Posted on 07/01/2017 5:31:11 PM PDT by marshmallow
And you say things you can have no knowledge of whatsoever, as if they were the given facts ("She [Mary] was no more grace-filled than Stephen." The Holy Spirit is giving you, personally, individually, the power to read the hearts of people who lived 2000 years ago? I think not.)
This brings us to an impasse.
Upon careful consideration, I'm going with the testimony of a millennium of united, historic Christendom, rather than with one FReeper whose knowledge is as limited as mine, and whose name I do not even know --- my dear ealgeone.
So I say, Enough. And peace be with you.
The angelic salutation to Mary is unique, because it points up her unique relationship with the Lord (even before, and preparatory to, the Incarnation.)
Contrast this with the angel's encounter with Isaiah, in which Isaiah says he is impure. The angel doesn't say "Nah, you're OK, the Lord is with you." The angel brings a burning coal to purify his mouth!
Archangel Gabriel doesn't say "The LORD is with you" to Mary, as a polite way of saying "Hi there, you're just like everybody else." You won't find an Angel, an Ambassador from Heaven, addressing any other human being in such a way, ever.
Yes, actually I have paid attention to the participles and hermeneutics.
Yes, I have paid attention to Scripture evidence as I agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia Online there is no direct or categorical support for Mary's Immaculate Conception.
The early NT church did not understand Luke 1:28 as Roman Catholicism does. As noted before...this was a latter development in Roman Catholicism.
Upon careful consideration, I'm going with the testimony of a millennium of united, historic Christendom, rather than with one FReeper whose knowledge is as limited as mine, and whose name I do not even know --- my dear ealgeone.
The problem with your statement is there is not a millennium of united, historic Christendom on this topic.
That Catholicism claims this was so well known in the Church it took until 1854 for it to be proclaimed dogma.
Pius IX, at the beginning of his pontificate, and again after 1851, appointed commissions to investigate the whole subject, and he was advised that the doctrine was one which could be defined and that the time for a definition was opportune.
It was not until 1854 that Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, whom he had consulted between 1851–1853, promulgated the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God"), which defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
This is why I think the Fifth Marian dogma will be proclaimed eventually. Get enough public support behind it and the pope declares it dogma.
And not to be snooty but I'm one class away from finishing graduate level work in NT Greek.
Hope your appointment went well.
Proof in a quasi-mathematical sense is found in Scripture, but rarely: what you get is reasonable inferences from converging lines of evidence, confirmed by the Church which has provided us with both Scripture and its continuous interpretive community.
On NT Greek: if you know your subject, you know that translation always involves choice and, therefore, within limits, interpretation. It aids--- but does not comprise --- hermeneutics or theology.
IV iron transfusion ahead! Yes, I thank you for your kind hopes and would thank you even more for your prayers.
Again...as we've already noted and agreed upon....this is a one time event. So no...there wouldn't be an expectation of this being repeated.
However, we do have Paul writing to believers....
to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Rms 1:7 NASB
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.1 Cor 1:3 NASB
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, Gal 1:3 NASB
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Philemon 1:3 NASB
We also have this from Paul...
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. Ephesians 1:3-4 NASB
Paul is noting we've all be blessed with EVERY spiritual blessing. Kinda hard to argue Mary was given something extra that we weren't.
However the Catholic Encyclopedia Online says "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture." You can't even infer from Scripture the Immaculate Conception.
Praying for the IV transfusion!!
Many doctrines, both moral and spiritual, are logical corollaries rather than explicit Scripture quotes. This would include, as you know, the moral doctrines against, say, human embryo experimentation, "Critical Gender Theory" and same-sex "marriage", as well Christological doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Thx for prayers!
Well, yes, direct proof is needed or else you're practicing eisegesis...reading something into the text that isn't there.
Roman Catholicism is rife with that.
Many doctrines, both moral and spiritual, are logical corollaries rather than explicit Scripture quotes. This would include, as you know, the moral doctrines against, say, human embryo experimentation, "Critical Gender Theory" and same-sex "marriage", as well Christological doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Opposition to Critical Gender theory and same sex marriage are easily found in Scripture.
He made them man and woman and blessed them. Gen 5:2
…4Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”… Matt 19:4-6 NASB
The Incarnation is found in John 1:14.
However, the Immaculate Conception is not found. The reading of Luke 1:28 does not allow for the conclusion drawn by Roman Catholicism.
If you are going to claim, and we'll use the Douay-Rheims translation, that full of grace means sinlessness then you have to accord that to Stephen as well...and any other believer who is described this way.
But that contradicts Biblical teaching that all created beings have sinned.
There are no exceptions in Scripture to this. Not Abraham, not Elijah, not John, not Peter, or Paul...none.
If Mary were sinless Paul would have noted the exception in Romans or elsewhere. That he didn't is revealing.
Well, yes, direct proof is needed or else you're practicing eisegesis...reading something into the text that isn't there.
Roman Catholicism is rife with that.
Many doctrines, both moral and spiritual, are logical corollaries rather than explicit Scripture quotes. This would include, as you know, the moral doctrines against, say, human embryo experimentation, "Critical Gender Theory" and same-sex "marriage", as well Christological doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity.
Opposition to Critical Gender theory and same sex marriage are easily found in Scripture.
He made them man and woman and blessed them. Gen 5:2
…4Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”… Matt 19:4-6 NASB
The Incarnation is found in John 1:14.
However, the Immaculate Conception is not found. The reading of Luke 1:28 does not allow for the conclusion drawn by Roman Catholicism.
If you are going to claim, and we'll use the Douay-Rheims translation, that full of grace means sinlessness then you have to accord that to Stephen as well...and any other believer who is described this way.
But that contradicts Biblical teaching that all created beings have sinned.
There are no exceptions in Scripture to this. Not Abraham, not Elijah, not John, not Peter, or Paul...none.
If Mary were sinless Paul would have noted the exception in Romans or elsewhere. That he didn't is revealing.
What if I showed you where the term had been used before, the main difference it being ascribed to a man, instead of a woman?
Would it mean that the man referred to was
It would have to mean "filled with grace" when directed to a man also (in the usage where the term is found, but masculinized) if the theory espoused held water.
There's neo, and there's not *quite* neo. The term wasn't as exclusively 'neo' as many have been led to believe.
Part of the reason for this mistaken assumption could be due to Strong's concordance, Vine's Bible dictionary, and other sources not including among consideration and treatments books of what Roman Catholics came to label Deuterocanon.
Compare this, lifted from Septuagint direct copy/paste of the last word in Greek version of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) chapter 18, verse 17, also here [the second link has side-by-side English translation];
to Strong's entry for
what differentiation there is limited to the last trailing character (Greek letter). So much for the uniqueness of the term. Say goodnight, Irene, goodnight (and God love ya' anyhows baby-cakes, bless your little 'ol heart) to that aspect of the claims you've made.
There is another aspect to this too. A consideration of great significance if by parsing a Greek term we are on our way to saying that the conclusions drawn (after stretching the term on the rack, forcing it to "confess"?) is Scriptural basis for concept such as "Mary" being endowed with "Grace" which [capital "S" no less] She bestows now from heavenly realm as "Mediatrix of all Graces", alongside her titular "Queen of Heaven" Move over Holy Spirit (or move over Jesus?) you are are sitting in Mommy's Chair!.
You say that a Greek neologism, which in NT text does qualify as hapax legomenon (occurring only once) though not precisely neologism when other Greek texts are considered ---- was used by the angel, when that angel was speaking to Mary?
The angel was speaking Greek to her? That it highly doubtful, but would be necessary in order to justifiably torture the word parse the [ahem] 'neologism' as you've erroneously declared it to have been into position to assert what you say is the "bottom line", attributable to Mary, alone.
At risk of complicating matters yet further, but for possible additional reason this has remained not entirely unknown, but still obscure;
As the Vulgate has it, the ending last word in the Sirach 18:17 was translated homine iustificato while multiple English translations render the term as "gracious man" (when not neutered into gracious person) and when not following Latin Vulgate "justified".
I do wonder who chose homine iustificato for translation from Greek into Latin, being as there are reasons to doubt that Jerome himself did the translation work for those books that he regarded not part of the canon. Sirach belongs outside of canon, according to Jerome (need I provide links for that?).
I'd also like to see an online rendering of how Old Latin texts (prior to Jerome's era) may have translated the term from Sirach 18:17. Wouldn't that be interesting, come what may?
Returning to matter of Greek used by author of Luke, and Acts, the USCCB in intro to Luke, includes this;
The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Lk 1:2). His two-volume work marks him as someone who was highly literate both in the Old Testament traditions according to the Greek versions and in Hellenistic Greek writings.
Do you really still suppose the angel spoke to Mary ---in Greek? That language, although possibly not unknown to her, was not primary language of her forebears, or so that may honestly enough be gathered.
The scholarship leans positively towards Aramaic as having been language of Jesus, and his disciples. This wiki link provides plentiful example for why that opinion predominates. An example of demurral from that view, leaning towards Hebrew being more predominate, fwiw, from https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2551/ following introductory note;
Although scholars have divergent views regarding the influence of Hellenism on religious works, literature and everyday life in first-century Israel, it is generally accepted that the Greek language was used by many of the inhabitants.Latin was also used to some extent in the land of Israel in the time of Jesus.
In conclusion states, in part;
Although the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel in the time of Jesus knew Aramaic and used it in their contacts with the ordinary, non-Jewish residents, Hebrew was their first or native language. It is especially clear that in enlightened circles such as those of Jesus and his disciples, Hebrew was the dominant spoken language.
Hebrew was most likely dominate language of Jewish religion at least -- could it not be safely assumed? With Aramaic coming in either second, or else perhaps more parallel in everyday oral teachings, and discussions. There is overlap between the two languages, Hebrew having ancient Aramaic root.
Whereas Greek had been the language of the Hellenizers, whom the Maccabees fought with everything they had -- down to the last man, so to speak.
It seems overly simplistic view coming about due to NT texts written in Greek, that an angel would speak to Mary -- in Greek -- using that language of pagan influence within Israel that had caused such a stir, raising conflict between traditionalists and "modernists" of just prior age (who's direct 'Greek' influence within Judea had greatly waned by time of Christ) to convey to Mary what she could accept & trust be coming to her, from God of the Hebrews through angelic agent.
Luke of course, wrote in Greek in order to reach the wider world -- the world of the 'gentile'.
Although there is degree of influence from Greek Septuagint -- that made it's way into NT texts -- that does not indicate that the original concepts therein (of NT) were first expressed in Greek, but more rather what was known of Greek utilized to convey the Hebrew concepts, tying those to past Hebrew primary source references naturally enough using extant phrasing from Septuagint to help get there.
The author of Luke -- according to tradition a Greek speaking physician, perhaps a Hellenized Jew who was also fluent in Hebrew & Aramaic (one, or both) would be well suited to bridge the language divides.
Where does this leave us? Still with an angel identified as Gabriel speaking to Mary -- in Greek???
Ya' gotta' be kidding me.
Maybe it's time to turn one's hand to torturing some other Greek term. This neologism that was not purely "neo" at time of conception & birth of Jesus has suffered about enough parsing. "In passive voice" equating to plenary degree?
Where do you come up with that stuff? The "fullness" aspect is in regard to the action of being "graced" with high favor having been provided past tense (from perspective of God --who was doing the favoring) rather than be active in the moment/limited to being active in that moment. Is it not?
What was being expressed in Luke 1:28, to Mary, was defined (broken into constituent parts) two verses later, in Luke 1:30
Romans 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
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.