The Goddess Man Has Made

[epostle1]

Hi Kepha,

I think we may have our wires crossed, so to speak. Here's what I was talking about:

Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. - Douay-Rheims

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." - New American Bible

You can see here that the modern Catholic version follows the Hebrew text while the Douay-Rheims follows later versions of the Vulgate. The article you linked to goes on to say:

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent...

...This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ... http://www.cin.org/u...stions/q105.htm


It's actually used twice in the NT. The second occurrence is found in Ephesians 1:6, where Paul uses it to describe himself and the Ephesians.

Not to be overlooked is the phrase in Israel. Even in Israel, in spite of all its advantages, there would be this sharp division between those who reject Jesus, the vast majority (John 1:11; 6:66), and those who welcome and embrace him (1:12, 13)...

...By means of their attitude to Jesus men would be constantly revealing the thoughts or deliberations of their hearts. They would show whether they were “for” or “against” him. Neutrality would be forever impossible (Luke 11:23; cf. Matt. 12:30).

In a parenthesis Simeon, in addressing Mary, states that a sword would pierce her soul; in fact, as the original indicates, a large and broad sword, the symbol of intense pain, of frightful and piercing anguish. For the fulfilment see John 19:25–27.

Hendriksen, William ; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 11), S. 170

Thank you for the clarification, Nomad.

Ephesians 1:6 does not use the Greek perfect passive participle "kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28. I was expecting the Stephen argument where it is mentioned that he was "full of grace", but kecharitomene is not used there either.

Catholics believe that Luke 1:28 is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary - itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated "highly favored" - which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language). I have done a great deal of exegesis and analysis of this verse, in dialogue with Evangelical Protestants, and so I shall draw from that thought and experience...

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary's freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don't see that this is "fitting" or "appropriate" (as Catholics do).(it does not mean that God HAD TO do it this way, He just chose to, italics mine)

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow'" (Plummer).

(Robertson, II, 13)​

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, "grace"). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated "grace" 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" and that the literal meaning was "endued with grace" (Vincent, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as "to endue with Divine favour or grace" (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to "divine favor, that is, God’s grace" (White, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary's personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:

Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .

(Kittel, 1304-1305)​

Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean "a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18" (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary's sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and "conqueror" of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14: "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)​

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.​

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It's a "zero-sum game": the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7,John 1:9; John 3:6, John 9; John 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.

2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.​

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace.

2. To be "full of" God's grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God's grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be "full of" God's grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.​

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises.
source <more here

Nomad, as far as the other part of your post is concerned, I see nothing in there that contradicts the Catholic perspective, but Axehead has provided another bridge to Rev. 12:17 without realizing it. He thinks he has countered my sig when in fact he has confirmed it.

Satan Hates Christ and all who love Him No one disputes this truth, and it does not counter the truth that Satan hates Mary.

Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

[sup]Rev. 12:13 (NKJV) [/sup]Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. [sup]14 [/sup]But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.

The parallel should be obvious. Scripture shifts from a human reality to a heavenly reality. I cannot break this down into tiny little pieces so you can chew it the way a parent cuts the food for their 3 year old. Either you have the teeth to eat meat or you are stuck on milk, spitting out new food that one is not ready for.

Most Protestants are taught very little about the Blessed Virgin Mary: The Mother of God the Son (Theotokos, or literally, God-bearer), other than the fact that she rocked baby Jesus' cradle on the first Christmas and thus helped to make Silent Night the lovely, moving song that it is. Thus, for them to understand the highest theological and spiritual level of Catholic Mariology is somewhat akin to expecting a child who has just mastered the times tables to comprehend calculus or trigonometry. It just won't happen. Even most Catholics don't understand these things. They require much thought and study. One has to progress in any form of knowledge little by little.

True, Satan hates Christ, and Satan also hates Mary. Given the information on this thread about Mary, Axehead, if you were any kind of man you would apologize to us Catholics for the outrageous thread title. You assert your feigned superiority out of brokenness, annoying most of the members, and that is why I feel sorry for you.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi kepha,

The quote feature doesn't work on my OS.

And I did not slander you.



You don't promote the gospel preached by the apostles. Your posts speak for themselves.

 

[Axehead]

Satan Hates Christ and all who love Him No one disputes this truth, and it does not counter the truth that Satan hates Mary.

It is clear to many that Satan loves your Mary, since your Mary diminishes Christ. Your Mary is not the Mary of the Bible no matter how much you insist on it.

 

[Mungo]

It is clear to many that Satan loves your Mary, since your Mary diminishes Christ. Your Mary is not the Mary of the Bible no matter how much you insist on it.

Mary does not diminish Christ however much you insist on it.

 

[neophyte]

Mary, the Ark As Revealed in Mary's Visit to Elizabeth

Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant Mary: Ark of the New Covenant The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1-11). Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39). Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14). John the Baptist - of priestly lineage - leapt in his mother's womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41). David asks, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9). Elizabeth asks, "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43). David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15). Elizabeth "exclaimed with a loud cry" in the presence of the Mary (Luke 1:42). The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11). Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56). The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11). The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39-45). The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God's presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).
Mary as the Ark Revealed by Items inside the Ark

Inside the Ark of the Old Covenant Inside Mary, Ark of the New Covenant The stone tablets of the law - the word of God inscribed on stone The body of Jesus Christ - the word of God in the flesh The urn filled with manna from the wilderness - the miraculous bread come down from heaven The womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41) The rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest The actual and eternal High Priest



Steve Ray is a convert to the Catholic Church and the author of three best-selling Ignatius Press books (Crossing the Tiber, Upon this Rock, and St. John’s Gospel). He speaks at conferences around the world. He is a...
more...

 

[Nomad]

Thank you for the clarification, Nomad.

Ephesians 1:6 does not use the Greek perfect passive participle "kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28. I was expecting the Stephen argument where it is mentioned that he was "full of grace", but kecharitomene is not used there either.

I certainly appreciate all of the effort you put into your comments as you were very thorough. However, I need to point out a simple fact here that I don't recall your resources addressing. kecharitomene (Luke) and ekaritosen (Ephesians) are simply different inflections of the same verb, "charitoo," meaning "to grace." The first, as you have already stated, is a perfect, passive, participle, nominative, singular, feminine, literal meaning "having been graced." The latter is a aorist, active, indicative, third person, singular, meaning "he graced." The difference between the two is one of grammar, not meaning. A corresponding English example might help. If you saw in English "having been graced" and "he graced" you would immediately recognize that you're dealing with different grammatical forms of the same verb.

Now, as far as the issue of the term "full of grace" goes, I don't have a strong objection. Certainly if you are "graced" by God, you are "full of grace." However, I must disagree with the conclusions Roman Catholics draw from all of this. I have no problem saying that Mary is "full of grace" as she was in fact "graced" by God as Luke tells us. But, the same holds true when it comes to Paul and the Ephesians, ( and all believers for that matter). Mary was "graced," but so were the Ephesians. Scripture doesn't indicate that there is any difference. Don't get me wrong here. Did Mary receive a calling and service that was more exalted than anyone else in history? Certainly that is the case and Mary is to be honored for that, but I see no warrant to follow all of the conclusions that Roman Catholics believe that entails.

BTW, the civil tone of our discussion is refreshing.

 

[epostle1]

I certainly appreciate all of the effort you put into your comments as you were very thorough. However, I need to point out a simple fact here that I don't recall your resources addressing. kecharitomene (Luke) and ekaritosen (Ephesians) are simply different inflections of the same verb, "charitoo," meaning "to grace." The first, as you have already stated, is a perfect, passive, participle, nominative, singular, feminine, literal meaning "having been graced."

Yes. But when did this "having been graced" begin?? The minute before the angel showed up? Two minutes? A year? At her birth? Or at her conception? Which one is the most reasonable answer given that her title is coming from an angel??? Would you argue that the grace of Christ flowing from the cross is only linear from that moment on, and it cannot go in both directions in time???
.

The latter is a aorist, active, indicative, third person, singular, meaning "he graced." The difference between the two is one of grammar, not meaning. A corresponding English example might help. If you saw in English "having been graced" and "he graced" you would immediately recognize that you're dealing with different grammatical forms of the same verb

Precisely. But the latter as you pointed out is not used in Luke 1:28. The angel did not say, ,"Hail Mary, POOF! you are now graced..". That is how most Protestants read the verse and it's wrong.

Now, as far as the issue of the term "full of grace" goes, I don't have a strong objection. Certainly if you are "graced" by God, you are "full of grace." However, I must disagree with the conclusions Roman Catholics draw from all of this.

Catholicism does not draw conclusions. She teaches what has been divinely revealed.

I have no problem saying that Mary is "full of grace" as she was in fact "graced" by God as Luke tells us. But, the same holds true when it comes to Paul and the Ephesians, ( and all believers for that matter). Mary was "graced," but so were the Ephesians. Scripture doesn't indicate that there is any difference. Don't get me wrong here. Did Mary receive a calling and service that was more exalted than anyone else in history? Certainly that is the case and Mary is to be honored for that, but I see no warrant to follow all of the conclusions that Roman Catholics believe that entails.

You are contradiction yourself. You say Scripture doesn't indicate that there is any difference in grace, yet you say she was more exalted than any one else in history. "Grace", as it pertains to her and to all believers, is a matter of degree. The warrant for the Immaculate Conception flows directly from your own premise. see post 161 The problem I think, is that some Protestant Bible colleges and seminaries are still clinging to outdated prejudices, (such as the Bob Jones University) but this is changing: partly due to modern Protestant scholarship, and because basis for the reformation no longer exists.

BTW, the civil tone of our discussion is refreshing.

Indeed.

 

[Mungo]

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."
(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

 

[Nomad]

Yes. But when did this "having been graced" begin??

The only thing we're told is that it happened in the past from the standpoint of the speaker.. The perfect tense (Luke) expresses past completed action and indicates a resultant state that would be true at the time of the speaker or writer, but not necessarily the reader. The aorist (Ephesians) expresses past completed action. All it tells you is that an event occurred and nothing more. It's "undefined."

Catholicism does not draw conclusions. She teaches what has been divinely revealed.

I must respectfully disagree. Much that is ascribed to Mary by the RCC is simply not supported by Scripture. The topic at hand is case in point.

You are contradiction yourself. You say Scripture doesn't indicate that there is any difference in grace, yet you say she was more exalted than any one else in history. "Grace", as it pertains to her and to all believers, is a matter of degree.

No, there's no contradiction. The texts of Luke 1 and Ephesians 1 do not indicate any difference. Any supposed difference must be read into the text because it's certainly not drawn out of it. But, the way God uses each of us does differ by degree. Some callings are relatively easy while some come with much responsibility and a heavy price to pay so to speak.

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."
(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

While paraphrases are permissible, they're not always helpful. How many people looking at the phrase "full of grace" as found in the Douay-Rheims version would realize that they're actually looking at a translation of a past tense verb? This phrase has picked up much unwarranted baggage over the centuries. If it had been translated more literally this discussion might not be taking place right now.

 

[epostle1]

The only thing we're told is that it happened in the past from the standpoint of the speaker..

Isn't that the point?

The perfect tense (Luke) expresses past completed action and indicates a resultant state that would be true at the time of the speaker or writer, but not necessarily the reader.

That might encapsulate our difference. I would "read" it as coming from God through the mouth of an angel. You just see text.

The aorist (Ephesians) expresses past completed action. All it tells you is that an event occurred and nothing more. It's "undefined."
[/color]
I smell an Eric Svendson argument. No matter which direction you split the hair, the aorist does not use a perfect passive participle. It just ain't there.

I must respectfully disagree. Much that is ascribed to Mary by the RCC is simply not supported by Scripture. The topic at hand is case in point.

Much that is ascribed to Mary is most definitely supported by scripture, if you read what Catholicism really teaches. The topic at hand is a case in point, because I have discussed nothing but scripture with you. Not only have I supported "FULL OF GRACE" with scripture, I have appealed to Protestants perspectives, which you seem to reject.

Not all Marian doctrines are found explicitly in scripture, such as the Assumption, but all can be inferred or derived from scripture. Besides, there is nothing in scripture that says that only doctrines found explicitly in scripture are to be accepted. That is a man made reformist principle.

No, there's no contradiction. The texts of Luke 1 and Ephesians 1 do not indicate any difference.

Then show me where the Ephesians are visited by an angel of God declaring them to always have been full of grace. It's not me reading into the scripture something that isn't there.

Any supposed difference must be read into the text because it's certainly not drawn out of it. But, the way God uses each of us does differ by degree. Some callings are relatively easy while some come with much responsibility and a heavy price to pay so to speak.

Agreed. We are all His mother and brothers when we do the will of God, as Mary is the perfect model of faith. Do you reject that as unscriptural too, or do you think Jesus broke the 4rth commandment?

While paraphrases are permissible, they're not always helpful. How many people looking at the phrase "full of grace" as found in the Douay-Rheims version would realize that they're actually looking at a translation of a past tense verb?

Why, because it's true?

This phrase has picked up much unwarranted baggage over the centuries. If it had been translated more literally this discussion might not be taking place right now.

Then tell us how you think it should be translated, and why it is more accurate than "Full of Grace". I "highly favor" my dentist because he does a better job than the other ones I've had.

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions (yet another instance of my general theme)...​

...The second argument was from Eric Svendsen, a Protestant apologist who specializes in opposing the Catholic Church. In one of his books, he states that the root word for kecharitomene, charitoo, is found elsewhere in Scripture (in the same participial form as in Luke 1:28); therefore, Catholics should consistently regard others to whom it is applied as sinless also:
​

. . . charitoo . . . occurs in the same participial form in Sir. 18:17 with no theological significance. It also occurs in Eph. 1:6 where it is applied to all believers . . . Are we to conclude on this basis that all believers are without original sin?

(Svendsen, 129)​

Ephesians 1:5-6 reads, "He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."

Svendsen thinks this defeats the Catholic exegesis at Luke 1:28, but the variant of charitoo (grace) here is different (echaritosen). According to Marvin Vincent, a well-known Protestant linguist and expert on biblical Greek, the meaning is:​

. . . not "endued us with grace," nor "made us worthy of love," but, as "grace - which he freely bestowed."

(Vincent, III, 365)​

Vincent indicates different meanings for the word grace in Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6. He holds to "endued with grace" as the meaning in Luke 1:28, so he expressly contrasts the meaning here with that passage. A.T. Robertson also defines the word in the same fashion, as "he freely bestowed" (Robertson, IV, 518).

As for the grace bestowed here on all believers being parallel to the fullness of grace bestowed upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, this simply cannot logically be the case, once proper exegesis is undertaken. Apart from the different meanings of the specific word used, as shown, grace is possessed in different measure by different believers, as seen elsewhere in Scripture:​

2 Peter 3:18: "But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen."

Ephesians 4:7: "But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift." (cf. Acts 4:33, Rom 5:20, 6:1, James 4:6, 1 Pet 5:5, 2 Peter 1:2)​

The "freely bestowed" grace of Ephesians 1:6, then, cannot possibly be considered the equivalent of that "fullness of grace" applied to Mary in Luke 1:28 because it refers to a huge group of people, with different gifts and various levels of grace bestowed, as the verses just cited show. Svendsen's argument is as fallacious as the following analogy:

Suppose a group of Christian baseball players - some of the greatest and the least talented alike - prayed to God before a game:

"He destined us in love to be his ballplayers through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious gift of athletic ability and talents which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved."

Obviously, God granted the talents and abilities of each ballplayer, in the sense of being Creator and source of all good things. But are these talents given in equal measure? Of course not (see especially Ephesians 4:7). Likewise, grace is given in different measure to believers. Therefore, Svendsen's argument that Ephesians 1:6 is a direct parallel to Luke 1:28 collapses. The mass of Christian believers as a whole possess neither the same degree of grace nor of sanctity, and everyone knows this, from experience and revelation alike.

But Mary (as an individual person) was addressed in an extraordinary fashion by a title that, biblically, means the one so addressed is particularly exemplified by the characteristics of the title. Mary was "full of grace"; kecharitomene here takes on the significance of a noun. No attempt to downplay or diminish the significance of this will succeed. The meaning is all too clear.

Svendsen points out that Luke 1:28 uses the perfect tense, whereas Ephesians 1:6 does not, and that Catholics might use this argument to bolster their case (since that indicates a difference between the two passages). But, he writes:​

[T]his does not help their case since the perfect tense speaks only of the current state of the subject without reference to how long the subject has been in that state, or will be in that state.

(Svendsen, 129)​

So he tries to show by cross-referencing and Greek grammar that Luke 1:28 is neither unique nor a support for Mary's sinlessness or the Immaculate Conception. But the perfect stem of a Greek verb, denotes, according to Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, "continuance of a completed action" (Greek Grammar of the New Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 66). Mary, therefore, continues afterward to be full of the grace she possessed at the time of the Annunciation. That cannot, of course, be said of all believers in Ephesians 1:6, because of differences of levels of grace, as shown earlier.

As for Svendsen’s cross-reference to Sirach 18:17, where the word is in the same form (kecharitomene), that verse also applies generally: "Indeed, does not a word surpass a good gift? Both are to be found in a gracious man."

Moreover, this is proverbial, or wisdom literature. According to standard hermeneutical principles, this is not the sort of biblical literature on which to build doctrines or systematic theology (or even precise meanings of words). The reason is that proverbial expression admits of many exceptions. If one says, for example, "Happy people smile" may be true much of the time, but it is not always true. Proverbial language is, therefore, too imprecise to use in determining exact theological propositions. Meaning depends on context, as any lexicon will quickly prove.

Even apart from the important factor of the proverbial style of writing found in Sirach, linguists attribute different meanings to kecharitomene in the two verses. As Joseph Thayer, another great biblical Greek scholar, writes:​

Luke 1:28: "to pursue with grace, compass with favor; to honor with blessings."

Sirach 18:17: "to make graceful i.e., charming, lovely, agreeable."

(Thayer, 667; Strong's word no. 5487)​

Eric Svendsen's attempt to lump in Luke 1:28 with other "similar" passages has failed, because reputable linguists demonstrate that there are enough differences to cast doubt on his argument. Context, grammar, and hermeneutical principles alike sink his case. (as it does yours, Nolan)

Most Protestant thinkers and opponents of Catholic doctrine would, I think, assume that the Immaculate Conception could easily be disproven from Scripture. But from an analysis of the verses cited, we see that, although it cannot be absolutely proven from Scripture alone, it cannot be ruled out on the basis of Scripture, either. What is more, a solid deductive and exegetical basis for belief in Mary's sinlessness, and thus her Immaculate Conception, can be drawn from Scripture alone.​

source

 

[Nomad]

The aorist (Ephesians) expresses past completed action. All it tells you is that an event occurred and nothing more. It's "undefined."
[/color]
I smell an Eric Svendson argument. No matter which direction you split the hair, the aorist does not use a perfect passive participle. It just ain't there.

The aorist does not use a perfect passive participle? That statement doesn't make a lick of sense. How does one verb tense "use" another verb tense? There's no such concept in any language.

Then show me where the Ephesians are visited by an angel of God declaring them to always have been full of grace. It's not me reading into the scripture something that isn't there.

Show me where scripture says that God's bestowal of grace is more important when it's mediated through an angel as opposed to an apostle. To say that it is is to read into the text something that just isn't communicated. It's an argument from silence and purely subjective.

 

[epostle1]

The aorist does not use a perfect passive participle? That statement doesn't make a lick of sense. How does one verb tense "use" another verb tense? There's no such concept in any language.

the perfect stem of a Greek verb, denotes, according to Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, "continuance of a completed action" (Greek Grammar of the New Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 66). Mary, therefore, continues afterward to be full of the grace she possessed at the time of the Annunciation. That cannot, of course, be said of all believers in Ephesians 1:6, because of differences of levels of grace, as shown earlier.

Show me where scripture says that God's bestowal of grace is more important when it's mediated through an angel as opposed to an apostle. To say that it is is to read into the text something that just isn't communicated. It's an argument from silence and purely subjective.

Eric Svendsen's attempt to lump in Luke 1:28 with other "similar" passages has failed, because reputable linguists demonstrate that there are enough differences to cast doubt on his argument. Context, grammar, and hermeneutical principles alike sink his case.


Most Protestant thinkers and opponents of Catholic doctrine would, I think, assume that the Immaculate Conception could easily be disproven from Scripture. But from an analysis of the verses cited, we see that, although it cannot be absolutely proven from Scripture alone, it cannot be ruled out on the basis of Scripture, either. What is more, a solid deductive and exegetical basis for belief in Mary's sinlessness, and thus her Immaculate Conception, can be drawn from Scripture alone.

"The case of the Virgin Mary . . . is certainly the one which best reveals the Catholic idea of sanctity, [yet] to Protestants it appears the height of idolatry . . .

"If there is any Catholic belief that shows how much the Church believes in the sovereignty of grace, in its most gratuitous form, it is this one. It is remarkable that the Orthodox controversialists, contrary to the Protestants, reproach Catholics for admitting, in this one case of Our Lady, something analogous to what strict Calvinists admit for all the elect - a grace that saves us absolutely independently of us, not only without any merit of our own, but without any possibility of our cooperation, . . . whereas the Protestant view seems, not merely against reason, but completely absurd. To say that Mary is holy, with a super-eminent holiness, in virtue of a divine intervention previous to the first instant of her existence, is to
affirm in her case as absolutely as possible that salvation is a grace, and purely a grace, of God." (12:247)

"This faith of Mary's, whereby the free act of fallen man effectively reversed Eve's choice of unbelief and revolt, presupposes, on the part of God, his total repossession of his creature. For God to give himself as he intended, for his Word to take flesh of Mary, it was necessary that, in Mary, he should take back his creature wholly to himself . . .

"Though the Immaculate Conception was the most excellent of all the graces given before Christ, it would be mistaken to look on it as a grace perfect in itself, sufficient in itself . . . It is . . . only the pre-condition of Christian grace; for this begins with Mary's `fiat', with the acceptance and the accomplishment of the Incarnation . . .

"The whole course of the Old Testament culminates in the Immaculate Virgin. In her the ultimate realities of the New are first foreshadowed . . .( which I dare say you have dodged, Nolan)

"The New and Eternal Testament starts from her . . . She proclaims, prefigures, and realises, in a wholly unique manner, all the sanctity to be attained ultimately by the Church, when it shall have reached its perfection. The Virgin `without spot or wrinkle' (Eph 5:27), to be presented to Christ at the end of time is the Church; but Mary, at the beginning of the new epoch, is already this Virgin without stain. She is, thus, the promise already fulfilled, the pledge already actualised, of what all of us together are to become . . .

"All this goes to show that there is no ground for the Protestant apprehension that the Church's worship of our Lady is a form of idolatry, for we venerate in her simply the glory promised by God to every creature. In consequence, we are in no danger of ever attributing to her any of that glory which God has said that he will never give to another (Is 42:8, 48:11)." (22)​

C. Louis Bouyer​

 

[Nomad]

the perfect stem of a Greek verb, denotes, according to Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner, "continuance of a completed action" (Greek Grammar of the New Testament [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 66). Mary, therefore, continues afterward to be full of the grace she possessed at the time of the Annunciation.

Your conclusion is incorrect. That's only part of the definition Kepha. I provided a full understanding in a previous post. Here it is again:

"The perfect participle is formed on the perfect tense stem and carries the same significance that the perfect does in the indicative. It indicates a completed action that has consequences in the present. As is true in the indicative, so here the time is present from the standpoint of the speaker, not necessarily the reader. This error is not made infrequently. " - Basics of Biblical Greek, William D. Mounce, p. 279

The point is clear. The perfect tense says nothing as to how long the resultant state lasts past the viewpoint of the speaker, which in this case is the angel in Luke 1:28. Your assumption is without warrant.

That cannot, of course, be said of all believers in Ephesians 1:6, because of differences of levels of grace, as shown earlier.

Nowhere have you demonstrated that this concept of "levels of grace" is supported by scripture. You merely assert it. Also, are we really to believe that "believers" do not continue in God's grace, but Mary does? Again, scripture nowhere teaches such a thing.

 

[epostle1]

Your conclusion is incorrect. That's only part of the definition Kepha. I provided a full understanding in a previous post. Here it is again:

"The perfect participle is formed on the perfect tense stem and carries the same significance that the perfect does in the indicative. It indicates a completed action that has consequences in the present. As is true in the indicative, so here the time is present from the standpoint of the speaker, not necessarily the reader. This error is not made infrequently. " - Basics of Biblical Greek, William D. Mounce, p. 279

The point is clear. The perfect tense says nothing as to how long the resultant state lasts past the viewpoint of the speaker, which in this case is the angel in Luke 1:28. Your assumption is without warrant.

I'll bet this quote of yours does not refer to Luke 1:28, but to some other aortist reference. Check the context of page 279. There are at least 30 different perfect participles in Greek, how many are passive? Prove the contention of your repeated quote with an on-line Greek reference that the readers can access and you won't be guilty of academic dishonesty.

Nowhere have you demonstrated that this concept of "levels of grace" is supported by scripture. You merely assert it. Also, are we really to believe that "believers" do not continue in God's grace, but Mary does? Again, scripture nowhere teaches such a thing.

Where have I said that believers do not continue in God's grace? Also, are we really to believe that "believers" never sin, but Mary does?

The issue is when God intervened and endowed her Full of Grace.

New King Nolan Version: "Hail Mary, poof!!! You are now highly favored! but before I came, you weren't."

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."​

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694.​

"The . . . 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 . . . Five chapters later . . . [35 to 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, 39:42-3). 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 40:34-8). Compare this with the words of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:35.

[Almost exactly the same language is used in 1 Kings 8:4-11 - especially verses 10-11 - when the ark of the covenant is brought to the temple and the glory of the Lord fills it at its dedication].

"There's another striking foreshadowing . . . 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?' (2 Sam 6:9).

"Compare this with Elizabeth's nearly identical words in Luke 1:43 ["And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"]. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:14-16 [cf. 1 Chron 15:29]), 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 1:39-45,56)." (19)

source

 

[mjrhealth]

In the end it all come down to irrelevance. You see salvation is through" Christ Jesus", alone, preying to mary, or saints, going to church, doing things to please the flesh in the name of God, all of it is pure Flesh, none of it glorifies God, all it proves is how worldly the " church " is, the great whore, the false church and her off spring, come out of her my people lest you partake in her sins.

As one priest said on a report tonight,

"The church must change if it wants to find its place in the world.

" Our Lords Church is not" of this world". it will not change to fit anyone, it is what it is, we are changed to fit into it, which is why we are supposed to spend so much time with Christ so we can conform to His Image , not the image of " the church". No amount of arguing will cause the blind to see.no amount of contention will change the lie to a truth. You are either of Christ and not of this world, or you are of this world. There is no gray area,

In all His Love

 

[epostle1]

"One can equally note in the two accounts the cry of the people and the cry of Elizabeth ["She spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou . . ."]: . . . (2 Sam 6:15; Luke 1:42).

The verb `anaphonein' - `to make a sound, reverberate' is not used in the New Testament except in the account of the Visitation, and in the Old Testament the Septuagint only uses it five times, and always in order to describe a liturgical acclamation, and particularly in the presence of the Ark (1 Chron 15:28, 1 Chron 16:4,1 Chron 16:5, 1 Chron 16: 42; 2 Chron 5:13): `

Moreover David appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the Ark of the Lord, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the Lord God of Israel' (1 Chron 16:4). (1 Chron 16:20)
Max Thurian (Protestant)

 

[Mungo]

In the end it all come down to irrelevance. You see salvation is through" Christ Jesus", alone, preying to mary, or saints, going to church, doing things to please the flesh in the name of God, all of it is pure Flesh, none of it glorifies God, all it proves is how worldly the " church " is, the great whore, the false church and her off spring, come out of her my people lest you partake in her sins.

"Prejudice is a great timesaver. It enables you to form opinions without bothering to get facts."

"The church must change if it wants to find its place in the world.

" Our Lords Church is not" of this world". it will not change to fit anyone, it is what it is, we are changed to fit into it, which is why we are supposed to spend so much time with Christ so we can conform to His Image , not the image of " the church". No amount of arguing will cause the blind to see.no amount of contention will change the lie to a truth. You are either of Christ and not of this world, or you are of this world. There is no gray area,

In all His Love

You are switching words. The priest did not say the Church must be “of” the world, so why do you try and pretend he did.​

That is deceitful. Why should we listen to you when you are so deceitful?​

“you destroy all who speak falsely. Murderers and deceivers the Lord abhors.” (Psalm 5:7)​

The priest said "The church must change if it wants to find its place in the world.”. And that is true.

The Church has to be “in” the world. How else can it minister to the world and it’s needs if it is not in the world?

 

[neophyte]

In the end it all come down to irrelevance. You see salvation is through" Christ Jesus", alone, preying to mary, or saints, going to church, doing things to please the flesh in the name of God, all of it is pure Flesh, none of it glorifies God, all it proves is how worldly the " church " is, the great whore, the false church and her off spring, come out of her my people lest you partake in her sins.

As one priest said on a report tonight,

"The church must change if it wants to find its place in the world.

" Our Lords Church is not" of this world". it will not change to fit anyone, it is what it is, we are changed to fit into it, which is why we are supposed to spend so much time with Christ so we can conform to His Image , not the image of " the church". No amount of arguing will cause the blind to see.no amount of contention will change the lie to a truth. You are either of Christ and not of this world, or you are of this world. There is no gray area,

In all His Love

mjrhealth, go argue with Jesus in your blind decision to not believe in His one Church [ Matt.18:15-18 ] Did Jesus tell us not to listen to His Church, that Jesus doesn't want us to agree with His Church ? Tell us myrhealth, where is your Biblical proof ? Here are another couple of verses [ 1Cor.1:10 ] and in [ Titus 1:4-16 ] as in his Epistles to Timothy, we see St. Paul speaking to another bishop, Titus, of the importance of doctrinal unity in the Church. But which Church myrhealth ? Certainly not any church invented later,unless you can show me a verse or verses that tells us that Jesus gave someone His Authority to make any future churches different from that One True Apostolic Church that He left us in [ Matt.16:18-19 ] Even if you do not believe that Jesus was speaking to St. Peter one can see that Jesus built His Church "then" not in the 16th century as many on this forum believe.

 

[epostle1]

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestantism (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a "Bible, Holy Spirit and me" mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed "infallible" statements about the nature of Christianity.
One Hundred Fifty Reasons I'm Catholic






"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 . . . 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 (Rom 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 (Gen 3), Mary set aright through faith and obedience (Lk 1:38)." (21)

 

[Nomad]

I'll bet this quote of yours does not refer to Luke 1:28, but to some other aortist reference.

No, it doesn't. Why would it? The quote is from Mounce's chapter on the meaning and morphology of the perfect participle and the genitive absolute. I posted it because you attempted to draw a conclusion about Mary based on an incomplete definition of the perfect participle. As anyone can see, the full definition corrects your error.

Also, my quote has absolutely nothing to do with any "aorist reference." Why you would make such a comment is beyond me. It's sheer nonsense. This and your comment that "the aorist does not use a perfect passive participle. It just ain't there." demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Greek.

There are at least 30 different perfect participles in Greek, how many are passive?

Perfect passive participles are found 26 times in the NT. Allow me to dispel the notion that the passive voice somehow supports your contentions. The passive voice simply means that the subject of a verb is the recipient of the verbs action. The active voice means that the subject of the verb commits the action of the verb. In Luke 1:28 Mary is the subject of the verb and she receives the action of the verb. In Ephesians 1:6 God is the subject of the verb and he commits the action of the verb.

Luke 1:28 - "having been graced" (passive voice)
Ephesians 1:6 - "he graced" (active voice)

The passive voice is not a magic bullet for you. Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand even basic Greek grammar. This is a problem for one who has suggested that I may be guilty of "academic dishonesty." You constantly draw conclusions based on the silence of Biblical texts and your misunderstanding of basic Greek grammar. It's plain for all to see that the academic dishonesty is all yours.

The issue is when God intervened and endowed her Full of Grace.

No, it's not the issue. "When" is irrelevant. Even if it were the issue... well, good luck with that as we're not told "when." All we're told in both Luke 1 and Ephesians 1 is that "when" was sometime prior to the angel's and Paul's pronouncement.