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.
