Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: RobbyS
I think the word that Luke used is " kecharitomene " and I don't think it is used anywhere else.

I understand if we are using different basis for our beliefs then it's not benefitial to debate our beliefs. I'm not qualified to debate which translation is the better, I just know how the KJV has been a power and blessing in my life, so that's what I try to pass on.

I do have a question though, if the actual word used by Luke was 'kecharitomene' and it isn't used anywhere else, is that implying that Mary was filled with a grace that even Jesus didn't have?
95 posted on 01/02/2008 5:07:22 PM PST by ScubieNuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: ScubieNuc

No, only that it was probably a coined or rare word word that applies only to this one woman in the unique situation. Jews who attack this scene keep trying to make Mary into just the mother of a prophet, whenever they don’t just make the whole thing a hellenistic contrivance. But don’t we Christians all agree that whole that certainly fits the case of John and Elizabeth . here Luke is telling us this is something above and beyond that, and certainly very different from the case of Heracles and his mother. Here we have the departure point between the Old and New Covenant. The spirit of prophesy continues, but takes a radically new form. Of course, I don’t think the Jews think of John as a Prophet, sice that age is supposed to be over, and rabbinical Judaism is, I think, so focused on the “Law” they they no longer listen for the Spirit.


96 posted on 01/02/2008 5:35:10 PM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson