix stem and a Greek suffix stem.

The other occurence is Eph 1:6

DR - Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son.

KJV - To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

GreekBible.com - eiV epainon doxhV thV caritoV autou hV ecaritwsen hmaV en tw hgaphmenw,

Notice again a difference between the root word and the actual word?
**χαριτόω **vs ecaritwsen

 

[JoeyWarren]

Break it down Bob!

When Gabriel appears to Mary, the first words he says to her are “Chaire, kecharitomene!” Caire, kecaritomene!]. Chaire (which means both “rejoice” and “hail”) is the salutation, like the word “hello” in “hello, Cathy!” The word that follows, kecharitomene, is the direct address. In the previous example, the name “Cathy” is the direct address. A direct address is usually a name or title (or pronoun taking the place of a name or title) which represents the identity of the person being spoken to. Gabriel identifies Mary with a single term: not the name “Mary,” but the word kecharitomene.

Here, a common translation problem occurs. Gabriel only uses one word to refer to Mary, but most English translations do not. One particularly bad translation renders kecharitomene as “highly favored daughter.” Kecharitomene is extended from one word to three. The direct address in the translation is “daughter,” a word which does not appear in the Greek at all (as will be shown below). “Daughter” is then modified with a relevant word. This doesn’t really do kecharitomene justice. The same is true of translations which make the direct address “you” or “one” and modify it with adjectives or appositive phrases.

 

[JoeyWarren]

**caritow

**The root word is charitoo caritow], which means “to grace, favor.” On this much, it seems, all agree. All the common English translations of the word therefore, regardless of whether the translators are Catholic or Protestant, use some form of “grace” or “favor” in them.

ke

The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action. The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel’s greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.

This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be “you are certified to teach.” “Are” indicates a present state, “certified” shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.

mene

The suffix on charitoo, mene, makes this a passive participle. “Passive” means that the action is performed on the subject, in this case Mary, by another agent. The verb is “grace” and the implied subject is Mary. The passive usage means that “someone graced Mary,” rather than “Mary graced.” Most theologians would probably accept the assumption that the implied “someone” is God. “Participle,” in this case, means that the word has properties of both a verb and a noun. This makes sense in light of what has already been said about direct address. A direct address is a noun or pronoun, but “to grace” is a verb. Kecharitomene has verb and noun properties.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The protestant lexicons fail to delve into the actual word used.

The next question is why?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny, We seem to have been posting at the same time.

Show me the Greek and let’s compare.

JoeyWarren gives more specifics.

 

[sandusky]

JoeyWarren:

Ginger that is the problem with “Protestant Lexicons”. They distort the Greek and never actually cover the exact word used.

Strong’s and other’s lexicons and concordances are not on the up and up. There is a great deal of deception taking place.

Joey; how’s my favorite victim; I see you’re still peddling the conspiracy theory with regard to protestant Greek lexicons; can’t trust those “wascally,” satan-possessed prots, can you?

JoeyWarren:

Strong’s wants you to believe that the word used in the Greek is charitoo. it is not. Strong’s is only given you the ROOT word not the ACTUAL word.

That’s because the actual word is charitoō, Joey; we’ve gone through this before.

charitoō does not equal kecharitōmene

Yes, it does; the prefixing and suffixing have to do with the verbs timing, and the duration of the action.

JoeyWarren:

Note that the word in the Greek is not the same word used in Strong’s or any other “Protestant Lexicon”

That’s because lexicons don’t parse the words, Joey; they don’t give every possible
conjugated form; that is not the lexicon’s purpose; they give the root only, and generally reference the specific verse(s) in which the word is used.

JoeyWarren:

The word charitoo is never used alone in the Bible. It is used twice in conjugated form with Greek prefix stem and a Greek suffix stem.

Correct; there is no verse in the Bible with the single word, charitoō,, ie., ”favor.”

kecharitōmene (Lk 1:28)
echaritōsen (Eph 1:6)

See the root within the prefix, and suffix of each word.

The root has nothing whatsoever to do with sinlessness.

Both Mary, and the elect have been charitoōed by God.

And there is no protestant lexical conspiracy against the BVM.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Joey; how’s my favorite victim; I see you’re still peddling the conspiracy theory with regard to protestant Greek lexicons; can’t trust those “wascally,” satan-possessed prots, can you?

That’s because the actual word is charitoō, Joey; we’ve gone through this before.

Yes, it does; the prefixing and suffixing have to do with the verbs timing, and the duration of the action.

That’s because lexicons don’t parse the words, Joey; they don’t give every possible
conjugated form; that is not the lexicon’s purpose; they give the root only, and generally reference the specific verse(s) in which the word is used.

Correct; there is no verse in the Bible with the single word, charitoō,, ie., ”favor.”

kecharitōmene (Lk 1:28)
echaritōsen (Eph 1:6)

See the root within the prefix, and suffix of each word.

The root has nothing whatsoever to do with sinlessness.

Both Mary, and the elect have been charitoōed by God.

And there is no protestant lexical conspiracy against the BVM.

the Greek indict that she was already been saved prior to Angel Gabriel’s greeting. If you look at the context, he said, hail, Highly favored one in current Biblical translation of the passage like the NAB NIV, New Jerusalem Bible, KJV.

Note the pass tense. God’s grace had saved Mary know that she will become the Mother of Jesus Christ. In the literal view of kecharitōmene, she is full of grace. Spotless and without sin.

The ECF attest to this very clearly.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Joey; how’s my favorite victim; I see you’re still peddling the conspiracy theory with regard to protestant Greek lexicons; can’t trust those “wascally,” satan-possessed prots, can you?

Never

That’s because the actual word is charitoō, Joey; we’ve gone through this before.

Never are they the same. The stems give the root a different meaning.

That’s because lexicons don’t parse the words, Joey; they don’t give every possible
conjugated form; that is not the lexicon’s purpose; they give the root only, and generally reference the specific verse(s) in which the word is used.

Lexicons should parse the words in order to be true to the word of God. Any failure to parse into the root and it’s associated stems is an act of omission. Giving only a portion of the truth and not the whole truth is not an act inspired of the Spirit.

Correct; there is no verse in the Bible with the single word, charitoō,, ie., ”-]favor/-].”

GRACED

kecharitōmene (Lk 1:28)
echaritōsen (Eph 1:6)

See the root within the prefix, and suffix of each word.

The root has nothing whatsoever to do with sinlessness.

AGREED, BUT IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE GREEK STEMS GIVES A NEW MEANING.

Both Mary, and the elect have been charitoōed by God.

no argument there, except at what point Mary was graced. Right?

And there is no protestant lexical conspiracy against the BVM.

BVM?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Nevermind on the BVM…

 

[RobHom]

**Luke 1:28

28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

further: Luke 1:48

48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

A comment from the Church on Luke 1:28;

48 “Shall call me blessed”… These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.**

To quote a “protestant”: The Bible says it and I believe it!

sandusky: Do you actually believe that prefixes and suffixes do not change the meaning of a word?

Were what you are saying true, the following two words would be the same…

1. Christian
2. unchristian.

But we know that is not the case…

Tell me…do you harp after the JW’s about their weird beliefs or the Mormons…as you do over this issue, which quite frankly you should not even worry about…unless you actually doubt the veracity of your own beliefs? Is it that you and ginger and some others are afraid the Catholic Church is right afterall…which they are

 

[Ginger2]

I don’t have time today to go thru all the post made while I was out this morning.

But I want to make clear that I do not use Strong’s as a reliable source. THere was a time when I did, but I found out they are not always reliable. I do not trust the King James Bible. It has mis-translated in places. I remember specifically that there is an error in Revelation in the King James.

However, I know you are wrong on Luke 1:28 and John 1:14 - they are not the same word. When I find time I will look to see if I have notes on this. I may have saved something.

I don’t remember which lexicon I finally decided on, but it was after researching to find one that translated accurately.

 

[apophasis]

Well, can we agree that the Divine Second Person of the Trinity became flesh?

If so, then is our disagreement about what God intends for mankind?

2 Peter 1:3-4

3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

In Mary’s life, we see the fulfillment of the promises in 2 Peter. She has become a partaker of His divine nature, and escaped the corruption of the world.

Guano, this last statement contradicts what Peter wrote in vss. 3 & 4. Peter said that the things that pertain to life and godliness (which is our partaking of the divine nature) are achieved “through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence.” In fact Peter ends his letter with that very instruction (see 2 Pet. 3:18).

In other words, it is by the believer focusing on and growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ that he may escape the corruption that is in the world in which he is now living - not Mary. Peter, in his letter, nowhere encourages those to whom he is writing to look to Mary as their prime example and “fulfillment” of this goal (in fact, no writer of the N.T. ever does), but to Christ alone and His glory and excellence.

You say Mary is [the] “fulfillment” of the “promises” in 2 Peter. Can you show us where this is an actual Apostolic doctrine? Certainly Peter himself taught no such notion in his letters. Where can this “Apostolic” teaching be found?

Also, you seem to be saying that becoming “partakers of the divine nature” is a future reward based on one’s conduct here - presenting Mary’s “Assumption” and present position in heaven as the ultimate example. Is this what you’re espousing?

May I ask what do you think “becoming partakers of the divine nature” means to you?

 

[rlg94086]

Guano, this last statement contradicts what Peter wrote in vss. 3 & 4. Peter said that the things that pertain to life and godliness (which is our partaking of the divine nature) are achieved “through the knowledge of Him who called us to His own glory and excellence.” In fact Peter ends his letter with that very instruction (see 2 Pet. 3:18).

In other words, it is by the believer focusing on and growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ that he may escape the corruption that is in the world in which he is now living - not Mary. Peter, in his letter, nowhere encourages those to whom he is writing to look to Mary as their prime example and “fulfillment” of this goal (in fact, no writer of the N.T. ever does), but to Christ alone and His glory and excellence.

Peter said Christ “alone?” It isn’t in the quote you provided. Must be like “Bible alone,” “Faith alone,” etc.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Peter said Christ “alone?” It isn’t in the quote you provided. Must be like “Bible alone,” “Faith alone,” etc.

There is always that idiom about Jesus Alone and Christ Alone.

Upon doing a search I could not find one verse that has Christ Alone, but did find some Jesus alone but none pertain to that order…

Mar 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

Mar 14:6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luk 4:34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.

Luk 9:36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

Joh 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Joh 6:22 The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;

Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Joh 12:7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.