The meaning of 666 and its identity

[Jack]

I thought the Holy Spirit was male?

The HS is certainly called He in the NT!

 

[Illuminator]

Jesus was sinless. Mary was not.

This is a cover up of what the reformers taught. Most of these anti-Mary inventions began in the 18th century by liberal Modernist Protestants, sceptics and atheists.

Luke 1:28 [RSV]: "And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'"

[The RSVCE translates kecharitomene ("favored one" above) as "full of grace"]

Catholics believe that this verse 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 in this chapter.

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 1:7,9; 3:6,9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

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.
continued...

 

[Illuminator]

continued from post #102
In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant. Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.

One possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know (from Luke 1:28) that she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so that she might avoid the original sin that she otherwise wouldhave inherited, being human. Therefore, by God's preventive grace, she was saved from falling into the pit of sin, rather than rescued after she had fallen in.

All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of "faith alone," as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)

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).

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/full-of-grace-and-the-linguistic-and-exegetical-considerations-by-dave-armstrong/

 

[Zachariah.]

The HS is certainly called He in the NT!

So how can something be born of Male?

 

[Jack]

So how can something be born of Male?

Believe God.

Luke 1:34-35
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" 35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

 

[Zachariah.]

Believe God.

Luke 1:34-35
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" 35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Yes. In the scripture it is the Holy Spirit the replaces the Male. The Holy Spirit insaminates her or makes her fertile.

So who gives birth to Jesus?

 

[Jack]

Yes. In the scripture it is the Holy Spirit the replaces the Male. The Holy Spirit insaminates her or makes her fertile.

So who gives birth to Jesus?

What is your point?

 

[Zachariah.]

What is your point?

Does Mary give birth to Jesus? If she does, and if she is sinfull, Jesus was born from sin.

 

[Jack]

Does Mary give birth to Jesus? If she does, and if she is sinfull, Jesus was born from sin.

Doesn't mean Jesus sinned!

 

[Zachariah.]

Doesn't mean Jesus sinned!

I never said that. What I said originally was that "purity" "virgin" and "sinless" are used interchangeably and mean the same thing in a biblical context.

This is why Mary had to be pure. So Jesus was not born from sin.

 

[Zachariah.]

Doesn't mean Jesus sinned!

The trick is, that the bible never said that we or people beside Jesus cannot become sinless.

A soul that has undergone true salvation is a soul that has become pure. A soul that has become sinless.

 

[Jack]

The trick is, that the bible never said that we or people beside Jesus cannot become sinless.

Are you saying Mary BECAME sinless? Or was TOTALLY sinless?

A soul that has undergone true salvation is a soul that has become pure. A soul that has become sinless.

We all sin. Including you.

 

[Illuminator]

Angels, Adam and Eve were created sinless. Satan before he rebelled was sinless. A precedent has been set long ago. Sinlessness was God's intended norm for His children.
God didn't have to make Mary sinless, He chose to. He could incarnate in any woman. God can do that because He is God. God has the authority in these matters.

When rabid anti-Mary Christians study the writings of the "Reformers" (or founders of their particular sect) on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the "Reformers" accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

Martin Luther:
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"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..."3​

​

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honored? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10

Ulrich Zwingli:​

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11
"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."12 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."13
"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."14
"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15
"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16​

We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This cover up began with liberals. sceptics and atheists in the 18th century and spread slowly like a cancer ever since. Before the Enlightenment Era with it's false philosophies, not a single Protestant church on the planet taught that Mary was a sinner or Jesus had biological siblings. It's fad theology.

​

 

[Zachariah.]

Are you saying Mary BECAME sinless? Or was TOTALLY sinless?

We all sin. Including you.

Correct. But our heart can become pure. Sinless. That's not to say we cannot fall back into sin, we can.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

The meaning of 666 and its identity

Many of the SDA peoples claim anybody that goes to church in Sunday... are carrying the mark of the beast and worship the beast on Sunday.

Obviously there's no scripture for this, but lots of these folks believe this garbage

Don't be surprised if Liberals fully support this!

They DO support this..

 

[Jack]

Correct. But our heart can become pure. Sinless. That's not to say we cannot fall back into sin, we can.

"Are you saying Mary BECAME sinless? Or was TOTALLY sinless?"

 

[Jack]

Many of the SDA peoples claim anybody that goes to church in Sunday... are carrying the mark of the beast and worship the beast on Sunday.

Obviously there's no scripture for this, but lots of these folks believe this garbage View attachment 41505

They DO support this..

Trump haters, no doubt!

 

[Taken]

The CC did not separate from Protestantism, Protestantism separated from the CC.

Separation, requires First to have a Connection.

Jesus came to the Jews.
Jesus appointed men to go to the Jews.
Some Gentiles joined with the Jews.
Some Gentiles Separated themselves from the Jews. (Catholic.)
Some Jews Separated themselves from Gentiles.
Some Gentiles joined with Catholics.
Some Catholics separated from Catholics.
(Roman / Orthodox )
Some Catholics separated Catholics from the Catholics.(Excommunication)
Some Gentiles never joined with Catholics.

That's why reputable PROTESTANT historians are your enemy.

History is not my enemy.
Truth is not my enemy.
Individuals pick and choose JOINING or not, SEPARATING or not.

Because Protestants like you deny development of doctrine, which has been explained ad nauseum.

No one has denied the “development” of “Catholic Doctrine”….
Nor have I denied the Truth of Jesus “revealing” His doctrine…
I simply Trust to believe “Jesus’ Revealed Doctrine” over “Catholic Developed doctrine”.

That's not what I said. I said most Christians, not most Protestants. We think most Protestants are Christians. Catholics are instructed to accept all baptized Protestants as brothers and sisters in the Lord. That's because there is ONE baptism. Most Protestant baptisms are valid in the eyes of the Church, and you have no idea why.

I accept a “WATER” Baptism AS a “choice of the individual”, (performed by a man.)
I accept a “SPIRITUAL” Baptism AS a “choice of the individual” (performed by the Lord God).
What the “individual” is called, by himself or others, (Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, American, Chinese….whatever….IRRELEVANT)
Converted IN Christ is the Key.

Catholics don't exclude Protestants, even though separated, from being part of the Church. We hand you an olive branch and you spit on it.

That’s funny.
I would rather say the Olive Branch offering begins with THE JEWISH HIGH PRIEST, “Messiah”, and the offering is for inclusion in His Church, and joining in membership is by, through, of His Baptism.

Yield to the pope" does not mean "yield to dominating dictatorship".

You brought up “dominating, dictatorship” regarding the pope, I didn’t.

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

I did not say Paul was some kind of spiritual “Lone Ranger”…. I spoke of Paul’s Appointment. Paul’s Appointment did NOT prevent “HIM” from conferring with others.… UH…the Children of Israel, the Gentiles, kings……pretty INCLUSIVE of ANY PERSON in the World!

Acts 9 (Paul’s appointment)
[15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Matt 10 (12’s Appointment)
[5] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

-In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
- He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
- and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2, 9).
-He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27). Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
-Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
-The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
-Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and
-Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

A common Catholic gaslighting tactic…
Imply “an other” says “lone ranger”…
Then “pretend” you are proving wrong….what you actually said…

The Jerusalem Council

certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). -Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Who? Said Paul rejected Jewish Doctrine?
Oh….right….NOONE!

Why are you arguing a point, against what YOU SAID?

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

Yawn….You still arguing AGAINST what YOU SAID.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.*

“THE” Church, is neither by description Catholic or Protestant or Jewish, nor a building built by men, nor is the Head “Peter”…..or Paul or Mary.

“THE” Church is “Christ’s Church”, internal WITHIN a Converted man and the HEAD IS Christ Jesus, and EVERY member….
Peter, Paul, Mary, Matthew, named IN Scripture or Not, have specific appointments WITH the HEAD, who IS Christ Jesus.

You should come to the REALIZATION your gaslighting techniques are NOTHING NEW and FOOL NONONE.

You should be more concerned with your appointment and mission From Christ Jesus, rather than what you do to mimic men….falsely accusing.

Shame on you.

 

[Zachariah.]

"Are you saying Mary BECAME sinless? Or was TOTALLY sinless?"

She was virgin pure. Sinless.

 

[Jack]

She was virgin pure. Sinless.

Then why did she need a Savior?