The way Jesus spoke to Mary at the Wedding at Cana

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda Marie
Mary was saved by Christ from sin from the moment of her conception.
I respectfully ask, “Where this is stated in Scripture?” She did need a Savior from sin like all of humanity ever has needed.
In Luke 1:28 we read:

" And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28 DR]

So et me turn the question back on you. How could Mary be full of grace BEFORE God’s grace was available to mankind? The age of grace was still about 34 years into the future. Now the Greek word that Jerome translated as ‘gratia plena’ in Latin or ‘full of grace’ in English is the Greek word κεχαριτωμένη kecharitomene]. It is the past pluperfect tense of the Greek word charitoo which is translated as ‘grace’ in other parts of the NT. Current protestant versions of the Bible usually translate this as “highly favored”. Which is not incorrect but is also less than completely accurate. To be full of grace before Christ’s death and resurrection, which made grace available to mankind, is indeed to be highly favored. Notice also that the angel does not address Mary by name but rather by a characteristic quality of Mary.

This is a prime example of how protestants have attempted to de-catholictize the scriptures. This is much like Luther adding the word alone to scripture to come up with “faith alone”. indeed please note the following from Hastings Dictionary of the New Testament:

"The much discussed κεχαριτωμένη must mean ‘endued with grace’ ( Sirach 18:17 ): πίστιν καὶ χάριν λαβοῦσα Μαρία (Justin Martyr, Try. 100); and both here and in Luke 1:30 the usual translation ‘grace’ should be retained for χάρις .
 
The passage is not at all mysterious if you look at it through the lens of a typical human experience:

MOM: Take out the trash, will you?

YOU: But mom, I’m now…

MOM: (Gives you that look)

YOU: Uh, okay…
Except for the fact that ‘YOU’ is a 31 year old.😉
 
What I meant when I said that was that we cannot get the fullness of God’s teachings from Scripture alone.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible {i.e., all 73 books} is free from error. {I’m pretty sure this doesn’t count grammatical errors and the like, though. 🤷 } However, that does not make it the sole authority. The argument, “Where is that in the Bible?” doesn’t work because there is no biblical basis for sola scriptura.
This conversation and discussion enlivens me. Iron sharpens iron & one man sharpens another! I hope we are all watching not to hi-jack this thread - or have we already? Want to be sensitive to edifying and not stealing thunder from the initial question & replies.

I agree with you about the “fullness of God’s teachings”. We need life application also. One can;t just read the Bible and know how to do taxes & train puppies.

Back awhile you wrote something definitely worth revisiting :
“No, theology does not come from Scripture. Scripture did not come into play until at least 50-70 years after the death and resurrection of Christ if I’m not mistaken. Things were handed down orally. In fact, the Bible doesn’t record everything – as seen at the end of John’s gospel where it is noted that not everything Jesus did was recorded. Also, in the beginning of Luke’s gospel, we see that he is simply reaffirming what Theophilus was already taught orally. Theophilus didn’t learn anything new from Luke’s gospel. Yes, Scripture is highly important. However, to imply that everything must be in Scripture is simply not true. In fact, there’s no Scriptural evidence for sola scriptura. The Church gets its teachings from Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium. All 3 work hand-in-hand, and none contradict any.”

I humbly assert that sentence is untrue and utter balderdash: Theology must be developed *from *God’s holy Word. Theology mandates Scriptural foundations. I gingerly and warmly in brotherly Christian love suggest for your edification that you discuss this with your priest or elder to revert from such a brash foundational misapprehension. Scripture is essential, but is not all there is to explain everything.

It’s true that we glean more intimate understandings of Christ & applications to life through exegetical writings & interpretations, and this starts with His Word. This is where the Christian focus begins, and is stated in the CCC 133:
The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.
BAM!< Let’s agree that we need to read the Bible to know Christ & the teachings of our Lord mo’ better, which = Theology.👍
Now, it’s interesting that nobody screams “only “Sola Scriptura”” as a lone concrete statement - except those with apologetics built against non-existent antagonists that purport that! All of the 5 Solas/Solae of the Reformers’ contradisctinctive works work together, which I’d ad-hoc-ly attempt to restate succinctly as :
“Only through Christ’s justification as stated in inspired Scripture is His unmerited favor of salvation gifted to His people, for the unique purpose of glorifying God.”

The study of God (Theology) is based on Scripture, my friend. I exhort you brother to seek this Theological direction from your elders; it’s sometimes quite complicated, but worth the exercise in growing closer to God.
👍

“And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Phil 4:7
 
In Luke 1:28 we read:

" And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1:28 DR]

So [l]et me turn the question back on you. How could Mary be full of grace BEFORE God’s grace was available to mankind? The age of grace was still about 34 years into the future.
The covenant of grace has been throughout all the time of humanity. Even though the covenant of Works that God instituted in the garden of Eden was short lived (endig in Gen. 3:6), the overarching covenant of grace which God had instituted was in effect. Grace is every breath and heartbeat we’re allowed to live, which is why this is the present. There ya go, Jack! Be blessed in Christ.
Now the Greek word that Jerome translated as ‘gratia plena’ in Latin or ‘full of grace’ in English is the Greek word κεχαριτωμένη kecharitomene]. It is the past pluperfect tense of the Greek word charitoo which is translated as ‘grace’ in other parts of the NT. Current protestant versions of the Bible usually translate this as “highly favored”. Which is not incorrect but is also less than completely accurate. To be full of grace before Christ’s death and resurrection, which made grace available to mankind, is indeed to be highly favored. Notice also that the angel does not address Mary by name but rather by a characteristic quality of Mary.
Had to look at that agian - the participle κεχαριτωμένη that Luke employs denotes the “undeserved favor of God”. This appears additionally & more clearly in Ephesians 1;6 where Paul says that God “hath made us accepted (ἐχαρίτωσεν) in the Beloved:” that is, he has received into his favor, and embraced with kindness, us who were formerly his enemies. Is Mary formerly an enemy? As a sinner would be another way to state this. Saved by God’s grace and in need of a Savior, she was, yes? (Yoda-esque)

Next comes the portion stating “she is blessed among women.” The blessing is as the result & is proof of God’s divine kindness - not merely in/from/by her alone. The word “blessed” doesn’t translate as “worthy of praise” unless you have the agenda for it to want to mean that, but instead equates to “happy”. Similarly & often in Scripture, Paul supplicates for believers, first with “grace” & then “peace,” (cf. Rom 1:7 & Eph. 1:2,) which is every kind of blessing(s) & implies that we will/shall then be truly happy & rich when we are beloved by God -*** from whom all blessings proceed***.

Mary’s happiness, righteousness & life all flow from the undeserved love of God, though her virtues & all her excellent traits are nothing more than the Divine kindness given.👍
…This is much like Luther adding the word alone to scripture to come up with “faith alone”. indeed please note the following from Hastings Dictionary of the New Testament
That’s unclear; you may be confusing “Sola Fide” and “Sola Scriptura”?
 

Back awhile you wrote something definitely worth revisiting :
“No, theology does not come from Scripture. Scripture did not come into play until at least 50-70 years after the death and resurrection of Christ if I’m not mistaken. Things were handed down orally. In fact, the Bible doesn’t record everything – as seen at the end of John’s gospel where it is noted that not everything Jesus did was recorded. Also, in the beginning of Luke’s gospel, we see that he is simply reaffirming what Theophilus was already taught orally. Theophilus didn’t learn anything new from Luke’s gospel. Yes, Scripture is highly important. However, to imply that everything must be in Scripture is simply not true. In fact, there’s no Scriptural evidence for sola scriptura. The Church gets its teachings from Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magesterium. All 3 work hand-in-hand, and none contradict any.”

I humbly assert that sentence is untrue and utter balderdash: **Theology must be developed *from ***God’s holy Word. Theology mandates Scriptural foundations. I gingerly and warmly in brotherly Christian love suggest for your edification that you discuss this with your priest or elder to revert from such a brash foundational misapprehension. Scripture is essential, but is not all there is to explain everything. …
No … I agree that we must study the scriptures - after all as St Jerome said - *“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” * … but Christ founded a Church … not a Bible … The Scriptures are inspired - but Christ is the Word Made Flesh … People followed Christ and His Word in His Church - long before the new testament was written and compiled. The Church wrote, compiled and Canonized the Scriptures [by accepting the Hebrew texts in use during Christ’s earthly time - and recording the Gospels and collecting the letters] …

Yes - we come to Christ after that reality … but don’t confuse your advent into the word with the Place given to the Church by its founder
 
Yes, ignorance of Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome was right. However, your saying that theology mandates Scriptural foundations is false. Theology is the study of God. We learn about God through God. He reveals Himself and His teachings to us through Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scriptures, and the Magisterium. All are essential. Jesus gave us the Church. Without the Church, there is no Bible. Jesus did not establish a Bible; he established a Church.

{EDIT; I find it funny how YADA and I basically said the same thing. In fact, I even had a bit about the Word made flesh at first as well. :p}
 
God’s Word IS Christ. Remember that John 1:1-4 states:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

In the introduction (v.1), the eternal Divinity of Christ is asserted, in order to inform us that He is the eternal God, who was manifested in the flesh.

Brother, it’s of the highest necessity that this doctrine be known! How could our faith rest on Christ if we don’t know teh certainty which is taught here. Please re-analyze this portion of Scripture for your own (and others’) edificiation! Christ is The Word, the logos (greek). Therefore, knowledge of the Word is knowledge of Christ. Indeed Christ established His Church, but without the Word/Bible, there is no Church 👍
 
The covenant of grace has been throughout all the time of humanity. Even though the covenant of Works that God instituted in the garden of Eden was short lived (endig in Gen. 3:6), the overarching covenant of grace which God had instituted was in effect. Grace is every breath and heartbeat we’re allowed to live, which is why this is the present. There ya go, Jack! Be blessed in Christ.
Well then if man possessed this grace after the fall then why do we need Jesus? Why do we need the Incarnation? St. Paul writes:

“But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” [Romans 5:15]

When Adam sinned mankind was cut off from God’s grace. Access to that grace was only restored to mankind by Jesus Christ.
Had to look at that agian - the participle κεχαριτωμένη that Luke employs denotes the “undeserved favor of God”. This appears additionally & more clearly in Ephesians 1;6 where Paul says that God “hath made us accepted (ἐχαρίτωσεν) in the Beloved:” that is, he has received into his favor, and embraced with kindness, us who were formerly his enemies. Is Mary formerly an enemy? As a sinner would be another way to state this. Saved by God’s grace and in need of a Savior, she was, yes? (Yoda-esque)
Well isn’t grace the epitome of the “undeserved favor of God” or do you believe we deserve grace? Again, using the word ‘favor’ instead of the word ‘grace’ understates the message. Favor is not wrong but it is not fully correct. It is akin to saying that the USS Ohio, a nuclear powered submarine with nuclear tipped missles is a boat. Sure it is a boat but saying that puts it into the same class as a rowboat. Obviously it is much more accurate to describe it in more descriptive terms.
Next comes the portion stating “she is blessed among women.” The blessing is as the result & is proof of God’s divine kindness - not merely in/from/by her alone. The word “blessed” doesn’t translate as “worthy of praise” unless you have the agenda for it to want to mean that, but instead equates to “happy”. Similarly & often in Scripture, Paul supplicates for believers, first with “grace” & then “peace,” (cf. Rom 1:7 & Eph. 1:2,) which is every kind of blessing(s) & implies that we will/shall then be truly happy & rich when we are beloved by God -*** from whom all blessings proceed***.
I think to be chosen from all the women of the world; past, present and future, by the Father to be the mother of His only Begotten Son would be a blessing.
Mary’s happiness, righteousness & life all flow from the undeserved love of God, though her virtues & all her excellent traits are nothing more than the Divine kindness given.👍
No doubt and please show me where I said they weren’t.
That’s unclear; you may be confusing “Sola Fide” and “Sola Scriptura”?
No I am referring to Luther’s own insertion of the word ‘alone’ in his translation of, I think, Romans 3:28. Luther could not reconcile his idea of faith alone with the words of James epistle and therefore wanted to eliminate the epistle from the NT. There is an excellent view into this at the following website:

christian-history.org/not-by-faith-alone.html
 
God’s Word ISIndeed Christ established His Church, but without the Word/Bible, there is no Church 👍
The bible is not Christ and Christ is not the bible! The bible is a collection of writings which the Church has solemnly recognized as inspired and is the word of God, but it is NOT the Word Made Flesh.

*** For almost 400 years, the Church existed without a bible***. She had the Septuagint and assorted writings from Christians, some of which were heretical. Not all churches had the same collection of writings. Some had the letters of Paul to the Corinthians, but not to Philemon for instance. Some had heretical writings like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter. It took a Council of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to sort out which books were inspired and which were not.

The bible gets its Authority from the Church, not the other way around.
The Council of Carthage (397) was the first Council to publish a list of all the inspired books of the Bible. The Council of Florence repeated the canon of the Bible, and it was restated at the Council of Trent. (No action of the Church causes a book to be inspired. The Church exercises its infallible judgment to certify post factum that a particular book was inspired when it was written. The fact that God is its Author makes a book to be inspired. The Holy Spirit prevents the Church from erring in judging which books are inspired and included in the Bible.)
The Council of Florence (1431)
The Council of Trent (1546-1563)
The first subject of discussion which was laid before the general congregation by the legates on 8 February was the Scriptures as the source of Divine revelation. After exhaustive preliminary discussions in the various congregations, two decrees were ready for debate at the fourth session (8 April, 1546), and were adopted by the fathers. In treating the canon of Scripture they declare at the same time that in matters of faith and morals the tradition of the Church is, together with the Bible, the standard of supernatural revelation; then taking up the text and the use of the sacred Books they declare the Vulgate to be the authentic text for sermons and disputations, although this did not exclude textual emendations. It was also determined that the Bible should be interpreted according to the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and never misused for superstitious purposes.
The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known. Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts which contain revelation strictly so termed. The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical “because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church”. The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.
It will be seen, therefore, that though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the Church yet we are dependent upon the Church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered “as sacred and canonical”. They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New.
 
Indeed Christ established His Church, but without the Word/Bible, there is no Church 👍
Gosh … oh my - GOSH!!! :confused:

When Christ founded His Church - the only "scriptures’ in existence were the Hebrew writings - no Gospels, no New Testament letters, no book of the Acts of the Apostles and no Book of revelation … and it was the Church - founded by Christ and entrusted to the leadership of Peter - and the guidance of the Apostles … and those that followed them in the faith [handed to them first b y word of mouth then by letters and traditions] that wrote, protected, preserved, compiled - then Canonized and passed on to us today - that gave us the “Bible” …

And you say - with all the authority of your Me and Jesus Faith - as your own Pope in reality …

.- and I quote " Indeed Christ established His Church, but without the Word/Bible, there is no Church

And we should believe your testimony over and above 2000 plus years of Christian history [recorded, tradition, and archaeological - etc.] and our own common sense and academic study … :eek:

You sure have a large ego … :rolleyes: … too bad your scholarly acumen fails to measure up
 
I respectfully ask, “Where this is stated in Scripture?” She did need a Savior from sin like all of humanity ever has needed.
Others have probably addressed this, but I’m still working my way down the thread and I don’t want to miss addressing this.

You are correct. Mary needed a savior, and this is solid Catholic theology. However, God saved her differently than the rest of us.

You can save someone by pulling them out of a pit they have fallen into, or you can prevent them from falling into the pit in the first place. God saves most of us by pulling us out of our fallen state. However, Mary was preserved from receiving the stain of original sin; she was saved in advance.

Now, about those scriptures you asked for…

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, “full of grace,” is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of “highly favored daughter.” Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for “daughter”). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.
 
If not, do you realize that Theology means “the study of God” and that we study Him by His Word?
And only by His word? Or are you unfamiliar with what Paul wrote in Romans:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20).

So, while the Sacred Scripture is one great resource for studying God, there are others including Sacred Tradition and creation itself.
]This is quite important: Does the RCC teach “absolute inerrancy of the Bible”?
Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
Regardless of when it was writiten, we Christians confess that the Bible, God’s Word, was given through men and is flawless, correct?
Flawless? Well, okay. I think I can go along with what you are trying to say.
 
Indeed Christ established His Church, but without the Word/Bible, there is no Church
This is understandably your position, but it couldn’t be more wrong.

The Church grew for hundreds of years before the Bible was compiled and for more than a thousand years before individual believers could afford to own a copy since the printing press had not been invented. Manuscripts were simply too expensive for the common man.

Consider the underground churches in countries where it is illegal or mortally dangerous to be a Christian. Bible are rare but faith in Christ still blooms in the hearts of those who are fed orally. Prisoners in jail cells, sailors shipwrecked on uncharted islands and even pagan philosophers who have the imprint of God written upon their hearts may all pursue Him without the Bible in their possession.

Now, I grant that they would all benefit from owning and reading the Bible, but do not limit God’s ability to grow His Church without a book. That’s how He started the whole thing, after all. 👍
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4most4christ
Regardless of when it was writiten, we Christians confess that the Bible, God’s Word, was given through men and is flawless, correct?
Flawless? Well, okay. I think I can go along with what you are trying to say.
The bible is only inerrant or flawless in its original manuscripts. But none of the original manuscripts have been preserved. The oldest copies we have today date several hundred years after the originals were written. We have to think that those people who copied and translated the scriptures did their utmost to preserve them but we cannot be sure that is the case. Translations and copies do have discrepancies with one another.

The bottom line is that if God wanted to preserve His Word in writtten form He made a bad decision in choosing what we have inherited. But I do not believe that God makes any bad choices. Therefore I have to reject the claim that God’s word is preserved in the scriptures as a man made tradition. Instead I believe Hebrews 8:10 wherein Paul writes that if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second one. Then Paul writes:
:

“10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,and I will be their God and they shall be my people.”
[Hebrews 8:10] RSV
 
A lot of this passage can be explained if you conceive of Mary as the new Eve and Co-redemptrix . Her fiat (yes) at the Annunciation brought about the beginning of our salvation. Without her yes, we would have no Savior. Her complete submission to the will of God, and probably with the frightfulland full knowledge that her Son would have to die for us and how horribly He would have to die. She still submitted.

This gave her a special place in salvation history. She is our yes to God. She and her Son shared a special bond in salvation. That day, with that request, They have no wine, she knew that their private life would be over and the passion would begin. God gave her the privilege to say when and she chose that moment to reveal her Son, Our savior.

Everything she did was in complete submission to The Holy Spirit.
Just contemplate the symbolism in her statement They have no wine.
 
  1. As I’ve been able to determine (in 2 years of P/T Greek language studies) the greek word “kecharitomene” applied to Mary & used in the phrase in Luke 1:28, it literally means “one who has been graced”, not the verbiage “full of grace”, “pleres charitos”, which is used in John 1:14 and Acts 6:8, to describe Jesus and Stephen, respectively.😉

The Meaning of Kecharitomene: Full of Grace (Luke 1:28)

The variant of charitoo here is echaritosen. While Kecharitomene is, according to everything I’ve read, a perfect passive participle, echaritosen is an indicative active aorist. Kecharitomene means “having been” or “have already been” graced, according to this commentary on the Book of Zechariah – talking about perfect passive participles in a different context and a different verse [brackets indicate where I am inserting “graced” for the word in the relevant text]:
Code:
"That which will accompany, and be a result of, Jewish recognition, is a direct quotation from the Septuagint in Ps. 118:26, 'Blessed be he that comes in the name of the LORD.' This verse also is better understood with a Greek analysis. The word Blessed, 'eulogamenos' is a perfect passive participle. It literally means 'having been blessed or praised.' The 'perfect' action of the participle is considered to have been completed before the time of the speaker. How long before is not a consideration but the Greek verbal idea is that the action has already been completed. Time is still secondary but perfected action must imply the past in relationship to the speaker. The person using the word is confessing that the one referred to has already been blessed [or graced]." (Zechariah and Jewish Renewal: From Gloom to Glory by Fred P. Miller, chapter 31 on Zechariah 20)
Other examples of the perfect tense and what it means:
Code:
"There are seven tenses of the Greek verb. They are: the Aorist, Present, Imperfect, Future, Pluperfect, and Future Perfect. Let us exemplify the Perfect and Present tenses. In the words of the Greek grammarian J. Gresham Machen, 'The Greek perfect tense denotes the present state resultant upon a past action' (New Testament Greek for Beginners, p. 187). The perfect is used in Matthew 4:4,7,10 ('it is written'). Literally translated, 'It has been written in the past and is still in force.' Hence, Jesus expresses the continuing authority of God’s written law by using the perfect tense." ("How About the Greek Language?" from BibleQuestions.org)
Code:
"...Ephesians 2:8, 'For by grace are you saved through faith...' The word 'saved' is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present...." ("The Lord is not Slack Concerning His Promise" from CephasMinistry.com)
In other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present. So, here’s what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us “Kecharitomene” denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:
Code:
" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)
** “It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as 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” (or 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 [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).
‘completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace’
 
Again, this time to your statement, I respectfully ask, “Where is this (a life free from sin for Mary) stated in Scripture?”
Since we agree Mary needed a Savior, can we also agree that she needed te Saviour’s salvation from sin? Everyone since the Fall is born into sin - it’s truly a world plague.😦 This doesn’t take away from our adoration of Mary. She is a saint, yet the “sinless life” supposes a God-like quality and separate path to achieve heaven apart from Christ. Please elaborate and elucidate this foundational basis.
We do not adore Mary. She is revered, held in the highest esteem. Adoration belongs to God alone.

She is the New Eve who was created sinless as well. It does not suppose a God-like quality at all. It is the way we were all supposed to be and will be in Eternity. Jesus, by calling Mary, “Woman” at the point of his first Miracle, proclaims that she is the New Eve, the new Woman, the new Mother of all Mankind.


Biblical Evidence for Catholicism

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:
Code:
1. Grace saves us.
Code:
2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.
Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7,9; 3:6,9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:
Code:
1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
Code:
2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.
A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:
Code:
1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace.
Code:
2. To be "full of" God's grace, then, is to be saved.
Code:
3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).
Code:
4. The Bible teaches that we need God's grace to live a holy life, free from sin.
Code:
5. To be "full of" God's grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.
Code:
6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.
Code:
7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.
Code:
8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.
<…>
The mass of Christian believers as a whole possess neither the same degree of grace nor of sanctity, and everyone knows this, from experience and revelation alike.
But Mary (as an individual person) was addressed in an extraordinary fashion by a title that, biblically, means the one so addressed is particularly exemplified by the characteristics of the title. Mary was “full of grace”; kecharitomene here takes on the significance of a noun. No attempt to downplay or diminish the significance of this will succeed. The meaning is all too clear.
Mary – the New Eve
Genesis 3:6 is the story of the fall of man – the story of disobedience and expulsion; the transition from a state of obedience to a state of disobedience to God. The narration stated that in the Garden of Eden, there was a Woman (sinless virgin) [Gen.2:23] who believed the lies of a fallen Angel, took a sinful fruit from the tree [Gen.3:6], and gave it to her partner called Adam [Gen.2:20] and the sin entered the world.
The Story of Redemption
(The Gospel of John)
But in the story of the Redemption, a Woman (sinless virgin)[Isa. 7:14; John 2:4; John 19:25-27] bringing the fruit of her womb [Luke 1:42], Jesus Christ called New Adam [1 Cor. 15:45], to the Tree [Gal. 3:13], that started in Garden of Gethsemane [Mt. 26:46] and we become freed from the curse of the Fall.
As we mentioned above, on the seventh day in John’s Gospel, Christ and Mary celebrating the wedding at Cana.
Mary’s Role
Woman: The New Eve
It’s here, at the wedding at Cana, that Apostle John first introduces us to Mary. And what does Jesus call her there? “Woman” [John 2:4]. That is, He refers to her by the name that Eve bore before the Fall, when she was free from all stain of original sin.
 
Again, this time to your statement, I respectfully ask, “Where is this (a life free from sin for Mary) stated in Scripture?”
Since we agree Mary needed a Savior, can we also agree that she needed te Saviour’s salvation from sin? Everyone since the Fall is born into sin - it’s truly a world plague.😦 This doesn’t take away from our adoration of Mary. She is a saint, yet the “sinless life” supposes a God-like quality and separate path to achieve heaven apart from Christ. Please elaborate and elucidate this foundational basis.
  1. Does “it” in the 1st sentence reference sin?
  2. The foreshadowing of Christ is in Gen 3:15, but her (Eve’s) offspring includes Mary, who is born plagued by sin, and saved by her Son, following this portion of Romans 3:22-24 “For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus…”👍
  3. On your point, “Mary *must *be born free from sin”, is there any direct or categorical proof of this dogma which can be brought forth from Scripture?:confused: -since sacred Scripture directs/derives proper Theology, yes?
  4. As I’ve been able to determine (in 2 years of P/T Greek language studies) the greek word “kecharitomene” applied to Mary & used in the phrase in Luke 1:28, it literally means “one who has been graced”, not the verbiage “full of grace”, “pleres charitos”, which is used in John 1:14 and Acts 6:8, to describe Jesus and Stephen, respectively.😉
~Growth, patience and consolation be granted us to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus that we may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (a la Rom 15:5-6)
This video does a great job of showing you how the Church finds Mary’s role implied from the beginning of the book to the end. It is called The Truth About Mary In Scripture youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA
 
Hey everyone. I have a question. Why did Jesus speak to His Blessed Mother, Mary, the way He did at the Wedding at Cana? I am not saying that He was disrespectful or anything of the sort as I do not believe for one moment that He would be. However, the Scripture is confusing. Here it is:

On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with his disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast.” So they took it. When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
(John 2:1-11 RSV-CE)

So why did He speak that way to her in the first sentence of His dialogue with His mother? Also, why did He say His time had not yet come? Was He speaking of His time to be crucified? If so, why would He have said this in response to them being out of wine. Or was He saying it was not yet His time to perform His first miracle? If so, why did He do it right then?
“What have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come”

My thoughts:

Jesus is saying, “Mother, you are my Mother in the flesh and are my perfect disciple. I will do what you ask because I love you, but this is not the moment for my glorification. Your mission is not my mission; I have come to save the world, your job is to live by Love and to bring others to me. These outward miracles are not the purpose of my mission and your motherhood. You don’t yet understand how I have come to save the world; in this understanding and in my Divine Sonship, what have you to do with me? Soon you will understand, but the hour for my glorification on the holy Cross has not yet come. I will perform this miracle out of my love for humankind, to show the holiness of marriage, and to show the power of entrusting oneself to you, my mother, to prove that you only bring others close to Me. But this is not the decisive moment.”

:twocents:
 
What must be remembered here is that in the Church, Jesus is the new Adam and Mary is the new Eve. Adam said “This one shall be called Woman” when speaking of Eve in Genesis 2:23. And just as Eve prompted Adam to commit the first sin, Mary prompted Jesus to perform the first miracle. That is why Jesus said his time had not yet come, because if his time had come, he would not need Mary’s prompting. Jesus knew exactly what he was saying and why he was saying it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top