The Goddess Man Has Made

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Nomad, we must get behind the English to the Greek then to the Aramaic.
As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.
Most knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the 'lingua franca " of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.
I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea— but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself.—, I'm not sure about Luke, would you or Kepha happen to know ? In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek. Which dialect of Greek are you translating from, Koine or Attic ?
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea— but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself.—, I'm not sure about Luke, would you or Kepha happen to know ?

Other than Matthew, there's little if any evidence that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. There's just no way to know for sure. At this point in history it's all a matter of speculation.


Which dialect of Greek are you translating from, Koine or Attic ?

Biblical Greek is Koine Greek.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
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.

You are using an obscure Greek text book that cannot be verified by the average reader, therefore it is a safe conclusion you are cherry picking its application and applying it to Luke 1:28 because it fits your paradigm. I am not saying Mounce is wrong, I'm saying you are taking it out of context. If Mounce is a rabid anti-Catholic Calvinist with an axe to grind then he probably is wrong. That is why you haven't provided any online evidence to support your contentions. I, on the other hand, resort to Protestant Greek scholars that you trump with your opinion, and you can't accuse me of what you are doing, because my references are not misused to support an agenda.

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.

"kecharitomene" means more than just "charitoo" and they are not antithetical; "kecharitomene"it is a both/and concept with "charitoo". You are pitting one against the other. You are forcing a square peg into a round hole.

Luke 1:28 - "having been graced" (passive voice) Yea, having been graced, but you refuse to even speculate when this occurred.
Ephesians 1:6 - "he graced" (active voice) I have no problem with this.

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.

Then you shouldn't have any problem providing an on-line Greek analysis in context from a scholarly source.

"misunderstanding of basic Greek grammar"? Why should I go to university and get a degree in New Testament Greek when renowned Protestant Greek scholars demolish your Pharisaical hair splitting?

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.

"When" Mary received total and complete sanctifying grace is relevant to the Immaculate Conception. What you seem to be telling me is the Ephesians were predestined to glory by God just like Mary, and God creates the rest just to send them to hell. Are Calvinists still shackled by double predestination or has that heresy been challenged yet within your faith community??

Christianity is NOT just believing in Christ alone. You must believe in the revelation to the Jews in the OT. You must believe in the God who revealed these things to the Jews. Christ himself must be believed to be the promised Messiah from the OT so you have to believe in those prophecies. While Jesus is the focus of our faith, we cannot believe in Him alone without having to believe a number of things about him which derive from the OT., and all you accept is one or two verses from Isaiah when it comes to Mary. Scroll back, get an education.

Jesus and his disciple taught a number of things that we also must believe including the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation (John 3:5), the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (1Cor 10:14), and the authority of his disciples to govern the Church (Matt 16:16-20, Matt 18:18).

If you do not believe what Jesus taught, you do not believe in Jesus. Otherwise, Jesus becomes a mere religious talisman or idol and not our teacher (Matthew 23:8). When we ignore what Jesus taught, we make him into a religious object subservient to our own opinions and interpretations. This is the worst form of idolatry.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are using an obscure Greek text book that cannot be verified by the average reader...

Obscure Greek text book? Your ignorance is astounding. William Mounce is a former professor of New Testament and director of the Greek program at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He was the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and is serving on the NIV translation committee. His Basics of Biblical Greek is the most popular first year Greek grammar text book used in seminaries around the world today. I suggest you purchase one.

http://www.amazon.com/Basics-Biblical-Grammar-William-Mounce/dp/0310250870



"kecharitomene" means more than just "charitoo" and they are not antithetical; "kecharitomene"it is a both/and concept with "charitoo". You are pitting one against the other. You are forcing a square peg into a round hole.

It's obvious to all that you don't know what you're talking about. Kecharitomene and charitoo "are not antithetical?" What??? "Kecharitomene it is a both/and concept with charitoo?" What in the world are you talking about??? Kecharitomene means more than charitoo? Wrong. They are different inflections of the same exact verb. They mean the same thing. You really should invest in a first year Greek grammar.

I'm going to break down the morphology so everyone can see that we're not dealing with different verbs.

Charito + O "Charito is our stem. "O" (omega) is our connecting vowel. Together we have "charitoo" which is a present active indicative first person singular verb meaning "I am gracing."

Ke + charito + mene

The "ke" is a consonantal reduplication used to form the perfect tense. "Charito" is our stem. "Mene" is a combination of our participle morpheme and case ending. Together we have "kecharitomene" which is present passive participle nominative singular feminine meaning "having been graced."

Same verb. Same root meaning -- "to grace." Different inflection.

*Inflection - A change in the form of a word to indicate a change in its grammatical function
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Obscure Greek text book? Your ignorance is astounding. William Mounce is a former professor of New Testament and director of the Greek program at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He was the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and is serving on the NIV translation committee. His Basics of Biblical Greek is the most popular first year Greek grammar text book used in seminaries around the world today. I suggest you purchase one.

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0310250870





It's obvious to all that you don't know what you're talking about. Kecharitomene and charitoo "are not antithetical?" What??? "Kecharitomene it is a both/and concept with charitoo?" What in the world are you talking about??? Kecharitomene means more than charitoo? Wrong. They are different inflections of the same exact verb. They mean the same thing. You really should invest in a first year Greek grammar.

I'm going to break down the morphology so everyone can see that we're not dealing with different verbs.

Charito + O "Charito is our stem. "O" (omega) is our connecting vowel. Together we have "charitoo" which is a present active indicative first person singular verb meaning "I am gracing."

Ke + charito + mene

The "ke" is a consonantal reduplication used to form the perfect tense. "Charito" is our stem. "Mene" is a combination of our participle morpheme and case ending. Together we have "kecharitomene" which is present passive participle nominative singular feminine meaning "having been graced."

Same verb. Same root meaning -- "to grace." Different inflection.

*Inflection - A change in the form of a word to indicate a change in its grammatical function

Search



Enter your keywords:


Search results- Kecharitomene

Immaculate Conception and Assumption
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Obscure Greek text book? Your ignorance is astounding. William Mounce is a former professor of New Testament and director of the Greek program at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He was the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and is serving on the NIV translation committee. His Basics of Biblical Greek is the most popular first year Greek grammar text book used in seminaries around the world today. I suggest you purchase one.

http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0310250870

Well excuuuuuze me. Let's see how many Protestant scholars I can find that have become Catholic in the last 20 years. You can be sure Saul, the great scholar of the Pharisees, who got knocked off his horse, knew more Greek than Mounce or any other modern day scholar. You still haven't proven your Luke 1:28/Eph. 1:6 argument is not taken out context. And you keep straining gnats, and ignoring the miles of information that I have posted. If your next post doesn't have accessible collaborating proof of your assertions., I'll end the discussion. If what you claim is true about what your latest scholarly book says (which I doubt it does), why did it take 1700 years for anyone to notice?


It's obvious to all that you don't know what you're talking about. Kecharitomene and charitoo "are not antithetical?" What??? "Kecharitomene it is a both/and concept with charitoo?" What in the world are you talking about??? Kecharitomene means more than charitoo? Wrong. They are different inflections of the same exact verb. They mean the same thing. You really should invest in a first year Greek grammar.

I never claimed to be a Greek geek. The word of God is meant to be studied so that us Greekless fools can apply it in our everyday lives. Us ignorant common folk rely on the Internet and, for the second time, I use Protestant scholars so I cannot be accused of bias. And I am still waiting for on line verification that Ephesians 1:6 uses the same Greek word found in Luke 1:28. (for the third time) Your Greek hair splitting is of no interest to me. And some of these obsure Greek grammar rules didn't exist 2000 years ago. This is the third time I've asked for collaborating verification which must exist somewhere on line. If you cannot find it, say so. If you refuse to find it, there is no point in continuing our discussion.

I'm going to break down the morphology so everyone can see that we're not dealing with different verbs.

Charito + O "Charito is our stem. "O" (omega) is our connecting vowel. Together we have "charitoo" which is a present active indicative first person singular verb meaning "I am gracing."

Ke + charito + mene

The "ke" is a consonantal reduplication used to form the perfect tense. "Charito" is our stem. "Mene" is a combination of our participle morpheme and case ending. Together we have "kecharitomene" which is present passive participle nominative singular feminine meaning "having been graced."

meaning "having been graced." Isn't that what I have been saying all along?

What happens to any language when you remove it from it's culture?


Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23 - a virgin (the Greek word used is "parthenos") will bear a Son named Emmanuel, which means "God is with us." John 1:14 - God in flesh dwelt among us. Mary is the Virgin Mother of God.

You wanna hack that up too?
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And I am still waiting for on line verification that Ephesians 1:6 uses the same Greek word found in Luke 1:28. (for the third time)

Ephesians 1:6

e + charito + sen

"e" is our augment. "charito" is our stem. "sen" is our tense formative. Together we get echaritosen which is an aorist active indicative third person singular meaning "he graced."

For the convenience of those who are actually paying attention I will re post the other two morphologies that I posted previously for the sake of easy comparison.

Charito + O "Charito is our stem. "O" (omega) is our connecting vowel. Together we have "charitoo" which is a present active indicative first person singular verb meaning "I am gracing."

Ke + charito + mene

The "ke" is a consonantal reduplication used to form the perfect tense. "Charito" is our stem. "Mene" is a combination of our participle morpheme and case ending. Together we have "kecharitomene" which is present passive participle nominative singular feminine meaning "having been graced."

Same verb. Same root meaning -- "to grace." Different inflection.

*Inflection - A change in the form of a word to indicate a change in its grammatical function
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Ephesians 1:6

e + charito + sen

"e" is our augment. "charito" is our stem. "sen" is our tense formative. Together we get echaritosen which is an aorist active indicative third person singular meaning "he graced."

For the convenience of those who are actually paying attention I will re post the other two morphologies that I posted previously for the sake of easy comparison.

Charito + O "Charito is our stem. "O" (omega) is our connecting vowel. Together we have "charitoo" which is a present active indicative first person singular verb meaning "I am gracing."

Ke + charito + mene

The "ke" is a consonantal reduplication used to form the perfect tense. "Charito" is our stem. "Mene" is a combination of our participle morpheme and case ending. Together we have "kecharitomene" which is present passive participle nominative singular feminine meaning "having been graced."

Same verb. Same root meaning -- "to grace." Different inflection.

*Inflection - A change in the form of a word to indicate a change in its grammatical function

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word "kecharitomene, it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind.' Kecharitomene' is a perfect passive participle of "charitoo"meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence
 

Axehead

New Member
May 9, 2012
2,222
205
0
Ephesians 1:6

e + charito + sen

"e" is our augment. "charito" is our stem. "sen" is our tense formative. Together we get echaritosen which is an aorist active indicative third person singular meaning "he graced."

For the convenience of those who are actually paying attention I will re post the other two morphologies that I posted previously for the sake of easy comparison.

Charito + O "Charito is our stem. "O" (omega) is our connecting vowel. Together we have "charitoo" which is a present active indicative first person singular verb meaning "I am gracing."

Ke + charito + mene

The "ke" is a consonantal reduplication used to form the perfect tense. "Charito" is our stem. "Mene" is a combination of our participle morpheme and case ending. Together we have "kecharitomene" which is present passive participle nominative singular feminine meaning "having been graced."

Same verb. Same root meaning -- "to grace." Different inflection.

*Inflection - A change in the form of a word to indicate a change in its grammatical function

Hi Nomad,

I'm still paying attention and thank you for your contribution. Very informative.

Axehead
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi Nomad,

I'm still paying attention and thank you for your contribution. Very informative.

Axehead

Thanks Axehead. I really appreciate that.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28).

No, the angel literally says, "rejoice, having been graced one. The Lord is with you." There is no "implicit reference." The angel simply announces that Mary is the recipient of God's grace.

Luk 1:28 κaὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς aὐτὴν εἶπε· χaῖρε, κεχaριτωμένη· ὁ Κύριος μετà σοῦ· εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυνaιξίν.


The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word "kecharitomene, it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

It expresses no such thing. Being the recipient of God's unmerited favor (grace) is no more an inherent character quality than to be the recipient of God's mercy.


Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

"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

Those who persevere in faith remain the objects of God's grace. That's true for Mary (Luke 1:28), the Ephesians (Eph. 1:6), or anyone else for that matter. However, neither the perfect tense nor the aorist tense tell us anything regarding when grace was given in the past or how long that grace remains. Unfortunately, Roman Catholics attempt to read something into the perfect tense that just isn't there.
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Nomad,
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the One True Apostolic [ meaning Catholic ] Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
Only His Univers [ Catholic ] Apostolic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Neopyte,

Have you been following the Berean thread? I'll reiterate the salient points.

First, the Bereans took the teaching of an inspired Apostle and used scripture to verify it. Our text in Acts 17 goes on to say that as a result of this they therefore believed.

Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Act 17:12 Many of them therefore believed,
with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

Lastly, the early church and beyond appear to have taken this principle to heart. I'll re post the proof for the sake of convenience. Notice carefully what Irenaeus says. It's very interesting. He says what was once proclaimed in public by the Apostles was "by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”

Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of
God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar
of our faith.”

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215)
The Stromata, 7:16

“But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not
desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from
the Scriptures themselves.”

Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395)
“On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth
will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the
Divine words.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373)
Against the Heathen, 1:3

“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the
proclamation of the truth.”

Basil the Great (ca.329–379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers.
What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the
Scripture.”

Ambrose (340–397 A.D.)
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102

“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy
Scriptures?”

St. Augustine (354–430)
De unitate ecclesiae, 10

“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in
anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical
Scriptures of God.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8

“For our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and
Apostles who wrote the canonical books.”



Nomad,
Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the One True Apostolic [ meaning Catholic ] Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
Only His Univers [ Catholic ] Apostolic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dragonfly

dragonfly

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2012
1,882
141
63
UK
Hebrews 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by them that heard him; 4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Well excuuuuuze me. Let's see how many Protestant scholars I can find that have become Catholic in the last 20 years. You can be sure Saul, the great scholar of the Pharisees, who got knocked off his horse, knew more Greek than Mounce or any other modern day scholar. You still haven't proven your Luke 1:28/Eph. 1:6 argument is not taken out context. And you keep straining gnats, and ignoring the miles of information that I have posted. If your next post doesn't have accessible collaborating proof of your assertions., I'll end the discussion. If what you claim is true about what your latest scholarly book says (which I doubt it does), why did it take 1700 years for anyone to notice?

I never claimed to be a Greek geek. The word of God is meant to be studied so that us Greekless fools can apply it in our everyday lives. Us ignorant common folk rely on the Internet and, for the second time, I use Protestant scholars so I cannot be accused of bias. And I am still waiting for on line verification that Ephesians 1:6 uses the same Greek word found in Luke 1:28. (for the FOURTH time) Your Greek hair splitting is of no interest to me. And some of these obscure Greek grammar rules didn't exist 2000 years ago. This is the fourth time I've asked for collaborating verification which must exist somewhere on line. Provide a link. If you cannot find it, say so. If you refuse to find it, there is no point in continuing our discussion.

"meaning "having been graced." "Isn't that what I have been saying all along?

What happens to any language when you remove it from it's culture?


Isaiah 7:14; Matt. 1:23 - a virgin (the Greek word used is "parthenos") will bear a Son named Emmanuel, which means "God is with us." John 1:14 - God in flesh dwelt among us. Mary is the Virgin Mother of God.

You wanna hack that up too?

Yea, go the Bereans link where Nolan gets his ego deflated. In addition, double posting is strongly discouraged in this forum.

The thread was falling on the list and the reason dragonfly made a post (irrelevant at that) was to bump it up to the top of the page so Our Blessed Mom can be further attacked. Looking back, using all of scripture, not quibbling over one word, Nolan has no case. If Nolan insists on embarrassing himself with the last word, so be it...
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
Nomad, Scripture Must be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition
“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?" Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).
"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles." Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).
"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.'" Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256).
"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).
"[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand." Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).
"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).
"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 1:44 (A.D. 362).
"It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fullness of the two Testaments." Ephraem, Against Heresies (ante A.D. 373).
"Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use." Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373).
"For they [heretics] do not teach as the church does; their message does no accord with the truth." Epiphanius, Panarion, 47 (A.D. 377).
"eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them." Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).
"Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations

from John Salza of scripturecatholic.com
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Nomad, Scripture Must be Interpreted in Light of Church Tradition
“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?" Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).
"Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles." Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).
"The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.'" Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 6 (A.D. 256).
"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).
"[T]hey who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand." Hilary of Poitiers, On Matthew, Homily 13:1 (A.D. 355).
"But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).
"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that, a very ecclesiasitcal sense." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 1:44 (A.D. 362).
"It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fullness of the two Testaments." Ephraem, Against Heresies (ante A.D. 373).
"Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use." Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373).
"For they [heretics] do not teach as the church does; their message does no accord with the truth." Epiphanius, Panarion, 47 (A.D. 377).
"eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them." Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).
"Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations

from John Salza of scripturecatholic.com


First, let's dispel the notion that Scripture is to be interpreted in light of tradition. Such an idea is backwards. If it were true, then the Bereans would have been admonished, not commended, for running to the scriptures to verify the oral teaching of an inspired Apostle.

Now, I'm really surprised that you post most of those quotes. For the most part they speak of heretics who go against the accepted, scripture based teaching (tradition/creeds), of the early church. For example:

"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).

"...Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth... "

...flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

So once again, tradition is to be drawn out of the Scriptures, not read into them, as Rome would have it now.

One last thing. If you still want to insist that your quotes prove your thesis, then all you have really proven is that the church was far from having a unified voice throughout the centuries. How's that? If your quotes mean what you think they mean, (I contend that I have just disproved that), then they contradict my quotes which are very plain and clear.
 

neophyte

Member
Apr 25, 2012
669
12
18
The early Church had always relied on Holy Oral Tradition from Jesus to the only teachers, His apostles,[ Matthew 28:18-20 ,Luke 10:16 ] He only taught His chosen apostles the "Fullness of the Faith ".

Examples of Jesus' and the Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
First, let's dispel the notion that Scripture is to be interpreted in light of tradition. Such an idea is backwards. If it were true, then the Bereans would have been admonished, not commended, for running to the scriptures to verify the oral teaching of an inspired Apostle.

Now, I'm really surprised that you post most of those quotes. For the most part they speak of heretics who go against the accepted, scripture based teaching (tradition/creeds), of the early church. For example:

"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12 (A.D. 350).

Let the readers see that this quote affirms the Catholic position,. The Church has never denied the importance of scripture. Nomad's use of bold font exposes his selectivity, just has he has pompously selected snippets out of context from a Geek grammar text book.

"But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the *Church*, and which has been built up strongly out of all the *Scriptures*....Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the *traditions* which ye now receive, and write them and the table of your heart." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 5:12

Church
Scriptures
Tradition


They never work opposite to or contrary to each other. Always in harmony as all the early church fathers attest.

Yes, that's what I say, but you mean something different.

...flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

"...flee to the Church..." it doesn't say flee to the scriptures. Tradition does not compete with Scriptures, that is a reformist myth. Here is the same quote with more context:

Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden (paradisus) in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, 'Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden,' that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:20 (A.D. 180).

Irenaeus was not a sola scripturist. None of the ECF's were. The Church has always taught that the Scriptures nourish. This truth does not pit Tradition against Scripture as the reformists would have you believe. You refuse to understand the difference between material sufficiency and formal sufficiency. It has been explained to you in the Berean thread. You are unteachable.

So once again, tradition is to be drawn out of the Scriptures, not read into them, as Rome would have it now.

What makes you think Rome reads Tradition into the Scriptures? If it weren't for Tradition, YOU WOULD HAVE NO SCRIPTURES!

One last thing. If you still want to insist that your quotes prove your thesis, then all you have really proven is that the church was far from having a unified voice throughout the centuries. How's that? If your quotes mean what you think they mean, (I contend that I have just disproved that), then they contradict my quotes which are very plain and clear.

:lol: :D :p

.
Because Calvinists are at a loss to defend sola scriptura, they shift to attacking Tradition. They can't gain ground with those arguments either.
.

.You like Cyprian, Nomad?

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith."
Cyprian, To the Lasped, Epistle 26/33 (A.D. 250).

You like Irenaeus, Nomad?

"But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples. For in the Church," it is said, "God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:24 (A.D. 180).

Nomad would have us believe that Cyprian and Irenaeus were Protestants. :p :D :lol:
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The early Church had always relied on Holy Oral Tradition from Jesus to the only teachers, His apostles,[ Matthew 28:18-20 ,Luke 10:16 ] He only taught His chosen apostles the "Fullness of the Faith ".

Examples of Jesus' and the Apostles' Reliance on Oral Tradition

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

You still don't seem to understand sola scriptura. As I mentioned before in other threads, sola scriptura does not reject all tradition. Sola scriptura rejects any tradition that contradicts and/or supersedes scripture. Here is a quote from a Reformed confession that is representative of the Reformed position on this point.

"The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." — Westminster Confession Of Faith, The Holy Scripture, Para. 10

Tradition is permissible so long as it is weighed by Scripture and is not found to contradict it. Scripture is the only infallible authority and final court of appeal in all matters of faith and practice. None of your quotes violate sola scriptura. However, much of your Catholic teaching does. The traditions that grew into doctrines such as Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix are good examples. These blatantly contradict the clear teaching Scripture.

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Act 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...

Not only is Mary not mentioned in these texts, they plainly say that with regard to salvation there is one way, one name and one mediator. Period. This is the kind of tradition that sola scriptura rejects. Plain and simple.
 

justaname

Disciple of Jesus Christ
Mar 14, 2011
2,348
149
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am torn on this subject. To think of how Jesus might feel... some Protestants speak of His mother and I am shamed, some Roman or Orthodox worship her and I fear for their salvation, Father have mercy on us... yet in God CHRIST, for His namesake and His glory!

She is blessed amongst women, dare I say all women, for birthing the Savior! Predestined for eternal glory in His Word, for the LORD'S plan is holy everlasting! Spoken of by the prophets in His mighty Word. Alive in Christ present with the Lord. Loved by all that Love God. With her name is handmaiden of the Lord. Her joy is unique to all others, for she fed sinless flesh that was sinless indeed!