End times prophecy checklist...

[EssentialSacrifice]

Postby SoCalExile » Sat May 14, 2016 1:50 pm

RickD wrote:
Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor biblical.

If God could keep Mary sinless, as Catholicism teaches, why couldn't God keep Jesus sinless in Mary's womb?


Bingo! That's what I was trying to say but was unable to make clear.

i'm not sure why you guys aren't getting it's not about keeping Jesus sinless, it's about providing Jesus a place to reside while being born. a sinless place, just like Him...

[EssentialSacrifice]

it's called Typology socal ...

Typology in Christian theology and Biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_%28theology%29

and it creates unity within the bible for O.T. to New referencing.
you'll see that picking it apart piece by piece is not the aim.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Socal wrote:
Note the same Greek word is used twice in Ephesians 1:6, to describe all believers: 
"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made (χαριτόω) us accepted (χαριτόω) in the beloved." 

SoCal :
You can't appeal to God here as if your assertion is proven fact, which it is not. The fact is that the same original Greek word for "full of grace" in Luke 1:28 appears in Ephesians 1:6 in reference to believers, so you can't claim that the term means that Mary is sinless but we are not. Either she is a sinner like the rest of us or we have the same sinlessness that you claim she had. You can't deflect from this by using God's rank in vain.

Eph 1:6 Thus he would manifest the splendour of that grace by which he has taken us into his favour in the person of his beloved Son. 

New AdventBible translation
 1:6 εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ,
Blue Bible translation
1:6  εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν ᾗ ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷἠγαπημένῳ

while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace). 

Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166). 


Luke 1:28 Into her presence the angel came, and said, Hail, thou who art full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.

New Advent Bible translation
Luke 1;28 καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν: χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.
Blue Bible translation
Luke 1:28  καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰσοῦ

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene,"

Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109,

Re: End times prophecy checklist...
Postby EssentialSacrifice » Tue May 10, 2016 8:20 pm

and there in lies the difference So Cal … The Greek writer saw Mary as grace filled before during and after her angelic encounter. Grace filled sin free. The angel called her “hail full of grace” he gave her a new name, he called her by what is most prominent in her, that which is most striking, what is most abundant and abundantly clear … she is grace filled beyond our capacity to comprehend.

Saved by grace alone ? how much better then to be known as “Full of Grace, the Mother of God” these differences in definition create the permanent fixture of grace within Mary, and any momentary graces bestowed by God upon someone else and that grace, "kecharitomene," makes her sinless imo. by the fullness of the grace of God... sinless.

[Mallz]

it's about providing Jesus a place to reside while being born. a sinless place, just like Him...

I don't get this..
Why is this required or even matter?
And how could anyone be sinless in these mortal bodies? We need impeccability which comes from our future new bodies. Isn't saying Mary is sinless making her to be a liar? 1 John 1:8 Isn't it well established that Jesus is the only sinless one, which is why He is our High Priest? Didn't Jesus immerse Himself in sin jut by coming into the world and dwelling with sinners? What does a womb have to do with anything? Do you think He didn't have original sin passed down in His DNA? Is it thought He had no flaws? These are the questions that come to my mind.

[Byblos]

it's about providing Jesus a place to reside while being born. a sinless place, just like Him...

I don't get this..
Why is this required or even matter?
And how could anyone be sinless in these mortal bodies? We need impeccability which comes from our future new bodies. Isn't saying Mary is sinless making her to be a liar? 1 John 1:8 Isn't it well established that Jesus is the only sinless one, which is why He is our High Priest? Didn't Jesus immerse Himself in sin jut by coming into the world and dwelling with sinners? What does a womb have to do with anything? Do you think He didn't have original sin passed down in His DNA? Is it thought He had no flaws? These are the questions that come to my mind.

It has to do with typology, Mary as the new Eve and the ark of the new covenant (Jesus).

[SoCalExile]

Socal wrote:
Note the same Greek word is used twice in Ephesians 1:6, to describe all believers: 
"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made (χαριτόω) us accepted (χαριτόω) in the beloved." 

SoCal :
You can't appeal to God here as if your assertion is proven fact, which it is not. The fact is that the same original Greek word for "full of grace" in Luke 1:28 appears in Ephesians 1:6 in reference to believers, so you can't claim that the term means that Mary is sinless but we are not. Either she is a sinner like the rest of us or we have the same sinlessness that you claim she had. You can't deflect from this by using God's rank in vain.

Eph 1:6 Thus he would manifest the splendour of that grace by which he has taken us into his favour in the person of his beloved Son. 

New AdventBible translation
 1:6 εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ,
Blue Bible translation
1:6  εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἐν ᾗ ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷἠγαπημένῳ

while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace). 

Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166). 


Luke 1:28 Into her presence the angel came, and said, Hail, thou who art full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.

New Advent Bible translation
Luke 1;28 καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν: χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.
Blue Bible translation
Luke 1:28  καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰσοῦ

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene,"

Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109,

Re: End times prophecy checklist...
Postby EssentialSacrifice » Tue May 10, 2016 8:20 pm

and there in lies the difference So Cal … The Greek writer saw Mary as grace filled before during and after her angelic encounter. Grace filled sin free. The angel called her “hail full of grace” he gave her a new name, he called her by what is most prominent in her, that which is most striking, what is most abundant and abundantly clear … she is grace filled beyond our capacity to comprehend.

Saved by grace alone ? how much better then to be known as “Full of Grace, the Mother of God” these differences in definition create the permanent fixture of grace within Mary, and any momentary graces bestowed by God upon someone else and that grace, "kecharitomene," makes her sinless imo. by the fullness of the grace of God... sinless.

You know, if you're going to copy-and-paste, have to decency to cite your source.

Here is your issue in Luke 1:28:

As they are used in the New Testament, πλήρης χάριτος describes one's own character and capacity to bestow favor; κεχαριτωμένος is a designation of God's attitude and actions toward the one so labeled.

Κεχαριτωμένος
χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.
Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!1
Κεχαριτωμένος is a perfect passive participle (a verbal adjective) derived from χαριτόω, "to show favor". Here it is inflected as a feminine singular in the vocative (addressing) case. The inflected meaning is roughly, "O woman who has been shown favor". No agent is stated as the originator of favor. This is sometimes termed a "divine passive”; the agent is unstated on the grounds that it is obvious to everyone that it is God.

So in Luke 1:28 the angel is not saying that she a source of grace, he's saying she is an object of grace, in the same way we are in Ephesians 1:6.

Here's another source:

In this short mp3 clip, Akin translates kecharitomene as “lady who has been graced.” He explains the word means she has been graced by God in the past which continues to the present. Akin says, “That’s a passage that many people have thought echoes, um, the immaculate conception because certainly Mary’s immaculate conception was something that happened, she’s a woman, and it happened to her in the past, namely at the very beginning of her life, and it continues to effect her in the present, because she’s still immaculate as a result of that.”

Now this alone appears to be the typical Roman Catholic answer on Luke 1:28. Akin though goes on to state that this type of understanding is consistent with what the Greek word means, but it’s not something the word kecharitomene requires: “This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn’t immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense.” He then gives the example of using the term of Mary’s grandmother. But next was the real gem in Akin’s answer. At the end of the clip, he states,“This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together.”

This is a frank admission that the text does not plainly support the Roman Catholic interpretation and needs to be supplemented by another ultimate authority. For all of Keating’s appeals to hidden meaning from the Greek, and for Madrid’s “The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation,”we now have Jimmy Akin finally admitting that the immaculate conception has to be read into the text.

[SoCalExile]

Postby SoCalExile » Sat May 14, 2016 1:50 pm

RickD wrote:
Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor biblical.

If God could keep Mary sinless, as Catholicism teaches, why couldn't God keep Jesus sinless in Mary's womb?


Bingo! That's what I was trying to say but was unable to make clear.

i'm not sure why you guys aren't getting it's not about keeping Jesus sinless, it's about providing Jesus a place to reside while being born. a sinless place, just like Him...

Why? When the rest of his earthly life he spent all his time with sinners? It makes no sense.

[SoCalExile]

it's called Typology socal ...

Typology in Christian theology and Biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_%28theology%29

and it creates unity within the bible for O.T. to New referencing.
you'll see that picking it apart piece by piece is not the aim.

You know, when someone gives a snarky, insulting answer it really means they don't have a logical answer.

You claim "typology" all you want, but if you follow the Jewish Midrash hermeneutic on typology, it only serves to illuminate the plain meaning, not replace it. You must find a plain meaning before that the typology fits into without losing any of the details. For instance, how the Passover Seder is a reflection of both the story of the Exodus and the revelation of Christ. Or how the last days will be like the days of Lot and Noah.

The typology of the Ark being Mary's womb makes no sense given the details surrounding it. What the Ark actually does represent is God, and how Christ is both the (Great) High Priest and the Lamb, who's blood is sprinkled as propitiation (the Greek here literally means "mercy seat") over the mercy seat of the Ark, covering our sin front the sight of God, in whom is contained the Law.

[RickD]

Postby SoCalExile » Sat May 14, 2016 1:50 pm

RickD wrote:
Mary being sinless is neither necessary nor biblical.

If God could keep Mary sinless, as Catholicism teaches, why couldn't God keep Jesus sinless in Mary's womb?


Bingo! That's what I was trying to say but was unable to make clear.

i'm not sure why you guys aren't getting it's not about keeping Jesus sinless, it's about providing Jesus a place to reside while being born. a sinless place, just like Him...

Why? When the rest of his earthly life he spent all his time with sinners? It makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense, you silly Protestant. Either get on the Sinless Mary bandwagon, or get left behind. She may not put in a good word for you. The Queen of Heaven has a lot of influence with the "Big Guy". I know that, because a priest told me.

[RickD]

it's called Typology socal ...

Typology in Christian theology and Biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types pre-figuring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typology_%28theology%29

and it creates unity within the bible for O.T. to New referencing.
you'll see that picking it apart piece by piece is not the aim.

You know, when someone gives a snarky, insulting answer it really means they don't have a logical answer.

You claim "typology" all you want, but if you follow the Jewish Midrash hermeneutic on typology, it only serves to illuminate the plain meaning, not replace it. You must find a plain meaning before that the typology fits into without losing any of the details. For instance, how the Passover Seder is a reflection of both the story of the Exodus and the revelation of Christ. Or how the last days will be like the days of Lot and Noah.

The typology of the Ark being Mary's womb makes no sense given the details surrounding it. What the Ark actually does represent is God, and how Christ is both the (Great) High Priest and the Lamb, who's blood is sprinkled as propitiation (the Greek here literally means "mercy seat") over the mercy seat of the Ark, covering our sin front the sight of God, in whom is contained the Law.

I thought the ark represented Christ. But hey, whatever. Christ, Mary, same thing.

[EssentialSacrifice]

socal:
You know, when someone gives a snarky, insulting answer it really means they don't have a logical answer.

socal:
You know, if you're going to copy-and-paste, have to decency to cite your source.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.html you may recognize this … it's back a few pages where I originally posted. either you didn't see it or ignored it, but, regardless, I relied on your memory. Apologies, won't do that again, if for no other reason to avoid your snarky comments.

don't really care about Jimmy Akins' stuff ... here's what's important to me ... although it is interesting a protestant would use a nonbiblical source to make his point about something from the bible.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:
490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.  In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.  By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. “Let it be done to me according to your word. . .”

this quoted article came from here: http://jimmyakin.com/2014/12/the-immacu ... are-2.html

[EssentialSacrifice]

s

ocal:
Why? When the rest of his earthly life he spent all his time with sinners? It makes no sense.

Surely, how could any amount of earthly life he spent with sinners? equal to the relationship of sharing your body and blood, be as close as any mother and son, let alone God and His mother. ?

the Hypostatic union resided within Mary. That's both natures within.

[RickD]

Oh immaculate Mary,

Please forgive these Protestant heretics. *


*I wasn't praying to Mary. I was just conjuring her up in a seance.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Oh immaculate of Mary,

Please forgive these Protestant heretics. *


*I wasn't praying to Mary... yes you were turn in your Pcard this instant young man.

[SoCalExile]

socal:
You know, when someone gives a snarky, insulting answer it really means they don't have a logical answer.

socal:
You know, if you're going to copy-and-paste, have to decency to cite your source.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.html you may recognize this … it's back a few pages where I originally posted. either you didn't see it or ignored it, but, regardless, I relied on your memory. Apologies, won't do that again, if for no other reason to avoid your snarky comments.

don't really care about Jimmy Akins' stuff ... here's what's important to me ... although it is interesting a protestant would use a nonbiblical source to make his point about something from the bible.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:
490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.  In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God’s grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.  By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long. “Let it be done to me according to your word. . .”

this quoted article came from here: http://jimmyakin.com/2014/12/the-immacu ... are-2.html

Ever look up the scripture references cited in the Catechism (what little there are)? It's almost like they pick the verses out of a hat they are so far out-of-context.

BTW, it doesn't matter what the CCC says, or a pope says (who is also a sinner) it matters what the Bible says, and the bible does not teach anything about Mary beyond her being an ordinary woman with some impressive genealogy that God chose, out of sheer grace, to bear the Messiah.