Posted on 05/01/2015 2:36:22 PM PDT by NYer
“All the world’s evils are due to lukewarm Catholics”.
Pope Pius V
"With respect to the "Power of the Keys," though, in Matthew 16:19, Jesus is specifically addressing Peter. That was given to Peter and to his successors.
Sadly no. That is incorrect. There is NO mention of successors and Jesus was addressing all of the Disciples because the very next verse says so. Matt 16:20 "Then He commanded His Disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
Now you know about the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
I recognize that Mary, while she was with us, was a human being in every way; including sin.
Along with...
...Catholics think that just because something isn’t said in Scripture exactly the way they think it ought to be said, in English, then it DOES say it.
Using a bible named for a mortal man is not to impressive.
As compared to the locales of Douay–Rheims, I suppose?
GMTA
And that one was easy.
Some scholars have suggested an Aramaic background to Jesus’ saying. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Professor Emeritus of The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., and one of the world’s most distinguished New Testament scholars, suggests that Jesus employed an Aramaic wordplay (Kepha-kepha) in his response to Peter’s declaration.[3] However, Fitzmyer acknowledges a difficulty: he wonders why the Matthean Jesus did not say, “On this petros I will build….”[4]
[4] Substituting the Greek masculine petros for the Greek feminine petra, the reading of all Greek manuscripts. See Fitzmyer, ibid., pp. 130-131: “The problem that confronts one is to explain why there is in the Matthean passage a translation of the Aramaic substratum, which is claimed to have the same word kepha twice, by two Greek words, πέτρος and πέτρα… If the underlying Aramaic of Matt. xvi.18 had kepha twice, then we should expect σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ πέτρῳ οἰκοδομήσω….” Cf. Fitzmyer’s recent comments in response to a magazine reader’s letter (“Queries & Comments,”Biblical Archaeology Review 19.3 [1993], 70). For Fitzmyer’s Aramaic reconstruction to be correct, the Greek text should read, “on this petros I will build….”
[5] The word כֵּפָא (kepha). The only difference between Kepha and kepha in Fitzmyer’s reconstruction is the capitalization of the former. This distinction, however, does not exist in Aramaic, since in Aramaic there are no capital letters. - http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2718/
Although the same or similar words, "full" or "filled" with grace, are used for Jesus, for Mary, and for St. Stephen, it does not mean exactly the same for all three. If it did, we'd be in the position of saying that the blessedness of Jesus, Mary, and St. Stephen are indistinguishable, identical -- which they are not, as I'm sure you'll agree.
How can they be distinguished, then?
The Greek grammar shows how.
Kecharitomene is a Greek perfect, passive, participle, which could literally be translated "having been graced," since the root of the word is "charis", which means grace. Ephesians 1:6, which refers to Jesus Christ, uses the aorist, active, indicative echaritosen, meaning "he graced."
The root verb in use is χαριτόω It means highly favored because receptive to God’s grace (HELPS Word-studies). The root word for grace is χάρισμα. It means a gift of grace, an undeserved favor.
The word in our discussion, χαριτόω, is used twice in the NT; Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:28.
In Luke the actual word used is κεχαριτωμένη. It is being used in the greeting of the angel to Mary. It is not a title contrary to what catholics like to claim. Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη! Greetings, you favored with grace!
Χαῖρε is a present imperative active verb.
The imperative mood is important in this situation as has suppressed its original injunctive force and is reduced to an exclamation. This especially occurs in greetings; which is what this is: A GREETING! To be clear for the catholic: This is not a title given to Mary.
κεχαριτωμένη is a perfect participle in the middle/passive voice. It is in the passive voice indicating something is done to the subject, in this case Mary. Now, what was done to her? She has been favored with grace in that she has been chosen to be the one to give birth to the Messiah. The catholic likes to make a big deal that this usage of the word is unique in the NT. I agree it is but not for the reason the catholic claims.
IT IS THE ONLY TIME JESUS WILL BE BORN. This is why it’s unique. No other woman will be chosen to do this nor will this event occur again. The proper focus should be on Christ in this situation….not Mary.
The perfect participle is translated with the understanding of a completed event that has occurred in the past with results continuing into the present…..from the vantage point of the writer/speaker….not the reader. This is key to understanding this.
From Luke’s perspective, as he was the writer, this was a completed event with results continuing into his present. The text does not indicate an eternal time frame from the beginning of time as suggested by the catholic.
Now, to the next point.
The catholic claims a difference between the usage in Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6 as noted in the post below. See the difference? Mary, passive voice, she received grace; Jesus, active voice, "He graced." This is due to the fact that Jesus is a Divine person; Mary is a human person, a creature and handmaid.
However, this misses the point. In both cases the grace is from above. Mary has been graced by God for this event. The believers in Ephesians have been graced by Christ. In either case, the grace is from above. The tense in Ephesians is in the aorist which indicates the event happened. We do not have a time reference only that it happened. In Luke 1:28 "Kecharitomene" is nominative or titular, since it follows the greeting "Chaire" ---"Hail [name or title] --- thus the name would automatically be capitalized in English translations.
This next part has already been addressed but to clarify. This is not a title given to Mary how matter how much the catholic wants, wishes, prays it to be. It is not supported by the Greek. The unique feature of Kecharitomene is that it is in the Greek perfect tense, denoting that the state of grace began in past time, by a completed action (hence "fully" accomplished), whose results continue in the present. A suitable translation to denote all these features might be "Fully-Graced One." The Greek passive voice denotes that Mary received the title from an outside source, in this case, ALmighty God.
The New Testament uses the Greek "pleres charitos" ("full of grace") to describe Jesus (John 1:14) and Stephen (Acts 6:8), but these usages are not as specific to time, agent and continuity as Kecharitomene.
Actually the reference to Stephen is πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως, “full grace and power”. We would translate as “full of grace and power.”
In either case Stephen received his grace and power from God.
Would we not expect Jesus to be full of grace and truth?
It is merely the catholic trying to substantiate their claim regarding Mary. The key to understanding all of this is proper context.
Regarding the comments below….again…..Mary’s name was not changed!! Like all of the name changes in the Bible, it indicates the person's status as seen by God, the person's predestined giftedness in order to be equipped to play their role in God's plan: • Abram ---> Abraham (Father of Nations) • Sarai ---> Sarah (Princess) • Jacob ---> Israel (Wrestles with God) • Simon ---> Cephas (Rock)
The same is true when Mary is addressed (nominative or titular) as Kecharitomene (Fully-Graced One).
Again, Mary is not being addressed with a new title in Luke 1:28. If the casual reader takes nothing else away from this post, remember this: IT IS NOT A TITLE!
The following has already been addressed above.
It's the only place in the Bible --- the only place in all of Greek literature ---where this word is used as a form of address. It's unique. It doesn't make her equal to God (passive voice: it's been done unto her) and not identical to what's said of Stephen, because it's
The following has already been addressed above.
> • past (the state of grace completed in past time), • perfect (a completed and accomplished action), • continuing (its results continue into the present), • nominative (name/ title bestowed by an outside agent, in this case, God.)
This unique neologism Kecharitomene is the best Greek word that could have been invented by Divine inspiration to indicate Mary's sinlessness, her being equipped to play her role as the natural source of Christ's human nature, His flesh: human, yet untainted by sin. No other Greek formulation could have conveyed it all.
The Petrine chair is indeed missing too many legs to sit in, but the leadership of Peter as revealed in Scripture is not due to Peter's forwardness, but of how God can make one usable who is sincere but impetuous and boastful, as God can abase such so that they can indeed help others.
I can’t disagree with that.
“Are you saying Jesus was only obedient to Mary?”
Where do you see the word only? Of course Jesus was obedient to Joseph, as we are told in Luke 2:51 - And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.
“Using catholic “logic”, then Mary is the mother of the Holy Spirit.”
Mary did not give birth to the Holy Spirit; she gave birth to the Son. A woman becomes a mother in the very act of giving birth to a child, and the child that Mary gave birth to is God in the person of Jesus Christ. It is only in this sense that Mary is the mother of God.
“Again, none of what the catholic purports the scriptures to say are true regarding this”.
Again, show me how the Scriptures I have cited do not show that Mary is the mother of God. Why does no one attempt to refute those specific passages?
Where do you see the word only? Of course Jesus was obedient to Joseph, as we are told in Luke 2:51 - And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.
He also humbled Himself by being obedient to Mary.
No mention of Joseph in your post. Come to think of it I can't recall when I've seen a catholic refer to Joseph.
>>“Using catholic “logic”, then Mary is the mother of the Holy Spirit.”<<
Mary did not give birth to the Holy Spirit; she gave birth to the Son. A woman becomes a mother in the very act of giving birth to a child, and the child that Mary gave birth to is God in the person of Jesus Christ. It is only in this sense that Mary is the mother of God.
But the catholic position is that Mary is the "Mother of God." If God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three in one then if she gives birth to one, she's given birth to all three.
Of course, there is some catholic teaching that says Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit!
>>“Again, none of what the catholic purports the scriptures to say are true regarding this”.<<
Again, show me how the Scriptures I have cited do not show that Mary is the mother of God. Why does no one attempt to refute those specific passages?
Because not one of the Scriptures you cited makes that claim. The burden is on the catholic to show the scripture that says, "Mary is the mother of God".
Which is not the same as evidence.
Douey was the name of a Catholic seminary and Rheims was the name of a town in France. All this Bible did was translate the bible from Latin Vulgate to English. The King James Version is the protestant version of the bible named for a notorious homosexual.
And we can post the names of those popes who are on Elsie’s naughty list.
Isn’t there a proverb about people who live in glass houses shouldn’t cast the first stone?
KJV named for a heretic homosexual. Maybe that has something to do with all the protestant “churches” caving to homosexual “marriage”, claiming that Jesus would be all for sodomites getting married.
Hey, we all have our faults. I'm taking this as you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for fodder. I mean if you're not on top of your game in theological points, I understand. But taking pot shots at dead people (for centuries!) like Martin Luther and sweet old King James isn't exactly the example Jesus gave. I don't know maybe you're going somewhere with it but it just seems like a desperate act to post something negative.
Perhaps also, the catholic desire for covering up past evil practices carries over to this day.
We can keep playing this game all night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.