Formal debate announment

THERE WILL BE NO DEBATE. THE ATHEISTS CHICKENED OUT.


Direct, we beseech you, O Lord, our actions by your inspiration, and further them by your gracious assistance, that every word and work of ours may always begin with you, and by you be likewise happily ended.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.



Be it resolved: There is a clear relationship between population growth and economic growth.

Affirmative side: Robyn Yves of The Atheist Freedom Wall

Negative side: Abraham V. Llera

Opening statement: 4,000 words each side
First rebuttal: 4,000 words each side
Second rebuttal: 4,000 words each side
Cross examination 4,000 words each side of 5 questions
Closing statement 4,000 words each side

Opening Statement: In by Mar 6
Rebuttal: In by Mar 13
Five questions: In by Mar 20
Answer to Five Questions: In by Mar 27
Closing: In by April 6

AFFIRMATIVE OPENING STATEMENT

Peace.

I do not write this note for the opportunity to suggest you do something silly like random suicide.
I write this note because I respect your intelligence. I write this note because like you, I am "pro-life" or more accurately I am "pro quality life," something that is lacking in our country.


This is where we stand

We are the 12th most populous nation in the world with a fertility rate of 3.03%.
We are 5th on the Global Hunger Survey, 40% polled have experienced involuntary hunger.

Forty-four percent (44%) of our population earn less than $2 /day and 66% of the population are engaged in unsustainable environmental and natural resource usage.
The lack of employment opportunities here has led to 11 million OFWs
From 1903 to present, we have grown to 94 million and left only 10% of our forests and coral reefs. The lack of good environmental policies has left water pollution unchecked.

I'm sure some of you will agree, based on those statistics we're in deep shit. Our financial and environmental resources are stretched thin. On an economic perspective, overpopulation is looming and there is a real need for non-coercive, non-invasive population development program. At the heart of a good population development program, is a good reproductive health program that empowers women to control their own childbearing.


What happens if we don’t implement a population development program within the next years

Our government may pull a miracle and reduce poverty rates within the next years through sensible economic policies and good use of foreign aid. Without a decent population development program, reduction in poverty rates will not mean reduction in the total number of people living in poverty. Within the next years, with or without a change in poverty rates, our country will have more poor people living under $2 a day.


Population-Poverty Nexus

People living in poverty can rise to the middle class when provided with education, sound health and good employment and business opportunities. However, this rise is primarily buoyed by expansion in education and health services. With more people to educate and to take care of, the government (or more accurately, the nation) will find it more difficult to provide these services. An exploding population, much like ours, will need rapid expansions of education and health systems. You and I can agree that we are not succeeding.


For the fiscal year of 2010, the Department of Education, the Commission on Higher Education and the state universities and colleges have been allocated P185.5 B, while the Department of Health has been allocated 24.65 B. If our population grows at our current fertility rate, in 30 years, we will be a nation of 150 million and we will need to spend twice as much on our education and health systems. Only time will tell if our economy will be robust enough to provide us with such financial resources.


Some of you may argue that instead of looking at our labor force as a liability, we could turn it into strength, like India, a country who hasn’t been successful in implementing its population development programs.

Investing in human resources is investing in quality education and health. Without the expansion of much needed health and education services, we are damning the next generation of Filipinos to be less competitive, less educated, less healthy and more susceptible to chronic poverty. Pervasive corruption and dismal public policies are contributing factors and the additional number of children to educate and take care of is making the problem worse, not better.

Even with minimum corruption and sensible government policies, the more children we have on a weakened economy, the less our chances are at making the next generation contributing citizens and the less our chances to develop an economy that can sustain us.

India is not a success story. Eighty percent (80%) of the Indian population lives on $2 a day and 41% of the total population lives on $1.25 a day.



Why we need a Population Development Program / Reproductive Health Program

It’s more common to hear economists touting there is no relationship between population growth and economic growth, a contrast to the neo-Malthusian theory of previous decades.

However, new evidence shows that the Neo-Malthusians may have been on to something. A study by Thomas Merrick on population and poverty concluded:

“Family planning alone will not necessarily reduce poverty in developing countries, but neither will many of the present models of economic development. On the other hand, a slower rate of population growth, combined with sound and equitable economic development and the reduction of gender inequality, appears increasingly likely to achieve that goal.

While fertility decisions are a private matter, there is a role for public policy. In an increasing number of countries, public and private providers are enabling women to choose when and how many children they will have, by providing information and safe, effective means of fertility regulation. In cases where the health system fails to do this or when there is an imbalance between the individual and the social costs of reproductive behaviors, public policy needs to address these failures by improving the information and regulatory environment. Additionally, when cost is an obstacle to effective fertility regulation by poor women, subsidizing services may be an appropriate approach.

In sum, fertility and family planning do matter for poverty reduction—for poor households and for poor countries. They are not the only, or even the most important, factors in poverty reduction. The topic has been a controversial one, and critics have reacted to statements that exaggerate the links between fertility and poverty by minimizing or denying them. Thus, it is important that policymakers understand the new evidence supporting the view that lower fertility does contribute to poverty reduction, and that public policies that help poor people better manage their reproductive lives have societal as well as individual benefits.


Lower Fertility Rates is not the magic bullet to poverty. It is a critical factor in economic development and poverty reduction that should be considered when making economic policies. Lower fertility rates provide the opportunity for the country to acquire economic gains. Countries unable to lower fertility rates or do not make public policies to empower women to control reproduction exacerbate economic problems.

Martha Campbell of the Bixby Center states "No country, with the exception of a small number of anomalous oil-rich states, has gotten out of poverty while maintaining high fertility rates."


Why the Government needs to fund Family Planning / Reproductive Health or have public policies for Reproductive Health.

During the 1990s when the Neo-Malthusian theory was being discredited, family planning was mostly left as a private decision which the private sector will address without need for government intervention.

However, this “private” decision is mostly dependent on the woman to control her reproduction. Both neo-Malthusians and its critics failed to account that a women’s control over childbearing is affected by factors such as “the sheer unavailability of contraceptive supplies and services in some parts of the world; cultural and religious opposition to birth control, which often inhibits free individual choice; the high cost of many contraceptives relative to family income; and women's unequal educational and social status in most parts of the developing world.” (Merrick 2002)

If a woman is unable to overcome these limiting factors to control her childbearing, she effectively has little reproductive freedom.

Women in the country and all over the world with little reproductive freedom will most likely give birth to more citizens susceptible to poverty.

“High birth rates may reflect not only the survival calculus of the poor, but the disproportionate powerlessness of women as well.” (Lappe & Schurman 2000)


Poverty marginalizes women. Poor women tend to have higher fertility rates. High fertility rates tend to deprive the next generation of investment and that in turn causes poverty.

Lappe and Schurman note the shifting and cyclic relationship between fertility and poverty, “in the social perspective it is the realities of poverty that lead to both rapid population growth and hunger. High fertility becomes an effect more than a cause of poverty and hunger.”

Families unable to meet their desired fertility rate will make less financial investments per child. A family with one child can invest as much as P5,558 while a family with nine children can only invest as much as P682. Health spending per capita also drops from P1,700 to P150. (NDHS 2003). When parents make less investments to a child's education and wellbeing, the child becomes more susceptible to poverty.


Human Capital Investment & Family Size (eta, 2/22/2011)


Fertility - Poverty association



The Unmet need for Contraception and Family Planning

Family Planning is not about having 2 children per family or the government coercing families to have 2 children only. Rather, it is about meeting the desired fertility usually with considerations on the family’s resources.

Sixty one percent (61%) of women do not want additional children and 50.6% of the youth wants only to have 2 children. Only half of married women practice family planning. (NDHS 2003)

The average desired fertility rate for the Filipino woman is at 2.5. Our current fertility rate is at 3.03.

Clearly, there is an unmet need for family planning or birth control.


The Poorer have an average desired fertility rate of 3.1 - 3.8. Total Fertility Rate is 4.6 - 5.9: a difference of 1.5 - 2.1 unintended children
The Middle Class have an average desired fertility rate of 2.6. Total Fertility Rate is 3.5: a difference of 0.9 unintended children.
The wealthiest have an average desired fertility rate of 1.7 - 2.2. Total Fertility Rate is 2.0 - 2.8: a difference of 0.3 - 0.6 unintended children.


Larger families among the poor is an indication that the family has not met the desired fertility rate because there is no access to family planning or contraceptives.

Poorer women have as three times more children than wealthier women. The unmet need for contraception is 23.15% for poorer women and 13.6% for wealthier women.

Twenty two percent (22%) of the poorest childbearing women want to avoid pregnancies but do not use any family planning method. At least 41% do not use family planning methods due to lack of information. (Family Planning Survey 2006).

"In the Philippines, large differences in contraceptive use exist by a woman's education. In Thailand where family planning is easy to obtain, these differences have evaporated. It is often assumed that uneducated people want large families, but the data suggest that they have more children because they are unable to surmount the hurdles society puts between them and the birth control they need." (Potts, 2000)



Many of you anti-RHB crowd are laboring under the misapprehension that RHB curtails your freedom to reproduce. It doesn’t.

The consolidated Reproductive Health Bill idealizes a fertility of 2, but it does not mandate or coerce fertility rates. It doesn't need to. These statistics tell us there is considerable number of women in the country who want to control their reproduction but cannot do so because they lack resources or information.



Why not financially friendly campaigns like withholding information, abstinence, NFP, etc

Because what the conservatives prefer isn’t working in reality.

The consolidated Reproductive Health Bill does not discriminate between modern contraception, abstinence or NFP. However, in the interest of promoting “morality”, conservatives (like the Roman Catholic Church) would prefer withholding information, abstinence and NFP over modern contraception. I have discussed that marginalized women lack information and resources and consequently, lack control over their reproduction.

This lack of communication and reproductive education which our culture has heavily practiced to curtail youth interest in sex and promote abstinence has been ineffective and unbeneficial. It also hasn't empowered women.

The NSO notes for 2004, almost 8% pregnancies have mothers aged 15-19. Almost 30% of Filipino women bear a child before reaching the age of 21. Four million Filipinos aged 15-19 engaged in sexual intercourse and half of them are from poorer families with no knowledge of reproduction or contraception.

An alarming 1 out of 4 teen mothers stop schooling to find jobs. In 2007, approximately 2% of women aged 15-19 got pregnant with their first child. (USAAID, 2007)

Lack of information does not impede sexual experience and prevent early pregnancies.





NFP is more applicable as a spacing method when a couple has had one child. With perfect use, NFP has a failure rate of 2.9%. In practice, it is 24%. Studies done locally and internationally show natural methods including NFP “is not for everyone.” NFP also “fails to address private and social costs of mistimed and unwanted pregnancy.” (Pastrana, Harris 2011)

NFP has been heavily promoted by the government and the church because it doesn’t cost anything. Despite the long years of attempting to make it a standard, NFP has only a usage rate of 6.4% (LAM 0.4%). The Withdrawal Method has a greater usage rate of 9.8%. (NDHS 2008)



The Current Deal: Low Contraceptive Prevalence and High Number of Unintended Pregnancies

While 97% of Filipinos believe in the importance of controlling fertility, contraceptive prevalence in the country is only 50%, very low compared to Singapore (62%), Thailand (72%) and Vietnam (76%).


Birth Control / Contraception Usage (NDHS 2008)

This unmet need for birth control puts women at risk for unintended pregnancies. Three out of 10 Filipino women at risk for unintended pregnancy do not practice birth control and these women make approximately 7 out of 10 pregnancies.

In 2008, women not using modern contraception account for more than 2/3 of unintended pregnancies. Women who practice modern contraception account for only 8% of unintended pregnancies. In contrast, women who practice traditional methods (NFP) account for 25% of unintended pregnancies.

The same year has 1.9 million unintended or mistimed pregnancies with 55% of mothers giving birth sooner than they intended to and 45% did not want a pregnancy at all.

Unintended pregnancies put both mother and child more at risk for inadequate medical care, maternal morbidity, abortion, fetal death and lower quality of health of mother and child.


Maternal Morbidities for Unintended and Intended Pregnancies

In 2007, over 200,000 maternal deaths (unintended pregnancies) could have been prevented through effective contraception. There is an estimated 400,000 maternal morbidity cases each year.

In 2008, miscarriages accounted for 3,700 maternal deaths and an estimated 1,600 are unintended pregnancies. Approximately 1,000 women died as a result of abortion and 90,000 women were hospitalized for complications.
The lack of maternal care do not improve women’s health and the health of their children.

The DALY (disability-adjusted life year) is an internationally used measure of the years of productive life lost to death and disability from disease and other health conditions. In 2008, Filipino women lost an estimated 311,000 productive years of their lives due to conditions related to pregnancy and birth—167,000 DALYs were due to intended pregnancies and 144,000 were related to unintended pregnancies. This loss of productive years of life is greater than the annual loss among Filipino men and women from traffic accidents or diabetes.

Poorer women tend to receive less prenatal/neonatal care than wealthier women, have less chances of acquiring a skilled medical professional to help with delivery and have shorter birth intervals. Spacing births for 2 years or more increases the mother and child’s survival. Medical care increases a child’s survival as much as 3.6 times.

Despite abortion being illegal, women with scarce financial resources opt for abortion. An estimated 500,000 abortions were done in 2008. Seventy-two percent (72%) of women cite economic costs of raising a child, 54% do not want an additional child and 57% report their pregnancy was “too soon. ” (Singh et all)


Women using no method and traditional methods account for 89% of abortion cases



Why we need Modern Contraception and Funding

With traditional methods failing to be a standard despite years of government campaign, it is only logical not to discriminate and promote all methods of contraception especially modern contraception, make every method accessible and let couples or childbearing women decide which ones to use to increase contraceptive prevalence.


Increased contraceptive prevalence decreases fertility rates; addresses the need of women to have lower fertility rates

Increased prevalence of accessible and effective contraception and information decreases the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently, the number of abortions. Modern contraceptives prevent approximately 112 million abortions in the developing world each year. (Singh et al, 2009)

At least P5.5 B are spent each year in health care costs for managing unintended pregnancies and its complications. Increased contraceptive prevalence lowers the number of unintended pregnancies and costs for medical care.


abortion and contraception trends in Kazahkstan


Government funding to meet the needs of contraception and information of marginalized women is important. Lower unintended pregnancy incidence means healthier women, children and society in general. It’s also less expensive and less problematic for the state in the long run.


Minimum Health Care Costs for Unintended Pregnancies

Why we need a Reproductive Health Law

We need a Reproductive Health Law because

1. providing reproductive health care will make women, children and society healthier.
2. with all the modern advances, there is no excuse for high maternal death rates or for women and children to have lousy health when prenatal and neonatal care is possible.
3. there is an unmet need for family planning information and resources.
4. it’s the heart of a good population development program, which is a key component in economic development


My dear anti-RHB brothers and sisters, isn’t improving the welfare and health of our nation a moral thing to do? We're truly in neck-deep shit. What we're currently doing, leaving women marginalized, unempowered and unable to control their own bodies, is not only harmful to women, it is harmful to children and to our country.

If you are truly "pro life", I urge you to reconsider your stance in the light of these information.

Mabuhay.

Yours truly,
Me

Thanks to Francis and Christene for volunteering as 'sounding boards' of sorts. @Francis, couldn't put comparative data there. If there's nothing to do next week, I'll make a note on the population-economy trends of ASEAN countries or make a humungous chart.

Comments are welcome, especially those who do not support the RHB. What we need are civil discussions, not insult sessions.

disclaimer: not my ideas. everything I've learned was stolen from
1. Pastrana, Quintin & Lauren Harris, "Demographic Governance and Family Planning: the Philippines’ Way Forward," Bixby Center for Population, Health and Sustainability: University of California, Berkeley.
http://bixby.berkeley.edu/bixby-visits-philippines-to-discuss-family-planning/family-planning-policy-brief-1-4-11-2/ (Feb 2011)
2. Merrick, Thomas. "Population and Poverty: New Views on an Old Controversy," Guttmacher Institute.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2804102.html (Feb 2011).
3. Lappé et all. "Poverty and population growth: lessons from our own past," GlobalIssues.org.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/206/poverty-and-population-growth-lessons-from-our-own-past (Feb 2011)
4. Darroch et all. "Meeting Women’s Contraceptive Needs in the Philippines," Guttmacher Institute.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2009/04/15/IB_MWCNP.pdf (Feb 2011)
5. Lappé, Frances & Rachel Schuman, "Taking Population Seriously (excerpt)" Googlebooks.
http://books.google.com.ph/?books (Feb 2011)
6. Campbell, Martha. "Why the Silence on Population," Bixby Center for Population, Health and Sustainability: University of California, Berkeley. http://bixby.berkeley.edu/why-the-silence-on-population/ (Feb 2011).
7. Dennis S. Mapa & Arsenio M. Balisacan. "Population-Povery Nexus," Commission on Population. http://www.popcom.gov.ph/featured_documents/pop_povlink.ppt (Feb 2011)
8. other statistics taken from Wikipedia, NCSO webste, Department of health website, Dept of education website, USAID website
9. New reading for the clowns who don't have the brain fluids for statistics: http://atheistfreedomwall.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/the-utter-stupidity-of-pro-life-arguments/

Eph 3:8-10

Catholic-Protestant exchange on Eph 3:8-10

Protestant

Sir, just a short comment on your statement below on PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS.

Paul is not referring to CHOIR OF ANGELS as you said

Paul used the same words in describing Satan and his evil powers. See Chapter 6:10-12.

Catholic:

You're right about Eph 6. However, that's not the "powers and principalities" that St Paul refers to it Eph 3:10. Note, for instance, that St. Paul clearly says "powers and principalities in the heavenly realms." Scripture says nothing unclean may enter heaven, and devils are barred from heaven. The ones in Eph 6 must be the angels which joined the rebellion, the "non-serviam" group of Lucifer.

The angels-- before they were allowed into the beatific vision (seeig God face-to-face)-- were given a test. Those who passed were allowed the beatific vision. Those who failed the test joined Lucifer. Of course, we don't know precisely what the test was, but theologians speculate that the angels were given a preview of the suffering Christ, and they were ordered to pay homage to him. A number, conscious of their dignity as angels, refused to pay homage to the suffering Christ.

Eph 3:8-10

Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Protestant:

You mean both usage are different?. One refers to choir of angels and the other refers of satan and evil forces and it is because of the absence of "HEAVENLY REALMS".

Now with wide open eyes read again. the phrase "IN THE HEAVENLY REALS" is present in BOTH texts. See 3:10 and 6:12.

Do you mean Paul is not careful enough to choose words so as not to mislead his readers?

If I have tell you, Chapter 3 talks about the awesome power of Church drawn from its union with Christ, the power to speak the Gospel even to the dominion of Satan. Once the church speaks, the dominion of satan is infiltrated and invaded. However, in doing this tasking, the church should be careful because it is not dealing with human powers but that of Satan. How to be careful? PUT ON THE FULL ARMOR OF GOD. [This is what Paul points out in 6]

Note further that heavenly realms is interpreted in other version as SPIRITUAL REALMS. Something, someone and somewhere that human eyes cannot see. That's why we need spiritual power [drawn from God] to counter it.

Please check the doctrine of your teachers in your next sessions.

Catholic:

St. Thomas Aquinas, a quack? Wow. But your interpretation here is not very far from the second post I sent. Please read it first.

Protestant:

Sir, simple lang naman ang issue dito. Do you agree with me that Paul is referring the same subjects in 3:10 and 6:12. You don't have to drag thomas here. Kawawa na yong tao patay na nga idadamay pa natin.

Protestant:

2. The correct interpretation of PRINCIPALITIES, AUTHORITIES AND POWERS IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS. - You say CHOIR OF ANGELS quoting Thomas and I say SATAN AND HIS EVIL POWERS referring to usage of the same words in 6:1-12.

CAN WE CLEAR THIS UP FIRST BEFORE YOU GO FURTHER TO THE NEXT EPISODE
Protestant:

On the message you texted. I really do not claim to be THE ONLY CORRECT INTERPRETATION. What I am saying is my own personal understanding of the text. If St. Thomas is correct then I am wrong. If am correct then Thomas is wrong. As simple as that. I even believe that there might be some 'PROTESTANT" who hold the same understanding with you and St. Thomas but I cannot use them simply because they are who's who in the Christian world. I must speak or write my own understanding. I based my opinion on the following [I said it already}

1. Paul re-use of words in 6
2. What was Paul's experience in Ephesians during his visit there [Acts 19]

Anyway, I'll try to examine more if I am correct.

Thanks.

Protestant:

Nalilito na naman ako. Ako yong nag tanong. Ako nanaman ngayon ang tinanong.

From the very start, I've been telling you that I am using an NIV, but I always refer to other versions like the Revised King James Version before I make something a doctrine.

Now, I think we have no problem with chapter 6 as referring to wickedness, darkness, evil of this world.

You now prove that what Paul is referring in 3 is different from that of 6. As I have said, Paul should not have been to careful to use words.

Let me explain to you why I believe that both 3 and 6 are one AND the same.

Read the account of Paul's ministry in Ephesus [Acts19]. You will notice that this place is a STRONGHOLD OF SATAN AND HIS SPIRITUAL FORCES. Consider the following account:

v13 - There were jews who practice spiritism and tried to invoke the name of the Lord.
v13 - Demon-possesed people are many in the place
v14 - Notice what the seven sons of sceva were doing
v15 - Evil spirit is very present in their midst that they can even hear the words
v16- There was violent manifestation of the evil spirit
v18 - Many are practicing divination and spiritism but hide it. Now they confess
v19 - A number practice sorcery
v20- They earn a living [huge money] out of this evil practice

Continue reading from 23 to 34 and you will notice that this place is really a satanic dominion and people are demon-possessed and influenced.

Now, when Paul left and wrote the EPHESIANS letter later, he referred to his experience during his visit as PROOF THAT WHEN THE CHURCH [headed by him] PREACHED THE WORD in EPHESUS, all this POWER, PRINCIPALITIES AND AUTHORITIES IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS trembles. In fact such a dominion was shaken, infiltrated and invaded because many came to believe in the name of the Lord. THIS IS WHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE WROTE CHAPTER 3

SO, IS 3 AND 6 THE SAME. YES NA YES!!!

Catholic:

You're reading something into Eph 3 that is NOT there. Note that all you offer as proof is the existence then in Ephesus of a robust superstition among its people, chiefly the worship of (Diana, was it? I'm in an Internet cafe outside the Tagoloan NHS, I left my things inside the school, and I cannot verify). Even if you state that this superstition is to such an extent that Demetrius and the other silversmiths were able to whip up such hatred for Paul that he had to leave Ephesus in a hurry, still this falls short of a convincing argument.

Protestant:

Well, as expected, you will always not be convinced ever since. I know this already from the beginning. But I don't have to turn black and blue to make you believe me. That's why if you will allow me to teach you how to read epistles, always read it with ACTS as the background. Because there in these letters are solutions, encouragement and additional Pauline teachings on prevailing problems of places where he has been during his missionary journeys, or problems brought to his attention by other believers who have gone to such places.

Sometimes people cannot see this truth because they are blinded by the veil of tradition of their religion.

Protestant: Sir, simple lang naman ang issue dito. Do you agree with me that Paul is referring the same subjects in 3:10 and 6:12. You don't have to drag thomas here. Kawawa na yong tao patay na nga idadamay pa natin.

What's your Bible? I've been checking the translations of half a dozen Bibles including the NIV, and every one mentions "wickedness" or "darkness" or "of this world" which clearly distinguishes it from the "powers" and "principalities" of Eph 3

So let me throw back the question at you: are the "powers"and "principalities" in Eph 3 and Eph 6 the same?

Protestant:
I thought you have your bible always with you. Or you can access www.bible.com. For now, I have 2 concerns:

1. The Offices mentioned by Paul in 4:8-13 [why no mention of pope, priests and nuns] and if this tells us that the church is HIERARCHICAL, who's on top, then next in line down to the last.

2. The correct interpretation of PRINCIPALITIES, AUTHORITIES AND POWERS IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS. - You say CHOIR OF ANGELS quoting Thomas and I say SATAN AND HIS EVIL POWERS referring to usage of the same words in 6:1-12.
CAN WE CLEAR THIS UP FIRST BEFORE YOU GO FURTHER TO THE NEXT EPISODE. Thanks.

Catholic:

I dont' have a Bible always with me. For one, I use the Navarre Bible, and it's a 12-volume Bible so obviously I couldn't be lugging it around.
That I'm able to respond to you quickly is because I happen to have brought with me the Eph-Phil-Col-Philemon volume.

The Navarre Bible is really the RSV Bible with commentaries by the Theology Department of the University of Navarre in Spain. The Gospels are one volume each, so is Acts, another volume is Romans-Galatians -- 12 in all.

But I use other sources as well. Catholic Answers is one. The 3-part exposition is Tim Staples'. Notice that Timn Staples' Eph 3:8-10 says the same thing as the Navarre Bible. Why? Simple: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Catholic:

No, St. Paul is not referring to the same beings as my earlier post clearly shows:

Eph 3:10-12

This text shows that the apostolic ministry of preaching has a universal, cosmic impact. Thanks to the Church's preaching of "the mystery," it's made known not only to mankind but also to the principalities and powers of the heavens. This preaching reveals the hidden, eternal plans of salvation whereby Jews and Gentiles, by being converted to Christ come to have an equal place in the Church, and this, in turn, reveals the "mystery" of salvation even to the angels(cf 1 Pet 1:12), who came to realize the harmony that lies in God's various interventions in the course of history, from the Creation to the Redemption, including the history of the people of Israel.

The "powers" and "principalities" refer to the angelic powers which, according to Jewish belief, were the promulgators and guardians of the Law and whose mission included the government of men. But these "powers" did not know what God's plans were until they were carried out by Christ and his Church.
In this passage, St. Paul re-asserts very clearly Christ's supremacy over all these powers, and the Church's role in bringing all creation to recognize that Christ is Lord of all

St. Jerome, St. Thomas interpret the "principalities and powers" as being good angels, like the "thrones" and"dominions (cf Col 1:16)and virtutes ("powers": cf Eph 1:21). If we add to these titles appearing in St. Paul's letters those to be found in other books of Scripure-- cherubim, seraphim, archangels, and angels -- we get the nine angelic hierachies known to tradition

Eph 6:10-12

After these counsels to parents and children, servants and masters, the Apostle says something very important: all need to be prepared to struggle against "the principalities" of this world (v.12). He is referring to those angels who rebelled against God and whom Christ has already overcome (1 Cor 15:24; Col 1:13-14; 2:15). but against whom we still have to contend.This is a struggle which must be pursued to the end

Catholic:

Okay. Let’s put this matter to rest by discussing it thoroughly. It started with my claim about Eph 3:8-10:

Eph 3:8-10

Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,

Here’s what I said about Eph 3:8-10:

St. Thomas Aquinas speculates as to the truth behind this text. In his commentary on Ephesians, St Thomas says “he means through which the manifold wisdom of God is made known to the angels is designated by his saying ‘through the Church’.”

St Thomas explains that here when Scripture talks about it being the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in god before we were ever created, it was the plan of God that through the Church, his manifold wisdom maybe made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places.

What are principalities and powers? They are choirs of angels. Angels are far superior to man through the beatific vision as the saints in heaven are. However, he explains that it is because of the fact that the Church is the instrument of God in that her teaching has God as her first principal, hence, the Church can truly be said to teach angels. The angels can learn because how the grace of God works through man, the angels learn.

The point is, if the Church teaches angels, how much more do we humans need to heed to the authority of the Church? In this passage, St Paul teaches about the glory of the Church and the authority of the Church
To this you countered:

Protestant:

The correct interpretation of PRINCIPALITIES, AUTHORITIES AND POWERS IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS. - You say CHOIR OF ANGELS quoting Thomas and I say SATAN AND HIS EVIL POWERS referring to usage of the same words in 6:1-12.

You mean both usage are different?. One refers to choir of angels and the other refers of satan and evil forces and it is because of the absence of "HEAVENLY REALMS".

Now with wide open eyes read again. the phrase "IN THE HEAVENLY REALS" is present in BOTH text

Do you mean Paul is not careful enough to choose words so as not to mislead his readers?

Let me explain to you why I believe that both 3 and 6 are one AND the same.

Read the account of Paul's ministry in Ephesus [Acts19]. You will notice that this place is a STRONGHOLD OF SATAN AND HIS SPIRITUAL FORCES. Consider the following account:

v13 - There were jews who practice spiritism and tried to invoke the name of the Lord.
v13 - Demon-possesed people are many in the place
v14 - Notice what the seven sons of sceva were doing
v15 - Evil spirit is very present in their midst that they can even hear the words
v16- There was violent manifestation of the evil spirit
v18 - Many are practicing divination and spiritism but hide it. Now they confess
v19 - A number practice sorcery
v20- They earn a living [huge money] out of this evil practice

Continue reading from 23 to 34 and you will notice that this place is really a satanic dominion and people are demond possessed and influenced.

Now, when Paul left and wrote the EPHESIANS letter later, he referred to his experience during his visit as PROOF THAT WHEN THE CHURCH [headed by him] PREACHED THE WORD in EPHESUS, all this POWER, PRINCIPALITIES AND AUTHORITIES IN THE HEAVENLY REALMS treambles. In fact such a dominion was shaken, infiltrated and invaded because many came to believe in the name of the Lord. THIS IS WHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE WROTE CHAPTER 3

SO, IS 3 AND 6 THE SAME. YES NA YES!!!

If I have tell you, Chapter 3 talks about the awesome power of Church drawn from its union with Christ, the power to speak the Gospel even to the dominion of Satan. Once the church speaks, the dominion of satan is infiltrated and invaded. However, in doing this tasking, the church should be careful because it is not dealing with human powers but that of Satan. How to be careful? PUT ON THE FULL ARMOR OF GOD. [This is what Paul points out in 6]

Catholic:

This is my reply.

1 Peter 1:10-12:

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

Here, St. Paul describes the eagerness, the desire of the Old Testament prophets who prophesied about the coming Christ: whom it will be, when would he come, etc. Paul is telling the Ephesians how lucky they are to see this very awaited event unfolding right before their eyes in the good news preached to them through the Holy Spirit, which EVEN ANGELS LONG TO LOOK

Now the Greek word for “look” connotes bending over carefully in order to get a better look. Through this metaphor then, St. Paul is telling us about angels in heaven contemplating with joy the mystery of salvation. St. Thomas in his commentaries on Ephesians describe the angels—because they have the beatific vision-- as knowing way more than any human being , BUT the mystery of salvation including the details of the Messiah they did not have a foreknowledge of.

This full mystery of salvation (the great “mystery” that St. Paul often speaks of) is being unfolded, being made manifest to the angels as they observe the grace of God at work for the salvation of man, specifically, in the way God ordained for his Son to assume a human nature, suffer to free us from the slavery of sin, found his Church to guide his flock to heaven, exactly as Eph 3:8-10 describes.

Against this argument you offer the claim that the “powers” and “principalities “ in Eph 3 is the same as those in Eph 6 on the basis of the existence of the words “heavenly realms” in both. You also seem to have missed the remainder of v.12, the part which speaks of these “powers” and “principalities” as being of the “present darkness,” as being “hosts of wickedness,” tags not found in Eph 3. This is proof-texting at its very bad: splicing a passage (v.12) and turning a blind eye on what’s inconvenient.

You seem to see evil in every “powers” and “principalities” that you see. In fact, they are not all bad. Tell me the “principalities” in Col 1:16 are evil. Tell me also that the “power” in Eph 1:21 are likewise bad.

Finally, you offer the fact that there’s so much (let me use a very strong word) witchcraft around, ergo, the “powers” and “principalities” must be malevolent. In Law, that’s what would be called circumstantial evidence. You couldn’t get that case past the fiscal, sorry.

P.S. You might offer Col 2:15. To understand the passage you have to remember that around this time, there were pre-Gnostic religious Judaizing undercurrents resulting in an improper cult rendered to the angels which undermined doctrinally the role of Christ in creation and redemption, a role which is absolutely primary and exclusive.

Catholic:

And by the way, regarding my text message to you yesterday, GRANTING LANG that the "powers" and "principalities" in Eph 3:8-10 are, as you claim, malevolent, DOES IT DIMINISH IN ANY WAY the honor and distinction given to the Church, that "through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the 'principalities' and 'powers' in the heavenly places"?

Why didn't St. Paul say "that through the Bible, the manifold wisdom of God may be made manifest" if, indeed, it's the Bible who's the final authority on matters of faith, morals, and discipline? WHY?

Another thing. You know I couldn't help chuckling when I read Eph 3:10 and imagining that the "powers" and "principalities" there are evil. That'd REALLY be funny. I mean why would God want to make known to evil beings his manifold wisdom?

NOTE: MY “PROTESTANT” FRIEND DID NOT ATTEMPT TO REBUT AFTER MY 1 PETER 1:10-12 REPLY SO I ASSUMED HE HAD TO ADMIT THAT THE “POWERS” AND “PRINCIPALITIES” IN EPH 3:8-10 ARE GOOD ANGELS. I FELT THERE WAS NO NEED TO RUB IT IN SO I ALLOWED HIM TO EXIT GRACEFULLY.

Protestant:

But my question is this: As church performs this tasking, where will it [church] get its wisdom

(FACE SAVING EXIT)

Catholic:

There can be only one answer to this question: the Holy Spirit, in fulfillment of Jesus’ promise, as recorded in Matthew that he will be with his Church till the end of time, and that hell will never overcome it. And that’s why the Pope, when in discharge of his office, speaks on matters and morals, is infallible – meaning he is prevented from making any error. Now the question becomes: what does the pope use as his basis for making such pronouncements? The answer: the deposit of faith (the body of teachings Jesus Christ left to his Apostles which we now have in oral and written form which the Church jealously guards to ensure its purity and absolute fidelity to Christ’s teaching.

Humanae Vitae is not a dogma, but it shows this teaching authority of the Church at work. I’m not sure if it was Rene Alingasa or you to whom I’ve explained it, but no problem, I will explain.

It was the 1960s. the decade before, the Pill was developed, for the first time giving to women the control of their fertility. It was development which shook the world, as multitudes tried it. The Church was not spared. The Pill made inroads into Catholic homes, resulting in such a clamor for Church blessing that Pope Paul VI formed a commission to study and recommend. There were (if I’m not mistaken) 72 members, theologians, doctors, moralists, Jesuits, and they presented the Pope with their report (called the Majority Report) recommending approval of Pill use. There was, however, another report, called the Minority Report because only 3 members recommended it.

But you know what? Pope Paul VI adapted the Minority Report (which became Humanae Viate). The Pope knew what would happen next—the Church was split asunder, and there was (almost) a rebellion against the Pope. Pope Paul VI was vilified even by bishops and cardinals. But the Pope stood his ground. Today, more than 40 years later, as the world woke up to the horrors the Pill has wrought – divorce, contraception, wild sex, pornography, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage – people are saying Pope Paul VI was right.

a Protestant:

No. And I have no problem recognizing this honor and distinction given to the church.

Catholic:

You agree then that the Church is the final authority on matters of faith and morals, the one who’s tasked with settling disputes should two parties have the same idea of the same thing?

Protestant:

If the church go around the community telling about this ‘MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD” and someone asks what’s the basis that will prove that this MANIFOLD WISDOM is indeed of God?

Catholic:

There seems to be a disconnect between what the passage says and what you’re saying it says. What the passage’s saying is “through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known. . .” meaning, by observing what happens in the Church, even angels learn how God’s manifold wisdom works. The contraception issue above, for instance, could be one example. How St. Thomas or St. Augustine labor to explain difficult Bible passages could be one. How the Church handled the Aryan heresy coud be another. In other words, what the Church does and what the Church has been doing is instructing even angels on the manifold wisdom of God.

Protestant:

Because the Bible cannot literally speak.

Catholic:

PRECISELY! Scripture is inspired. In Scripture is the word of God. Scripture is infallible an dis fit for instruction. The problem is just as you said: it cannot literally speak. That’s why SOMEONE’s needed to interpret it. Not just anyone. Not even everyone. But the only one who was given by Christ the power and the authority to: the Church.

Protestant:

To the church. But outside of what the bible says, the church cannot speak of, unless we want to insist on human traditions.

Catholic:

Ask yourself the question: why did the Church not simply give way to Henry VIII when he asked for the annulment of his marriage? That would have prevented Henry from yanking England out of the Church. Yet the Church refused.

And why didn’t the Church simply accommodate Martin Luther. That would have saved the Church from being torn apart? ON the personal level, why didn’t St. Thomas More simply acceded to Henry VIII’s wish for his endorsement of the marriage, that would have save St. Thomas More his life.? Why did he choose to die instead?

Crazy, di ba? In the same way that Pope Paul was crazy when he didn’t adopt the Majority Report. But then, as hat would probably be apparent to you, they could not, because of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Nakakaiyak, but it’s true.

Protestant:

And why did Paul counseled Timothy this way [KJV]?

Catholic:

No question about that, Scripture is everything the “Protestants” say about it, EXCEPT Sola Scriptura which quite simply is un-Biblical.

Protestant:

When was the Church established?

Catholic:

This is my own belief, but from all times I guess. It is God’s nature to be happy, and to share this happiness with many. IN the sense that there is no past, present, and future for God, this desire of his, which found its fulfillment in the Creation, especially of man, provided the beginnings of his establishment of his Church.

Protestant;

When was the first use of scriptures as recorded in the Gospels and who used it for what purpose.

Catholic:

I don’t know.

And by the way, regarding my text message to you yesterday, GRANTING LANG that the "powers" and "principalities" in Eph 3:8-10 are, as you claim, malevolent,
DOES IT DIMINISH IN ANY WAY the honor and distinction given to the Church, that "through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the 'principalities' and 'powers' in the heavenly places"?

Protestant:

No. And I have no problem recognizing this honor and distinction given to the church. Nowhere in my writing can you find me arguing with you on this. But my question is this: As church performs this tasking, where will it [church] get its wisdom. Where will it base the truth that she will be speaking about. If the church go around the community telling about this ‘MANIFOLD WISDOM OF GOD” and someone asks what’s the basis that will prove that this MANIFOLD WISDOM is indeed of God?

Why didn't St. Paul say "that through the Bible, the manifold wisdom of God may be made manifest" if, indeed, it's the Bible who's the final authority on matters of faith, morals, and discipline? WHY?

Because the Bible cannot literally speak. While it is the authoritative word of God, it needs someone to herald it and that tasking is given to the church. But outside of what the bible says, the church cannot speak of, unless we want to insist on human traditions.

And why did Paul counseled Timothy this way [KJV]

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of , knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures [not church ordinances] , which are able to make thee wise unto salvation
through faith **** which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
*** - and how this faith acquired by the believer? Romans
10:17 - Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the
message is heard through the word of Christ [Scriptures]

Now, Let me ask you.

1. When was the Church established?

2. When was the first use of scriptures as recorded in the Gospels and who used it for what purpose.
Another thing. You know I couldn't help chuckling when I read Eph 3:10 and imagining that the "powers" and "principalities" there are evil.

That'd REALLY be funny. I mean why would God want to make known to evil beings his manifold wisdom

1 Cor 9:27

1 Cor 9:27 “ . . . but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”

1 Cor 9:27

Catholic:

This means that while alive, we should always be vigilant in our perseverance because we can never take things for granted. On the practical plane, this means not letting up on our ascetical struggle, mortifying the flesh, guarding our eyes, etc.

We “ought to have the most secure hope in the help of God, who, so long as we are faithful to his grace, will bring the good work to perfection, just as he began it, working both the will and the performance (Phil 2:13), so that at the end of our lives we can say like Paul:” there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, will reward to me on that day (2 Tim 4:8).

Protestant:

The prize that Paul is saying here is certainly not salvation because if it is, then, salvation becomes a prize or a reward when it is not as discussed earlier based on Romans 6:23 “ For the wages of sin is death, but the free GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Paul elsewhere talks of it as a crown. I believe that while we are saved by faith alone and salvation is a GIFT, we will be rewarded with crowns because of what we have done while in the Body. This will include our services for the believers/church done in the name of the Lord and righteous things we do as believers.

A good example here is what Paul is saying in the following verses.

Philippians 4:1 -1Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.

2 Timothy 4:8 - Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
Again, if you take this “crowns” and “rewards” as salvation, then it renders salvation or eternal life as a REWARD, no longer as a GIFT.

Catholic: That’s a good point, except that Romans 2:7 clearly speaks of salvation (aka eternal life) as a reward “. . .to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he [God] will give eternal life.

Which becomes even clearer with Heb 6:10: “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints. . .”

In Mt 5:12 Jesus promises rich rewards In heaven to those who, for his sake, are scorned and persecuted. In Mt 25:34 ff, the Judge of the World decrees eternal reward for the just on the ground of their good works.

Surely, with all these passages, salvation must also be a reward, in which case, the only way that we can reconcile Romans 6:23 and Romans 2:7 (and Heb 6:10, Mt 5:12, and Mt25:34 ff) is to say that salvation is a gift AND a reward.

And indeed, that’s what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that for the justified, eternal life is BOTH a gift or grace promised by God AND a reward for his own good works and merits .

As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, AT THE SAME TIME gifts of God AND meritorious acts of man. I’m referring here to TRUE merit, i.e., of meritum de condigno.

(Credit: Ludwig Ott ,"Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.")

Sacred Tradition

Protestant: The Bible is very clear, it is also complete, nothing else is needed.

Catholic: Maybe, except that the Bible itself clearly states otherwise.

For instance, where in the Bible does it show the list of books that are inspired, and which, therefore, should comprise it? If nowhere, then how was its canonicity established? By Catholics? But how would Catholics have been able to? There's only one answer: Sacred Tradition, which is Christ's teaching preached- exactly how Christ commanded it to be.

What is your doctrine on God the Son in relation to God the Father? Is the Son consubstantial with the Father? Who came first: the Father or the Son? Or did neither of them come after the other, both having no beginning? Can you cite passages which support your doctrine?

What is your doctrine with regard to the Son? Does he have two natures- one human, the other divine—or only one? Does he have two persons- one human, the other divine- or only one? Where in the Bible can your answer be found?

Is the Catholic teaching about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son correct or not? Can you show me where in the Bible can your answer be found?

Who wrote Matthew? What Bible passage made you say that?

You will find that you cannot answer the above questions merely by referring to the Bible. Which is why Protestants should follow what the Bible says, and not disown Sacred Tradition. There are things in the Bible that only Sacred Tradition can illuminate.

Christ's Church: Hierarchical,as the Catholics believe? Or simply refers to Christ-believing people of every denomnation worldwide?

Protestant::

Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church.

Catholic:

This flies right smack into the face of reality, and could have been a joke had not the author sounded so serious.

Could we assume that EVERYONE, okay, let’s not use everyone, but MAJORITY. Could we assume that majority of “Protestantism’s” 33,000 denominations “have placed their faith in Christ?
Yes, you’d probably say.

Now I ask you: didn’t Jesus say that his Church would be marked by unity—one Lord. one Faith, one Baptism (Eph 4:3-6; John 10:16)?

Could you, with a straight face, say that “Protestantism’s” wrangling tower of Babel 33,000 denominations display this unity? Some favor water baptism, others Spirit baptism only. Some accept infant baptism, others adult baptism only. Some accept divorce with remarrying, others do not. Some accept abortion others do not. Some accept same-sex marriage, some do not.

Protestant::

Petros, means a small stone (John 1:42). Jesus used a play on words here with petra (“on this rock”) which means a foundation boulder, as in Matthew 7:24, 25 when He described the rock upon which the wise man builds his house.

CatholicCredit: Karl Keating)

As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, “petros” and “petra” simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek “lithos” would have been used.

Protestant:

In addition, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church.

Catholic:

Catholics believe, perhaps much more than you do, that Christ is both the foundation and the head of the Church. But unlike you, Catholics do not suffer from an all too common “Protestant”
malady: the “either-or” dichotomy: either it’s Jesus or it’s not. Somehow, “Protestants” couldn’t believe that, as in this case, Jesus is the foundation and the head, but, while remaining as the foundation and the head, might have delegated this responsibility to Peter, which is what happened as Mt 16:19 and Isaiah 22 clearly shows.


THE POWER OF THE KEYS

Mt 16:19 “I will give to thee [SINGULAR] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Doubting Protestants could always check the Greek original.

It’s NOT TRUE, however, what the Protestants claim that Jesus gave the other Apostles the same Power of the Keys to the other Apostles. That’s baloney:

(1) In the first place, NOWHERE in Scripture does Jesus give a similar power to the Apostles as Mt 18:18 and Jn 20:23 show the giving of the power and binding to BOTH Peter and the other Apostles. I dare Protestants to show even just one passage in the Bible that shows Jesus giving the Power of the Keys to ANY OTHER.

(2) In the second place, Mt. 16:19 is quite clear: “I will give to thee [SINGULAR] the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Doubting Protestants could always check the Greek original.

(3) And finally, the Keys, as Isaiah 22 and Rev 1:18 clearly show, is the hallmark of AUTHORITY.

You will hear Protestants pooh-pooh the “keys to the kingdom” as a symbolic statement of Peter preaching the Gospel for the first time with an international kingdom. One Protestant would even claim that Peter’s preaching to the “international” audience at Pentecost fulfills once for all the Biblical injunction for the Apostles to preach the kingdom to all the ends of the earth, that this responsibility was fulfilled when Peter, through his sermon to devout Jews from all nations at Pentecost, opened the kingdom of God to the listeners when he preached salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Silly. I mean, would any Protestant in his right mind claim that? And what about the billions of human beings who would come after the Pentecost crowd would have died, would they be deprived of the benefits the Power of the Keys bring, just because they have not been fortunate enough to have been born when Peter was around?

The Protestants pooh-poohing the Power of the Keys as the phrase means among Catholics could very well be well-founded, EXCEPT that there’s this entire chapter in Scripture—Isaiah 22 – which Jesus definitely knew about, and which he probably used so that the meaning of the “keys of heaven and earth” may not be lost to future human beings.

Let’s go deeper into Isaiah 22 (Credit: Scott Hahn). In v.19 it says “I [referring to the King] will thrust you [referring to the previous chamberlain of the royal household] from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah [the new chamberlain of the royal household], and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder they key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”

Now, what’s going on here? Hezekiah was, at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers. Now among cabinet ministers, there is one who’s chief, sort of a Prime Minister. Hezekiah, as king, had, as his “Prime Minister” before Shebna, who proved unworthy. So Shebna was expelled, and his departure left his office vacant. Hezekiah had Eliakim fill the vacated post.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the royal cabinet, but now he is being promoted to the “Prime Minister’s” position. Proof? He is given what other ministers were not given: they keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David.

When Jesus is giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Jesus gives Peter the Prime Minister’s office.

Take this up with ANY Protestant, and he will pooh-pooh Isaiah 22. “Does Isaiah 22 mention the name of Peter?” one asked, in a very silly manner which betrays his fear that Isaiah 22 might be showing him the truth, Imagine, this Protestant has no qualms using Eph 6:1-12 to reference Eph 3:8-10, yet he absolutely refuses to even consider the possibility that Mt 18:18 might reference Isaiah 22. And this should be a lesson to gullible Catholics who are thinking of converting: no matter how knowledgeable your Protestant teacher is, he is not in any position to teach, for the simple reason that he is NOT in possession of the truth. It’s as simple as that.

Protestant:

So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7).

The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built?

It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).

Catholic:

Similar questions as the preceding.

Protestant:

Even if Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority.

Catholic:

I have given the verse-by-verse in an earlier post on where the Church gets her authority.

Protestant:

Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome.

Abe:

In fact, there is. Holy Scripture contains a passage which supports Peter being in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 says “The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark. “Babylon” is code for Rome, much as the fish symbol (icthos) was used as sort of shibboleth, a recognition signal. Why would Peter resort to code words? Acts 18:2 describes how the Roman emperor Claudius (A.D. 41- 54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome, necessitating secrecy.

And come to think of it, just GRANTING that Peter was never in Rome, does that automatically and by itself DISPROVE the papacy? Granting for the sake of argument that Peter was never to Rome, couldn’t he still have been the first Pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle there?

Protestant:

Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles.

Catholic:

If by that you mean a verse which says “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Peter you have supremacy over all the other Apostles,’” well, NO.

But then, consider:

(a) Peter’s words are the first recorded in the Upper Room before the Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
(b) Peter is the first to speak (and only one to speak as recorded), the first one to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14—36).
(c) Peter alone interpreted Psalms in the decision to let the position vacated by Judas be filled by a replacement, Matthias. Acts 1:20 “Let his bishopric someone else take,” Peter decided without calling for a vote or even a discussion.
(d) It was Peter who, without consulting anyone, made the decision to baptize the Gentile Cornelius and his household on the basis of Peter’s vision at Joppa. Isn’t it presumptuous or even reckless and irresponsible for Peter to make that strategic decision alone if he were not the boss?
(e) It was Peter who made the decision at the Council of Jerusalem that grace, not works of law, is required for salvation. The claim by Protestants that it was James, not Peter who made the decision from James’ statement “It is MY judgment” is clutching at straws.
First, it is only in Protestant bibles that the statement is rendered “It is MY judgment,” implying authority. The Catholic Vulgate renders it “Propter quod ego iudico. . .” which is rendered in the Catholic RSV Bible as “Therefore my judgment is. . .” which suggests James giving his concurrence, which just happens to coincide with Peter’s.

Let you, readers, decide, which of the two views—the Protestants’ or the Catholics’—is closer to the intention of Luke.

Readers are invited to check out for themselves Acts15:6-29:

“The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And AFTER THERE HAD BEEN MUCH DEBATE, Peter rose and said to them, Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.
“AND ALL THE ASSEMBLY KEPT SILENCE. . .”

One has to have a good idea of the trouble the division caused – on whether Gentile Christians have to be circumcised to be Christians. One has to understand the vehemence of the Jewish hardliners associated with James, himself a very much-respected apostle being Jesus’ cousin and bishop of Jerusalem, citing as they must have the covenant God made with Abraham (cf Gen 17) and the notion that the Law, once made, is for all times.

Yet when Peter spoke, debate stopped, and the decision was promulgated ON THE SPOT (Acts 15:13-29).

Even the Council of Jerusalem itself is proof that in the early Church is a hierarchy AND A PROCEDURE which everyone, even Paul and Barnabas, followed.

One has to know the “situation on the ground” then. The persecution of Christians following Stephen’s death actually hastened the spread of Christianity to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled Jerusalem settled in Gentile country, and there preached not only to fellow evacuee Jews but to Gentiles as well. In the process, many Gentiles were converted, raising the grisly prospect among Jewish Christians of a horde of uncircumcised Gentile Christians far outnumbering the Jewish Christians.

So parties of Jewish Christians called “Judaizers” went around Galatia and Antioch, then places where Paul taught, telling the Gentile Christians just the opposite of what Paul taught, which, take note, is what the Council of Jerusalem also decided: grace, not works of Law, is what’s required for salvation.

Paul and Barnabas took this matter up with the Jewish Christians, but they couldn’t resolve the matter among themselves. So guess what they did? Precisely what Mt 18:15-18 says: TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH.

‎(f) Even the Rebuke, which Protestants with barely concealed glee use to discredit the primacy of Peter, actually works to affirm Peter’s primacy.
Readers will know more in Gal 2:11, but in Antioch, as earlier narrated, Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around. This infuriated Paul, as Peter’s strange behavior belie his pronouncements at the Council of Jerusalem years earlier. And what would the other Christians think: that the decision has now been reversed? Indeed, isn’t Barnabas avoiding sitting at table with the Gentile Christians every time the Judaizers were around a foretaste of the damage Peter’s ambivalence could cause?

So Paul “withstood Peter to his face.”

Now Protestants could barely hide their glee: isn’t this abundantly enough to cast doubt on Peter’s alleged leadership of the Church? If Peter’s boss, how can an underling REBUKE him?
Rather than show Peter’s subordinate status, the Rebuke actually shows Peter’s headship.

Had an ordinary person done what Peter did, would it have caused Paul to react the way he did? Most likely not. But Peter? That seemingly innocent move, coming as it does from the head of the Church could signal a strategic shift. That’s why Paul is correct in calling Peter’s attention to his error.

(g) Barnabas is Paul’s bosom body. It was Barnabas who brought Paul to the Apostles, Barnabas who was Paul’s partner in his journeys, Barnabas who picked up the almost lifeless body of Paul who was lynched by the crowd who earlier lionized Paul as a god for making a lame man walk.
Yet it was the same Barnabas who, when Peter started avoiding sitting at tables with Gentile Jews every time Judaizers were around, almost by reflex avoided sitting at table with Gentile Christians too.

Now, why EVER would Barnabas do that? Note that Barnabas was a highly respected man in the early Church. Articulate and yet of the most gentle and mild character (he was called “Son of Consolation” for the way he would always sympathize with others, consoling them). If put on a stage together with Peter, people would likely readily choose Barnabas. Why then, did Barnabas by reflex chose to side with Peter, not Paul? The answer is simple: Peter was boss.

Protestant:

The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church.

Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church.

The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).

What is the "prize" in 1 Cor 9:27? Is it "crowns"?

Catholic:

For 14 months starting September 2008, I had a series of exchanges with a Protestant.

When we started, I was not well-prepared then, especially compared to my Protestant friend who knows his way around the Bible.

After a few months, however, I acquired a degree of familiarity with some books of the Bible. Here, I would like to answer some of his unanswered questions.

You suggested I study Paul book by book. While I’m not done with all 13, I have done some readings, enabling me to comment on some of your previous questions.

Catholic:


1 Cor 9:27 : You said the “disqualified” here does not refer to losing salvation, but losing a prize like that won by athletes in athletic competitions. In other words Paul pommels his body and subdues it, not so as not to lose salvation, but so as not to lose some physical prize in some athletic competition.

How do you reconcile this with v.25 which speaks of an “imperishable” prize , which can only be one’s salvation, for what else is worth pommeling one’s body for?

1 Cor 6:9 My contention: Salvation, once gained, CAN be lost because of 1 Cor 6:9: “The unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God , neither fornicators, idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the covetous, nor drunkards.”

Protestant:


“Paul is referring here to the unsaved as evidenced by the kind of LIFE they live.” (In other words, you’re saying that, since the people mentioned are fornicators, idolaters, etc, they couldn’t be SAVED Christians, because the SAVED would not be displaying such behavior. Paul here is NOT referring to SAVED Christians.

Catholic:

How do you reconcile this with 1 Cor 5:10-11, where the same Paul who wrote 1 Cor 6:9 says that these immoral, greedy persons; idolaters; revilers; drunkards; robbers can be found among the SAVED?

1 Cor 5:1-5 You asked me if this immoral man is saved. I originally answered we would never know until the man dies and is judged. I’d like to add some more to that answer.

Paul here excommunicated the guy. Notice the four elements found in excommunication formula: (ref Navarre Bible)

- “In the name of the Lord Jesus” – showing that the Church’s judgment is on a higher than human plane

- “With the power of our Lord Jesus” – showing that the authority derives from Jesus Christ himself through the power of binding and loosing

- “When you are assembled and my spirit is present”- a reference to the collegiality of decisions taken under the hierarchical authority of the Apostle

- “You are to deliver this man to Satan” – the sentence
Is this man doomed? No, not necessarily. Excommunication is essentially medicinal in nature. Its purpose is to “cure” the offender. It’s hoped that the excommunication will bring the man back to his senses, repent, make amendments, and be accepted back to the Church

Is salvation a gift or a reward?

Protestant:


Sir, before we can go further ahead of other arguments and views, we have to settle first on the question: IS SALVATION A GIFT OR A REWARD. In my view, it cannot be both. Because the way I see it in the scriptures, there is a "synonymity" of GIFT and GRACE. And Grace is simply defined as UNMERITED FAVOR. Meaning, we are given this GIFT that we do not actually have in iota of right deserving it. This is purely GIFT because NOBODY can have it no matter how he performs. And it must be given BY SOMEBODY WHO HAS IT. And sad to say, no amount of human effort or accomplishment can ever "BUY" it.

The epistles are addressed to people WHO HAVE ACCEPTED THIS GIFT. That explains why in most of his epistles, Paul addressed the recipients as SAINTS, CHURCH, BELIEVERS, SANCTIFIED, JUSTIFIED, CHILDREN OF GOD. Are these people perfect? NO. Look at Ephesians, Galatians, etc. These books tell us the admonitions of Paul to his readers to live a life of Holiness and Obedience. This is so simply because even if these people ACCEPTED THE GIFT by putting their Faith in Jesus, nowhere in the scriptures that they are described as PERFECT, SINLESS PEOPLE.

Pardon me, but let me give a simplistic Illustration again:

This Christmas, you as a loving Father will certainly
give your children gifts. You will agree with me that you will give this gift to them not because they are perfect children, but simply because you love them. Will you take this gift back one day if they will not perform well as you expected? Certainly Not, because this is a GIFT not a REWARD.

Catholic:

Okay. Let me see if I got you right.

1 Cor 9:27 Okay. I think your reply can be summarized by the following: “Again, if you take this “crowns” and “rewards” as salvation, then it renders salvation or eternal life as a REWARD no longer as a GIFT.”

I will have my answer tomorrow- I left my Navarre Romans and Galatians bible, I couldn’t check on the passages, but offhand I have a few questions:

1. Your statement is based on two crucial assumptions:
First, a “gift” cannot be rejected.
Second, salvation follows a strict either-or situation: either it’s a gift, in which case it cannot be a reward; or it’s a reward, in which case it cannot be a gift.

insert)

Protestant:

Sorry Sir, this is not an assumption. Romans 6:23 is very clear. Salvation/Eternal Life is a GIFT not a REWARD. For clarity, REWARD IS NOT A GIFT AND GIFT IS NOT A REWARD.

Catholic:


The question is: How valid are these two assumptions?

First, on whether a gift may not be rejected:

Luke 10:16 – “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 12:48 “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day”

Mt 10:33; Lk 12:9; Tit 1:16; Acts 7:39; Rom 2:8; Acts 13:46; 1 Tim 1:19; Lk 17:25; 1 Pet 2:4

Protestant:


All the verses above talk about 2 groups of people. Those who will REJECT Jesus Christ whom the Bible refers to generally as UNBELIEVERS. To them are the warnings of God that they will be REJECTED because they REJECTED Jesus Christ as God's Gift. To them is eternal condemnation. To them is denied eternal life. To them is HOPELESSNESS.

On the other hand, there is another group of people who BY FAITH BELIEVE AND RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST as God's GIFT. To them God gave the RIGHT TO BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD. [John 1:12]. They are the Believers, Saints, Church, God's People, Justified, Sanctified, Redeemed, Citizens of Heaven, God's elect, etc.

Catholic:

With regard to rewards, may I post my answer tomorrow? I left my notes in the office so I cannot give you the passages. But the point is this: Salvation is a reward. I know this will make you laugh, cause you to see “works” which for you are all one and the same i.e., the works in the whole system of debt (the Romans 4:4 type).

However, there IS another type of works – I didn’t say that, Paul did-- and that is the type that justifies ( Rom 2:4-13 type – also see Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:12-17; 2
Cor 5:10). And this latter type is the type of works I’m speaking of.

Protestant:

Please do not confuse the 2 judgments [Judgment Seat of Christ, 2 Cor 5:10, and White Throne Judgment, Revelation 20:11]

(Catholic reply at the end of this long Protestant answer.)

White Throne Judgment is where God finally destined those who rejected Christ as their Messiah to their final destiny - eternal condemnation in Hell and those who believe, accepted Jesus Christ to their Final Destiny - Eternal Bliss in Heaven.

Judgment Seat of Christ talks about judgment of the BELIEVERS of the things they did while in the Body. God expects us to labor for Him, live a life of holiness and obedience. Of course, God is just He will reward us believers according to our PERFORMANCE as members of Christ Body - the Church. - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION. Some Christians will get CROWNS, OTHERS MORE CROWNS. And certainly there will be others who will suffer SHAME because of their lousy kind of life shown in the Body. To prove this, examine the passage you use

1 Corinthians 3:12-17 [KJV] - 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

• v12 - If a believer does things in the name of Christ [v11] - as foundation, he can use expensive materials [gold, silver, precious stones], representing the kind of work he does. Or he can use inexpensive, destructible materials [wood, hay, stubble] representing the lousy works he does.

• v13 - However, the problem is, all works will be revealed. We cannot hide our motive of why we are doing it. God will test it by fire [this is symbolic of how gold is made pure - by fire]

• v14 - If our works survives the test because we are using expensive materials [representing our motives], we will be rewarded [with crowns, NOT SALVATION as it is already given]

• v15 - If our works do not survive or burned because we are using inexpensive destructible materials representing our ill-motive, we shall suffer loss [shame]

NOTICE: HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED ESCAPING THROUGH THE FIRES. SIMPLY BECAUSE WHAT IS BEING TESTED IS THE WORK DONE IN THE BODY NOT THE DOER HIMSELF BECAUSE HE IS A BELIEVER

• V16 - Don't you know that you yourselves is the temple of God and that the Spirit of God lives in you? - This statement can not be given to the UNBELIEVER.

• V17 - Warning: As Believers, treat the Church with reverence.

Catholic reply re JUDGMENT SEAT.

Let me answer through a series of questions.

On 2 Cor 5:10 The judgment seat of Christ. Please answer true or false. If you answer “yes” to all, which you have to because they’re all statements of yours, look at the conclusion in numbers 6 and 7.

1. The judgment seat of Christ talks about the judgment of the BELIEVERS of the things they did while in the body. T/F

2. Only the BELIEVERS will be judged. The UNBELIEVERS are not among those to be judged. T/F

3. Being BELIEVERS, the judgment here has NOTHING to do with whether one will be saved or condemned. T/F

4. Being BELIEVERS, the judgment will be about the number of CROWNS each BELIEVER gets. Of course, how can it be otherwise, since even while living, BELIEVERS are already assured of heaven. T/F

5. Some BELIEVERS will have few CROWNS, others many.

6. Therefore, Paul is WRONG in 2 Cor 5:10 when he says that the BELIEVERS will receive either good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. As we have said before, BELIEVERS can only receive good, never evil. T/F

7. Or, therefore, Paul is RIGHT, believers receive good or evil, according to what each has done in the body. But of course, you will have to believe then that evil – like good- also exists in heaven. Isn't that funny? God side-by-side with evil? T/F

But really now, is salvation ALSO a reward. The answer is YES!

(Ref Ludwig Ott)

By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.

Note that this is not the same as what you are right now thinking: reward for actions which precede grace, BUT rewards for actions PRECEDED BY GRACE. In other words, grace – specifically antecedent grace- which is UNMERITED, PRECEDES actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously.

The Church teaches that for the justified, eternal life is BOTH a gift or grace promised by God AND a reward for his own good works and merits. As God’s grace is the presupposition and foundation of (supernatural) good works, by which man merits eternal life, so salutary works are, AT THE SAME TIME gifts of God AND meritorious acts of man. I’m referring here to TRUE merit, i.e., of meritum de condigno (a technical term).

Sacred Scripture says that eternal blessedness in heaven is the reward for good works performed on this earth, and rewards and merits are correlative concepts . In Mt 5:12 Jesus promises rich rewards In heaven to those who, for his sake, are scorned and persecuted. In Mt 25:34 ff, the Judge of the World decrees eternal reward for the just on the ground of their good works.

In Christ’s discourses, the reward motive frequently recurs (Mt 19:29; Mt 25:21; Luke 6:38. St. Paul, who stresses grace so much also emphasizes the meritorious nature of good works performed with grace—he teaches that the reward is in proportion to the works: “He will render to every man according to his works (Rom 2:6). “Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor (1 Cor 3:8). (See also Col 3:24; Heb 10:35; Heb 11:6.)

When Paul characterizes the eternal reward as “the crown of justice which the Lord will render (2 Tim 4:8), he thereby shows the good works of the just establish a legal claim to reward on God (see also Heb 6:10).

"Kecharitomene" : An exchange with a Salvation Army friend

OTHER:
Abraham,

"ALL have sinned..."

If Mary was sinless then she wouldn't need Jesus, and Paul who penned the words above, along with John who said, "if we say we have no sin, we lie, and the truth is not in us...". They both lied? Why is there such a need for this Special perfection of Mary? Some absurd reference to the Ark of the covenant?

Abraham V. Llera

Paul’s statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense--if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise.

Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Paul’s statement that "all have sinned."

Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didn’t mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.

If certain groups are exempt from the "all have sinned" rubric, then these verses can’t be used to argue against Mary’s Immaculate Conception, since hers would be an exceptional case too, one not needing mention given the purpose of Paul’s discussion and his intended audience.

Now let’s consider what the Bible has to say in favor of the Catholic position.

Abraham V. Llera

Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or "highly favored").

This is a recognition of her sinless state. In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as "blessed among women."

The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives (best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages would have say, "You are tall among men" or "You are wealthy among men" to mean "You are the tallest" or "You are the wealthiest." Elizabeth’s words mean Mary was the holiest of all women.

The Church understands Mary to be the fulfillment of three Old Testament types: the cosmos, Eve, and the ark of the covenant.

A type is a person, event, or thing in the Old Testament which foreshadows or symbolizes some future reality God brings to pass. (See these verses for Old Testament types fulfilled in the New Testament: Col. 2:17, Heb. 1:1, 9:9, 9:24, 10:1; 1 Cor. 15:45-49; Gal. 4:24-25.)

Some specific examples of types: Adam was a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14);

Noah’s Ark and the Flood were types of the Church and baptism (1 Peter 3:19-21);

Moses, who delivered Israel from the bondage of slavery in Egypt, was a type of Christ, who saves us from the bondage of slavery to sin and death;

circumcision foreshadowed baptism; the slain passover lamb in Exodus 12: 21-28 was a symbol of Jesus, the Lamb of God, being slain on the Cross to save sinners.

The important thing to understand about a type is that its fulfillment is always more glorious, more profound, more "real" than the type itself.

Mary’s Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any blemish or stain of sin or imperfection.

This is borne out by the repeated mention in Genesis 1 of God beholding his creations and saying they were "very good."

Out of pristine matter the Lord created Adam, the first immaculately created human being, forming him from the "womb" of the Earth.

The immaculate elements from which the first Adam received his substance foreshadowed the immaculate mother from whom the second Adam (Romans 5:14) took his human substance.

The second foreshadowing of Mary is Eve, the physical mother of our race, just as Mary is our spiritual mother through our membership in the Body of Christ (Rev. 12:17). What Eve spoiled through disobedience and lack of faith (Genesis 3), Mary set aright through faith and obedience (Luke 1:38).

We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: "I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel."

This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the "seed of the woman," a singular usage.

The Bible, following normal biology, otherwise only refers to the seed of the man, the seed of the father, but never to the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here?

The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14.

If Mary were not completely sinless this prophesy becomes untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary’s Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan.

Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, original or actual (see 2 Corinthians 6:14). This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3.

The third and most compelling type of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is the ark of the covenant.

In Exodus 20 Moses is given the Ten Commandments. In chapters 25 through 30 the Lord gives Moses a detailed plan for the construction of the ark, the special container which would carry the Commandments.

The surprising thing is that five chapters later, staring in chapter 35 and continuing to chapter 40, Moses repeats word for word each of the details of the ark’s construction.

Why? It was a way of emphasizing how crucial it was for the Lord’s exact specifications to be met (Ex. 25:9, 39:42-43).

God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God.

How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.

When the ark was completed, "the cloud covered the meeting tent and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling.

Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling" (Ex. 40:34-38). Compare this with the words of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:35.

There’s another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6.

The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it.

King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says "Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?" (1 Sam. 6:9).

Compare this with Elizabeth’s nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). John’s leap was for precisely the same reason as David’s--not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God.

Another parallel may be found in 2 Samuel 6:10-12 where we read that David ordered the ark diverted up into the hill country of Judea to remain with the household of Obededom for three months.

This parallels the three-month visit Mary made at Elizabeth’s home in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39-45, 65). While the ark remained with Obededom it "blessed his household."

This is an Old Testament way of saying the fertility of women, crops, and livestock was increased. Notice that God worked this same miracle for Elizabeth and Zachariah in their old age as a prelude to the greater miracle he would work in Mary.

The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-17, where she is called the mother of all "those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus" (verse 17).

The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament’s description of the ark and the New Testament’s discussion of Mary’s role.

Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it.

After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that--he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.


http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp
Credit: Patrick Madrid

Abraham V. Llera

it doesn't seem "absurd" to me at all, at least, if one were to go over all the Biblical proof.


Abraham V. Llera


Mary is not by her own power, virtue, or merit sinless. It was not her merits but those of her Son which were applied to her at her conception.

The primacy and necessity of the Incarnation and Christ's fullness are not diminished by Mary's Immaculate Conception, because more than any other human being, she received of his fullness (John 1:16).

As a child of Adam and Eve, Mary shares our fallen condition de jure. But de facto she was rescued from it at her conception.

All was grace, but in her grace was preventive medicine. For us it is therapeutic, healing the actual damage of sin.

Ecclesiastes 7:20, Galatians 3:22, Romans 3:23, 5:12, 11:32.)do not disprove Mary's sinlessness.

Mary's perfect fullness of grace was in God's plan necessary to what the Protestant theologian de Satge calls "the awesome demands of her particular motherhood, without detaching that perfection from the grace that came by her Son."(John de Satge, Down to Earth: The New Protestant Vision of the Virgin Mary (Consortium, 1976), 73.)


http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp

Abraham V. Llera

please, when you try to debunk, PLEASE CITE BIBLE PROOF.

OTHER:

Abraham, that was a lot to read so early in the morning. I was struck by the use of babies and the mentally challenged. Surely you are not saying Mary was a baby or mentally challenged are you? I realize that is just a line someone else gave you so I can understand if you would like to change it now.

Scripture?
1 John 1:8-10
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Abraham V. Llera


Okay, I understand how groggy one can be early in the morning.

Still I leave to you the thought contained in the Catholic answer. I urge you to pause, and ponder on them, rather than brush them off just like that.

And,the 1 John passage you cited is precisely the reason I gave you the series of posts in reply. You cannot throw it back at me again.

In the first place, 1 John 1:8 is something the Church teaches (Trent # 23 condemns anyone who says "that a man once justified cannot sin again and cannot lose grace).

What you could do is to debunk-- from the bible, of course-- every passage I cited as proof, just to cite one example, about the "kecharitomene" in Luke not being the fullness of grace that started at some point in time and continued THROUGHOUT Mary's being. THAT is the kind of reply that you should be giving.

OTHER:


Abraham,

So my challenge is to use the Bible to disprove something that is NOT in the Bible?

Hmmm. That's pretty difficult.

Thou Shalt have no other gods before ME. Pretty simple? Oh that's either Exodus, or Deuteronomy, whichever version you want to read...

Also, Deuteronomy 6:4 "...The Lord Our God is ONE..."

Here are some Catholic quotes that prove the Dogma of Catholicism is way further than you represent.

There is no one, O most holy Mary . . . who can be saved or redeemed but through thee. . . . (St. Germanius, quoted in St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, 1931, p. 171.)

As we have access to the Eternal Father only through Jesus Christ, so have we access to Jesus Christ only through Mary. By thee we have access to the Son, O blessed finder of grace, bearer of life, and mother of salvation. . . . (St. Bernard, ibid.)

Do you agree with these Abraham?

OTHER:

Abraham, Also...

1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

The words, "hath made us accepted" is the exact same word in the Greek as in Luke 1:28 for Mary. So now the Catholics need to Highly honor EVERY Christian. Right?

Strong's #5487: charitoo (pronounced khar-ee-to'-o)

from 5485; to grace, i.e. indue with special honor:--make accepted, be highly favoured.

OTHER:


Abraham,

//If certain groups are exempt from the "all have sinned" rubric, then these verses can’t be used to argue against Mary’s Immaculate Conception, since hers would be an exceptional case too, one not needing mention given the purpose of Paul’s discussion and his intended audience.//

So, the Roman Audience didn't need to hear that Mary was without sin? It is precisely the REASON Paul wrote this verse, because SOME were toting this doctrine. Paul was squelching that in the Bud. BUT, it has been risen from the dead, with the Catholic Church. It is ironic, is it not that there was another religion called "The Cult of Mary" that had similar if not the exact same view?

Abraham V. Llera

///So my challenge is to use the Bible to disprove something that is NOT in the Bible?///

No, please, don't use that, that's the argumentation fallacy called circular reasoning or begging the question. You have not yet established that your above claim about Mary's Immaculate Conception is NOT in the Bible: you're STILL trying to establish that.

I have placed on the table my answers to each of your questions. I have dealt with your objection "But St. Paul says ALL have sinned," and I did it FROM THE BIBLE.

Likewise, I've made the claim that the Greek "kercharitomene" describes a "fullness oif grace" that happened to Mary's being at a certain point in time, that is, at her conception in the womb of her mother, UP TO HER ENTIRE earthly life, and INTO her life now in heaven, in other words, it's continuing up until this very moment

Now I'm asking you to debunk this claim as well, again, FROM THE BIBLE.

Please, do not give me the circular reasoning above.

OTHER

Abraham, Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

"hath made us accepted" is the same Greek word referred to Mary. You gonna honor me like you do Mary? You should.



Other:


///Here are some Catholic quotes that prove the Dogma of Catholicism is way further than you represent.

There is no one, O most holy Mary . . . who can be saved or redeemed but through thee. . . . (St. Germanius, quoted in St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, 1931, p. 171.)

As we have access to the Eternal Father only through Jesus Christ, so have we access to Jesus Christ only through Mary. By thee we have access to the Son, O blessed finder of grace, bearer of life, and mother of salvation. . . . (St. Bernard, ibid.)

Do you agree with these Abraham?///

Abraham V. Llera

I don't, and I'm sure neither do you. BUT, and that's a very big BUT, you have it ALL wrong: you've taken Liguori's statement for what it is NOT.

Now, I will give you the chance to rethink your position, see if it's something you've really studied well and, as a result of which, now subscribes to. Or might it not be something which you carelessly used after seeing it posted on the Internet.

I will answer your question, but please CROSS THE BRIDGE first.

Abraham V. Llera


Well, do you STILL insist in your original claim, or after studying the matter a little bit, you've changed your mind, and concluded "okay, my source's wrong after all, Liguori did NOT place Mary OVER God."

I'm waiting.

Abraham V. Llera


the phrase "his grace": who is the "his" being referred to here?

Abraham V. Llera

Well, ?


OTHER:

Abraham, I don't know what Ligouri was saying. All I know is that quote seems to present Ligouri as saying Mary is God. That's why I brought it up to you. If you can explain, I would appreciate it.

Abraham V. Llera

okay I will, but I'd appreciate it if, in the interest of the truth, you try to be discriminating next time with what you post, especially inasmuch as some people would just take a look, form a judgment based purely on what they see, leave and not come back, and would never be able to see the explanation.

Let us see what St. Alphonsus writes at the very beginning of his book. He dedicates it "To Jesus and Mary":

"MY MOST LOVING REDEEMER AND LORD JESUS CHRIST, I, THY MISERABLE SERVANT"

Comment: Notice that right from the start, we know what Jesus IS to Liguori according to Liguori himself.

Liguori continues:

" . . . I know not, however, to whom I could better recommend it than to Thee, who hast her glory so much at heart. To Thee, therefore, do I dedicate and commend it . . . this Immaculate Virgin IN WHOM THOU HAS PLACED THE HOPE and whom THOU HAST MADE the refuge of all the redeemed . . . "

Comment: Liguori is clear: It IS Jesus who placed in Mary the hope; it IS Jesus who has made Mary the refuge.

Liguori continues:

"And now I turn to thee, O my most sweet Lady and Mother Mary. Thou well knowest that, AFTER JESUS, I have placed my entire hope of salvation in thee; for I acknowledge that everything good -- my conversion, my vocation to renounce the world and all the other GRACES THAT I HAVE RECEIVED FROM GOD -- all were given me through thy means. (p. 23)"

Comment: Again, everything's CLEAR: Note the "AFTER JESUS," meaning it IS Jesus who saves. And notice " GRACES THAT I HAVE RECEIVED FROM GOD" states it very clearly from WHERE the graces come.

In other words, what you found on the Internet is nothing but, YET AGAIN, still another example of a typically Protestant tendency to twist anything and everything that concerns Mary, a very sad knee-jerk tendency.

Liguori was a pious Catholic who happens to believe firmly in the TO JESUS THROUGH MARY way to heaven, something which does not run counter to the "TO THE FATHER THROUGH THE SON" fact.

OTHER:


Abraham, You may be right. However, If Jesus said,"... NO ONE comes to the Father but through me." (and He did.) And He offered the Power of that relationship, (the Holy Spirit) then to put ANYONE in that place, IMO, is blasphemy. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I like to call em as I see em. Did Ligouri, commit blasphemy, I don't know. But it appears dangerously close, and allows for others to step over the line because of it.


OTHER:

This was interesting too...

I will only post a link so that OTHERS will have to look in order to find it's unsavoriness.

I'm sure you will NOT agree with it Abraham.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lDSuvJtjrBcC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=The+Cult+of+Mary+early+AD+Beliefs&source=bl&ots=e9POc9lLhf&sig=z6YWMGltICFs5RFV3KsVM9Wldx0&hl=en&ei=SdJCTcmmA4PrgQeypsiKAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&sqi=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Abraham V. Llera


///However, If Jesus said,"... NO ONE comes to the Father but through me." (and He did.) And He offered the Power of that relationship, (the Holy Spirit) then to put ANYONE in that place, IMO, is blasphemy. ///

I'd go with that, except for one little problem: I don't see any Bible proof, meaning I'd have to believe it on your authority. I would, don't get me wrong, were this merely a question of whether or not Lipitor is indeed the best for cholesterol. But it's something more important, way more.

And especially inasmuch as from where I stand, I don't see any problem the way you see one. Yes, the way to the Father is through the Son, but, if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sees it fit to honor Mary such a singular privilege as to make her "full of grace" who are we to question that, especially if the end result is Mary bringing us to Jesus, and from Jesus to the Father.

It's noteworthy that you continue to turn a blind eye on "kecharitomene" instead of pursuing it like I would in my desire to make sure that I have the truth with me. The nearest thing you did was to offer that St. Paul line which clearly does not support your claim. Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

are you sure you don't have any more arguments to topple "kecharitomene"?

OTHER:




Abraham, that word is not in the Greek text I see. Could you display the source of your Greek text? Because I posted the Greek word I had for that, and I posted the Strong's definition, and the other scripture where that word is used. I'm sorry if it appears that I've not considered your position, I have. I don't see that word in the Greek text. Show me, and I may consider better.

Also,

//Yes, the way to the Father is through the Son, but, if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit sees it fit to honor Mary such a singular privilege as to make her "full of grace" who are we to question that, especially if the end result is Mary bringing us to Jesus, and from Jesus to the Father.//

So the ends justifies the means? I don't think so.

//are you sure you don't have any more arguments to topple "kecharitomene"?//

When you show me that word in the Greek text, I will consider the challenge complete.


Abraham V. Llera



what is the Greek word you are asking me to show you the Greek lexicon?

Abraham V. Llera


Is it "charitoo"? I remember you mentioned that word in an earlier post. Is that the word, Eric?

Abraham V. Llera


choose your answer well, because people are looking.

My question is: are you saying that the operative word in Luke 1:28 and Eph 1:6 the same "charitoo"?

Abraham V. Llera


Okay, here's your post below. It's very clear what you are saying: that the operative word in Luke 1:28 and Eph 1:6 IS THE SAME "CHARITOO."


I will give you a chance: reconsider your statement.


For the benefit of readers, here's OTHER’s post:

1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

The words, "hath made us accepted" is the exact same word in the Greek as in Luke 1:28 for Mary. So now the Catholics need to Highly honor EVERY Christian. Right?

Strong's #5487: charitoo (pronounced khar-ee-to'-o)

from 5485; to grace, i.e. indue with special honor:--make accepted, be highly favoured.

OTHER:

Abraham, Tell me what is the Greek word you want me to look at...

It's really very simple.

the Link...

It was a rendering of the transformation of Luther and Zwingli's interpretation of the Marian Doctrines. And their dissappointments concerning its practice in the Church. I have read it through. I don't see anything in there that is blatantly untrue. Just things that I assume you would not agree with.

OTHER:


Abraham,

"In verse 28, Gabriel tells Mary in his salutation that she is "highly favored," and in verse 30, that she "has found favor with God." The Greek word translated highly favored means "to grace," "to endue with special honor," or "to be accepted." The only other place it is used is Ephesians 1:6, where Paul says to the church at Ephesus and to the body of Christ generally, ". . . to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved." From this example, we can see that being "highly favored" is not synonymous with being worthy of worship. Everyone in the body of Christ is highly favored because God has accepted us through the justification brought about by Christ's sacrifice.

In verse 30, Gabriel tells Mary that she has found favor with God. "Favor" is the Greek word charis, which means "graciousness of manner or action." It indicates favor on the part of the giver and thankfulness on the part of the receiver. It is most often translated "grace" in the New Testament. Gabriel tells Mary that she is the recipient of charis, of grace and favor by God—the emphasis is on what God is doing. The type of grace bestowed on Mary is implied to be sweetness, charm, loveliness, joy, and delight. Again, we see nothing in this verse to give any indication that Mary should be worshipped. She simply received God's favor by being chosen to fulfill this role."

Read more:http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/24922/eVerseID/24922#ixzz1CLP2SHj0


Abraham V. Llera


Luke 1:28 uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen."

And here you are , asking me for the link to the Greek lexicon I used for the word "charitoo."

it's almost 12 midnight in the Philippines, and I'm sleepy. I'm still up only because the party in a neighbor's house is keeping me awake. It should be around 12 noon where you are. Are you sleepy too


Abraham V. Llera


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).

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm


Abraham V. Llera


Whereas the Greek could have used a simple noun or verb to address Mary, the unique feature of kecharitomene is that it is in the Greek perfect tense, denoting that the state of grace began in past time, by a completed action (hence "fully" accomplished), whose results continue in the present.

A suitable translation to denote all these features might be "Fully-Graced One." The Greek passive voice denotes that Mary received the grace-title from an outside source, that is, God.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=1168697.0

OTHER:


Abraham,

I now see. I'm sorry for doubting you. Thank you for bringing this up.

I was only looking at a particular Bible website online that has been helpful. When I looked at the ACTUAL Greek text, I saw the word you referred to.

Now I've researched this and although this answer hits close to where I stand. I have another idea forthcoming that may put us closer together if you wish to hear this idea, let me know...

//April 2006, Question 40:

Whereas the Greek could have used a simple noun phrase to address Mary, Luke, for his particular reasons, chooses a complex verb. In this case, the Greek verb kekaritomene is titular. That being the case, the best way to translate this in English is: "Fully-Graced One."

The decision to have it translated differently was started by Protestant Theodore Beza, who rendered it as "freely beloved." Protestant translations such as the KJV, RSV and NIV followed this trend and rendered it "favored one," as do some liberal-minded Catholic translations (NAB, NJB).

They do this because they are trying to imply that the state of grace is extrinsic or forensic, not intrinsic or infused. When the Vulgate translates kekaritomene as "full of grace" it is imply that Mary was infused with divine grace in her soul. When the KJV translates it as "favored one" it is implying that grace is not infused but that Mary was extrinsically blessed. Hence, the translations all depend on the theology behind it.

This principle would also apply to passages such as Ephesians 1:6 where the Greek indicative, active, aorist ECHARITOSEN (which is derived from the same verb as kekaritomene) is translated as "he graced." If you are Catholic you will see this as a reference to the infusion of grace; if Protestant, as a gracious blessing from God.

Although it is true that John 1:14 and Acts 6:8 use the Greek PLERES CHARITOS, which is literally translated "full of grace," here we have an instance in which Jesus and Stephen, respectively, are filled with grace. That shows that a "filling" of grace can be applied to the God-Man or to a man. Again, a Catholic would understand this action as an infusion of grace, whereas a Protestant would see it as merely an extrinsic divine gift or blessing.

The reason Luke didn't choose PLERES CHARITOS for Mary is that the phrase cannot, in itself, distinguish time, agent or continuity, whereas KEKERITOMENE can. Being a perfect, passive, participle that is applied on a titular basis, KEKERITOMENE denotes that: (a) the state of grace began in past time, (b) it is a completed and accomplished action, (c) its results continue into the present, (d) that the verbal title is received by Mary from an outside agent.

Although these four grammatical characteristics do not prove the Immaculate Conception, KEKARITOMENE is the best Greek word that could have been chosen to coincide with it. Any other Greek word would have been inadequate or even faulty. That is all we can really say, gramatically speaking. //


Abraham V. Llera


Whereas the Greek could have used a simple noun phrase to address Mary, Luke, for his particular reasons, chooses a complex verb. In this case, the Greek verb kekaritomene is titular. That being the case, the best way to translate this in English is: "Fully-Graced One."

The decision to have it translated differently was started by Protestant Theodore Beza, who rendered it as "freely beloved." Protestant translations such as the KJV, RSV and NIV followed this trend and rendered it "favored one," as do some liberal-minded Catholic translations (NAB, NJB).

They do this because they are trying to imply that the state of grace is extrinsic or forensic, not intrinsic or infused. When the Vulgate translates kekaritomene as "full of grace" it is imply that Mary was infused with divine grace in her soul. When the KJV translates it as "favored one" it is implying that grace is not infused but that Mary was extrinsically blessed. Hence, the translations all depend on the theology behind it.

This principle would also apply to passages such as Ephesians 1:6 where the Greek indicative, active, aorist ECHARITOSEN (which is derived from the same verb as kekaritomene) is translated as "he graced." If you are Catholic you will see this as a reference to the infusion of grace; if Protestant, as a gracious blessing from God.

Although it is true that John 1:14 and Acts 6:8 use the Greek PLERES CHARITOS, which is literally translated "full of grace," here we have an instance in which Jesus and Stephen, respectively, are filled with grace. That shows that a "filling" of grace can be applied to the God-Man or to a man. Again, a Catholic would understand this action as an infusion of grace, whereas a Protestant would see it as merely an extrinsic divine gift or blessing.

The reason Luke didn't choose PLERES CHARITOS for Mary is that the phrase cannot, in itself, distinguish time, agent or continuity, whereas KEKERITOMENE can. Being a perfect, passive, participle that is applied on a titular basis, KEKERITOMENE denotes that: (a) the state of grace began in past time, (b) it is a completed and accomplished action, (c) its results continue into the present, (d) that the verbal title is received by Mary from an outside agent.

Although these four grammatical characteristics do not prove the Immaculate Conception, KEKARITOMENE is the best Greek word that could have been chosen to coincide with it. Any other Greek word would have been inadequate or even faulty. That is all we can really say, gramatically speaking.


http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=1168697.0

OTHER:

Wow, we both posted the exact same thing?

Abraham V. Llera


Yes, we used the same search words.

OTHER:

Amazing...

Abraham V. Llera

I have to sleep now. It's way way past my bedtime. See you tomorrow.

OTHER:


Good night...

OTHER:

Did you want to see my idea?

OTHER;


Since, Both Jesus and Stephen are referred to using the words Pleres Charis. And ONLY Mary is the one where the different word KEKARITOMENE is used, What is different from Mary, Stephen and Jesus?

Jesus - Divine
Stephen - Saved
Mary - Jesus was in her womb.
Here it is.

Abraham V. Llera


///Since, Both Jesus and Stephen are referred to using the words Pleres Charis. And ONLY Mary is the one where the different word KEKARITOMENE is used, What is different from Mary, Stephen and Jesus?

Jesus - Divine
Stephen - Saved
Mary - Jesus was in her womb. ///

I love this little game we play like kids: you get your questions from the Internet, I get my answers from the same Internet.


In Luke 1:28, the word is kecharitomene.

In Acts 6:8, two words are used: pleres charitos. This phrase is more literally translated as "full of grace," but it does not have the grammatical construction of kecharitomene - in other words, it doesn't refer to Stephen as having been filled completely with grace at some point in the past.

Luke 1:28 uses a verb, while Acts 6:8 uses a noun, and only Luke 1:28 uses this word as a title, not merely a description. Acts says Stephen was "full of grace" as a description of him at that moment in time. Luke 1:28 actually calls Mary by this title: "Hail, Having-Been-Made-Fully-Graced!" We might shorten that by saying, "Hail, Fully-Graced," and that would preserve the sense of the verb-action. But as you can see, St. Jerome's "Hail, Full of Grace" comes close enough.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=1168697.0

OTHER:


Abraham, that charting of Jesus, Stephen, and Mary, was original to me. I didn't see it on a website. John 1:14 uses the words PC referring to Jesus. Acts 6:8, uses PC referring to Stephen. Both referred to the same using the same word. If anything that would say more than the word used for Mary. Is Mary any better than Jesus? Your argument seems to suggest that Jesus was not full of grace before the time about which was written of Him in the book of John? Stephen was not full of grace until he was stoned?


That was my words not the Internet.

Abraham V. Llera


In Luke 1:28, Luke, guided by the Holy Spirit, foresaw precisely the kind of questions you'd ask, that's why he took the extra trouble of using "kercharitonemene."

Jesus IS God, Maryis not, could we please lay that to rest now?

OTHER:



Abraham, with all due respect your argument, belies this truth. (Jesus is God)


Abraham V. Llera


http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_157281800973662&id=179217328780109

Hi,. I'm sorry, I have been preoccupied with another concern (see above).

I will have to check some more of my materials, but, offhand, her's how I understand this whole thing:

(1) "Kecharitomene" is quite specific on one thing: it describes a situation where Mary has, by God's direct intervention, been freed from sin BEFORE THAT INSTANT when St. Gabriel visited her,

(2) whereas, "pleres charitos" or "full of grace" used to describe Jesus in John 1:14 and Stephen in Acts 6:8 describes a state AT THAT INSTANT. In other words, from the way I understand it, which, of course, has to be tempered with the fact that I'm not a theologian, and that's why I told you I have to check up some more with my materials-- the "full of grace" said of Jesus and Stephen refers to THAT INSTANT.

This is where I think we differ though: you're claiming that this couldn't be possibly so since, my goodness, how could Jesus be "full of grace" ONLY at that instant in John 1:14. My goodness, gracious, of course NOT, Jesus from all eternity, is "full of grace.'

believe me, I couldn't agree MORE: Jesus, from all eternity, is "full of grace."

What's wrong here is that you're asking "pleres charitos" to do something it is not designed to do.

"Pleres charitos" is designed to say only one thing: AT THAT INSTANT IN TIME, Jesus is "full of grace" in John 1:14. similarly, AT THAT INSTANT IN TIME, Stephen is "full of grace."

Now, the use of "pleres charitos" does NOT belie the fact that Jesus, from all eternity, is "full of grace."

The problem is that you will be asking "pleres charitos" to do something it is not designed to do were you to ask it to say that Stephen is "full of grace" from all eternity too. Yes, Stephen is "pleres charitos" AT THAT INSTANT IN TIME in Acts 6:8, but, UNLIKE JESUS, he is not "full of grace" from all eternity.

I'm not so sure I've been clear enough, not sure I was able to explain myself clearly enough to you.


Abraham V. Llera


I'm signing off now. It's 9:30 PM, it's 30 min past my bedtime.

OTHER;


Abraham, with all due respect. You still make something special of Mary, instead of marveling and pondering in your heart as Mary.

Abraham V. Llera



you're asking me the impossible.

I CANNOT, just cannot, change ANYTHING in Scripture. My goodness, that's UNTHINKABLE. That's a prerogative exclusively reserved for God.

St. Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the word "kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28-- nobody but nobody could change that forever.

I suggest, , we accept cheerfully what God teaches. Ponder it in our hearts. If the Holy Spirit moved St. Luke to use "kecharitomene" when he could just as well have written "pleres charitos" shouldn't you and I simply accept it?

It's funny but "marveling and pondering it in my heart like Mary" did is exactly what I did just after replying to your post. Up until then, I've simply accepted, as I have done with everythig the Church teaches, this teaching of the Church, but it was after I posted my reply to you that I realized how magnificent God's plan was for Mary. Makes me feel like crying.

OTHER;

Abraham, I'm not CHANGING scripture. Don't know what you are referring to. I understand the word for Mary is different, but I suggested the reason is not what the RCC suggests, because that would make Mary bigger than Jesus. The reason for that word was because of the physical reality in Mary's life. Not necessarily spiritual, Mary's spiritual journey is much like ours. God chose her for such a time as this, and she accepted the call of God. As with us if we saw God work a miracle like that in our life, we would probably love and serve God supremely. Pleres charitos would not express it fully, I agree. But kecharitomene, does not mean what you say, Mary is not greater than Jesus. And furthermore, if you are correct that would in essense make God into a "respector of persons". Are you sure you want to go there?

Abraham V. Llera


///but I suggested the reason is not what the RCC suggests, because that would make Mary bigger than Jesus.///

No,, I'm sorry to disagree, St. Luke's use of "kecharitomene" does not diminish ANY from the incontrovertible fact that Jesus IS God, and there can NEVER be anyone higher.

The Church believes as much,. Proof of this abounds, one of which is the fact that the Church calls the adoration due God as "latria," but call;s the reverence due Mary as "hyperdulia," although this is higher than the reverence due saints called "dulia."

The problem with your understanding is that you view St. John's use iof "pleres charitos" as DIMINISHING the honor due God. NO, , "pleres charitos" doesn't do that- that it does exists ONLY in your mind.

I wish you'd see the pattern,. Far too many "Protestant" beliefs are crumbling down the moment one takes a closer look at the Greek originals: "kecharitomene," "hierourgeo," "pisteou," " δικαιόω," "katergazomai."

Don't you think it's about time. for you to pause and ponder on all of these?

Abraham V. Llera


///The reason for that word was because of the physical reality in Mary's life.///

Okay, please explain to me, help me undrestand how "kecharitomene" relates to the "physical reality in Mary's life."

///But kecharitomene, does not mean what you say, Mary is not greater than Jesus.///

you're belaboring your point, and, in the process, twisitng what the word "kecharitomene" innocently means. Who says Mary is greater than Jesus? Look closely, and see who the culprit is. It CANNOT be the Church, for reason already given.

Does the fact that Mary is sinless diminish ANY from Jesus' divinity? You're stertching it too far. The fact is, it does not. Adam and Eve were sinless originally. Does THAT diminish ANY from Jesus's divinity?

The fact is, that you are SCARED, scared that, yet again, here's another pesky little Greek word which, yet again, adds to the parade of pesky little Greek words which support the Catholic position.

It is THAT, , which you are so much aghast at.

OTHER:

Abraham,

//Okay, please explain to me, help me undrestand how "kecharitomene" relates to the "physical reality in Mary's life."//

Who was in her womb? Did anyone else in human history ever carry the Son of God within? How long did Mary carry the Son of God? Abraham, I'm not afraid of any "pesky" Greek words. Bring it on.