Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

Christian Post ^ | 04/17/2014 | BY JARED FREEMAN

[Springfield Reformer]

That is a good indication that Mary is sinless

We discussed this elsewhere. Being "full of grace" (which as you know is not the Greek phrase) or "highly favored" (which is much closer to the formal, "mundane" Greek) provides no evidence whatsoever of the uniquely RC doctrine of immaculate conception. In fact, in the critical text Greek, Stephen is said to be full of grace (Acts 6:8), and in Ephesians 1:6, all believers have this same exact grace, which in Ephesians is rendered as "accepted" in the Beloved. So if neither Stephen nor believers in general are categorically sinless, despite being up to their ears in grace, the Lukan passage cannot imply that about Mary either.

[annalex]

In Acts 6:8 we don't even have "grace"; there are no neologisms either:

πληρης πιστεως και δυναμεως

Why St. Jerome translated "grace" instead of "faith" I don't know.

The only other use of "κεχαριτωμενη" is in Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18:17

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
	English: Douay-Rheims	Greek OT: LXX [A] Unaccented	English: King James Version
	Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18
17.	Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a justified man.	ουκ ιδου λογος υπερ δομα αγαθον και αμφοτερα παρα ανδρι κεχαριτωμενω	Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a gracious man.

KJV again is working hard to obscure the Bible: Mary is "highly favored" but the idealized "son" in Sirach is "gracious", -- same word and similar context. Mary is described as "full of grace" in Luke and the idealized son as "justified" in Sirach, and indeed he is to be "justified" in anticipation of "the wrath that shall be at the last day" (Ibid. 18:24). The juxtaposition of these two occurrences of κεχαριτωμενος explain the intended meaning of the Archangel's address to Mary: she, while a young girl, is already like the saints in heaven, the justified.

[Springfield Reformer]

In Acts 6:8 we don't even have "grace"; there are no neologisms either:

Which is exactly why I mentioned the critical text, which does indeed have "grace": πληρης χαριτος, and is used in a great many modern translations.

KJV again is working hard to obscure the Bible:

Sorry, but that is not the case according to the evidence. We already talked about the very wide dynamic range of xaris. "Favored" here fits nicely, but certainly allows for Pauline notions of grace, though it would be awkward at best to impose Paul's specialized lexicon on Dr. Luke.

But in any event such grace is not unique to Mary, and cannot be made so by a particular conjugation. Whatever applies to her through that term applies even more so through Paul's application of it to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. Every believer is a saint. All believers are justified in Christ. All believers are highly favored of God. All believers have been accepted in the Beloved. On and on. I am happy for Mary. I am happy for all who believe. God's gift to us has been amazing, and will only become more amazing as the ages roll on.

[RinaseaofDs]

“To which Colbert replied: “That’s like an atheist without balls...””

Proof Colbert’s only using the guy to show there are people to the left of him.

Atheism is hatred. Pure and simple. No balls about it.

Agnosticism is at least an admission that you don’t know, and that’s a start. Plenty of mathematical and scientific evidence that would suggest that ‘all of this’ could not have been accidental. Now you are at ‘there’s an intelligent design’ - could be aliens, but its an intelligent design.

Then you start reading the story of Christ, and you get to C.S. Lewis’ (famous former atheist) assessment: “Either Jesus Christ is who he says he is, or he is the most insane person ever.”

Then you end up in ‘G.K. Chesterton’ town, and Michio Kaku Boulevard, wherein the result of a lifetime of scholar work leads to the conclusion that there must be a God, with all the intellectual trappings thereof.

Colbert’s an opportunist, and I’m thinking he’s about to Peter Principle huge here.

Kevin Hart would have been a better choice.

[fabian]

Well, the guest was correct...Jesus is obviously the son of God and not God! Daaaa!

[annalex]

Ah, I see it now in Tischendorf and in Westcott/Hort. Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority have "πληρης πιστεως". That explains Jerome's "plenus gratia".

So we see that Jerome uses "gratia plena/plenus" for both Mary and St. Stephen, although he prefers "justificato" for the ideal son of Sirach. The original Greek uses "κεχαριτωμενος/κεχαριτωμενη" for Mary and for the ideal son (of course, Luke is not the Septuagint writer so the consistency of use is especially convincing).

You are correct that "such grace is not unique to Mary", but you must also see my point: St. Stephen (now that I paid attention to the variants in the Greek codices), and the "justified son" are both filled with grace at the end of their lives; that is to say they both die saints. That should not surprise us. Mary, however, is described as such in the very beginning of her adult life.

I'll get to the other thread tomorrow.

[Springfield Reformer]

St. Stephen (now that I paid attention to the variants in the Greek codices), and the "justified son" are both filled with grace at the end of their lives; that is to say they both die saints

Which is to inject the late-developing idea of "saint" as a superclass of believer, when originally it applied to all believers simply for being believers:

Act 9:32 And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.

The operative word there is αγιους, which is most often translated "saints," but simply means those set apart to God through their belief in Jesus, and has no bearing on their proximity to death. No one at Lydda is said to be near death. To add such a qualifier from out of thin air like that reflects the fact that something coming from outside the text has influenced the interpretation.

As for Stephen, we don't know how long he was regarded as "full of grace." It may well have attached to him from the moment of his conversion. There is no rational way to link that appellation to the timing of his death in a causal way. Again, such a notion would have to be imported from outside the text.

[annalex]

In the Scripture, some people are called "saints" but there is never a qualifier that everyone who came to an altar call is automatically a saint form that point on. Instead, St. Paul often speaks of a select group and addresses them saints. It could be that he, as a polite gesture, did not stress it all the time, but that he meant it a group we see in several places. From my yet unfinished book:

So this is the man who, being a living saint himself, called others “saints”. He never called “saint” just anyone; it is always church goers known by those to whom the letter is addressed, or, of course the addressees themselves: “Salute Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympias; and all the saints that are with them” (Romans 16:15). While references to living saints are numerous, they are never a substitute for “all Christians” or “everyone in your church”: St. Paul makes a reference to a group of people perhaps visibly designated or perhaps not, but always a select group in his mind. The “saints” to Paul are subject of imitation: “receive her in the Lord as becometh saints”, he urges in Romans 16:2. It appears that these “saints” had an ability to judge, not only judge the world in the afterlife but also adjudicate daily disputes:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust, and not before the saints? Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (1 Corinthians 6:1-2)

Observe a curious turn of the thought: some Corinthians apparently had gone to a non-Christian judge whereas St. Paul expects them to resolve the dispute “before the saints”, but in the next statement he puts the transgressors themselves as putative judges: “are you unworthy to judge”, he asks. This discourse reveals an ecclesial court of peers where select parishioners are asked to judge other parishioners. It is then those capable of judgment that St. Pall calls “saints”, and he urges those in need of judgment to themselves become capable of judgment, -- become saints. This thought is developed further in the letter: “Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” So St. Paul tells the Corinthians to, first, bring their disputes to the ecclesial court of “saints” and then points out that saints are self-judging because they are glad to suffer injustice; indeed they do, for some of them apparently are “despised in the church” (verse 4). The passage concludes:

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

The Corinthian Christians are reminded that those who fall to sin cannot “possess the kingdom of God”, apparently despite having been “washed, […] sanctified, […] justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God”. The passage shows that “saints” in Pauline usage has somewhat of a dual meaning: the select group capable of judging, and free from any vice, but at the same time all parishioners are said to be “sanctified” and not “unworthy to judge the smallest matters”. It is curious that the three characteristics of every Catholic Christian that St. Paul lists here, “washed”, “sanctified”, and “justified” match the three principal sacraments that mark our struggle with sin, baptism that washes us, confirmation that sanctifies us by clothing us in the Holy Ghost, and confession that justifies us by making us grieve over our faults and pray for absolution. The distinction between a living saint and the rest of parishioners, as it emerges from this passage, is real, but is supposed to be diminished or even erased, as those sanctified in the Church work through their justification toward sainthood.

The distinction is even more apparent in these passages:

concerning the collections that are made for the saints… (1 Corinthians 16:1) concerning the ministry that is done towards the saints… (2 Corinthians 9:1, and several similar)

So the saints to Paul are not the entire local church, but a select group that is a beneficiary of a special ministry; donations are gathered for them from among the parishioners. We don’t know much further; perhaps these “saints” were the elderly in the church, perhaps they were distinguished by their special dedication to the church, or those out on missionary work. They could be some early form of nuns and monks perhaps: people who renounced their possessions and literally lived in the church. Clearly, not every believer was a saint according to Paul.

That makes St. Paul’s terminology at least analogous to ours, where we tend to call a select group of believers saints. Nevertheless in all these examples St. Paul makes reference to living saints, while we, primarily, speak of, and pray to saints in Heaven. But there is more: on some other occasions St. Paul speaks of sainthood as an aspiration:

to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2)

the beloved of God, called to be saints (Romans 1:7)

Unlike the two previous groups, those capable of judging and those in need of donations, the reference in these passages is explicitly made to all Christians, that is, to all who believe in Christ and love God, or receive God’s love. But to Paul they are not quite “saints” but rather “called to be saints”. That then matches the modern understanding perfectly, where we think of all believers as being on the road to sainthood, rather than necessarily sainted already. The two references to sainthood, “sanctified in Christ Jesus” and “called to be saints” deserve a comment. Since St. Paul is enumerating these separately, we must conclude that sanctification that is spoken about is initiation into sainthood rather than sainthood achieved, and most likely is a reference to the sacrament of confirmation. There is a vulgar translation of 1 Corinthians 1:2 in some Protestant Bibles that makes it simply “to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints”, but that is nothing but a pun on the English word “call”, which can mean both inviting someone and naming someone. The Greek original is κλητοις, plural of κλητός, and it means strictly “called to a purpose, invited, summoned”.

Was Paul thinking exclusively in terms of this life rather than afterlife as he reminded fellow Christians of their calling? No such narrow focus is apparent from the text itself, and surely St. Paul understood that not everyone would have an opportunity to reach the old age and retire in the church with the “saints” for whom he, Paul, held collections. Indeed, the image of Stephen reaching martyrdom in young age in the presence of Paul surely stood in Paul’s mind. Therefore his “called to be saints” cannot be understood in terms of economic arrangement that the Church might make for its elders. It is a reminder that no matter of what age we die and in what manner, we are all called to be saints in heaven.