Posted on 08/02/2017 2:07:44 PM PDT by detective
and this time, I'm pinging multiple others.
You were wrong then, and you're still wrong now, even if having backed off ever so slightly from having previously claimed;
Underlining added for emphasis for the ever ---which as it turns out, was most certainly not the case, save for gender of addressee ~only~
The term, the "neologism" had been used previous to whoever it was -- most likely the one known to us as Luke -- used the term in Luke 2 who quite possibly borrowed the term from Sirach chapter 18, verse 17, here also in side-by-side Greek, and English translation.
It is highly doubtful that an angel appearing to Mary announcing that she would give birth to Messiah of Israel would have been speaking Greek to her, leaving Luke needing find some way to express what had been conveyed in Hebrew, or Aramaic, into Greek. Yet, Luke did not need wholly invent a term, there being one in existence within Greek Septuagint.
Question: If the term conveys "sinlessness" to Mary, how would that same term addressed to a man not convey sense of sinlessness to a man to whom the same phrase was addressed? Just because there was no angel speaking Greek? lol
Woops. Don't look now Mrs. Don-o, but I just crashed ye olde Marianist claptrap hard-drive. Attempts to Reboot in near future will be re-booted [stomp-stomp] -- you could beat thine sweet bippy on that!
As I had made mention of in #111 on that other thread, prior to there having been any English translation known of, the term as used in Sirach had been translated homine iustificato in Latin Vulgate. As shown at the link, following Latin Vulgate the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) translates the phrase as "a justified man".
What's up with that?
Spare me the nonsense.
The "kecharito" formation is used as an example of what would be done by a "just" man: it's pointing out the behavior of the ideal man. Note that it is not used as a name or form of address. It
The unique, unparalleled thing with the Kecharitomene is that she is called this --- the just one, or the gracious or grace-filled one --- as a form of address, by God's messenger.
Peace, BlueDragon.
Stephen and the other Apostles actually did signs and wonders. Mary did none.
In fact, the greatest one of all?
No....The Resurrection tops everything.
You continue to illustrate how Roman Catholicism elevates Mary above Jesus.
Yes, it's a wonder.
No, it's not the greatest of them all.
Mary fulfilled the role that God had for her, just as we all do, whatever we are called to do.
The issue isn't the thing that we do for God, it's the obedience that we are rewarded for, no matter what it is we are called to do.
Fulfilling God's calling in our lives does not and should not exalt anyone's position in the eyes of the world or church as what we do we can't even do in our own strength but in God's.
We should get NO credit for faithful service, but He should for calling and then enabling us for action.
All this attention and lauding of Mary for her role in God's plan.
It's WRONG, plain and simple.
For some reason I didn’t read your ping to me in the prior thread on this topic....I should have as that was an excellent write up and repudiation of what is claimed by Roman Catholicism.
True to form, you keep posting propaganda which was countered time and again .
Hail, "highly favoured" is not a title, but a greeting which describes what she is due to being chosen to be an instrument of God, and the greeting is like as Daniel who is called by the angel, "greatly beloved." (Dan. 10:11) And unlike where the Lord does give people a new title/name to certain people, the Holy Spirit never uses this sppsdly new title again - or gives her other titles in stark contrast to the approx 900 of Catholicism - but continues to call her Mary.
The issue is not whether Mary was graced, even before the salutation, but whether Lk. 1:28 states was she uniquely full of grace. Which conspicuously does not say "plērēs=full," and The reason why it is not used in Lk. 1:28 is because that plērēs denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT., and thus plērēs charis (full of grace) is used of the One who was/is unmistakably full of grace and Truth. (Jn. 1:14)
And as even Keating admits, Luke 1:28 uses kecharitomene, which literally means "one who has been graced" or "woman who has been graced" (since the gender is female). It doesn't literally mean "full of grace," though that is defensible as a free translation. (http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/10/kecharitomene_q.html)
As for Kecharitomene denoting that the state of grace began in past time even Catholic professor of biblical languages and 11 year vet of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Joseph Fitzmeyer, S.J. writes in the Anchor Bible (v. 28, pg. 345) “Though the pf. Pass. Ptc. Kecharitomenos is found in the LXX of Sir 18:17 in the sense of ‘gracious man,’ here is rather designates Mary as the recipient of divine favor; it means ‘favored by God,’ another instance of the so-called theological passive (see ZGB § 236). She is favored by God to be the mother of the descendant of David and the Son of the Most High.”
Thus since Sirach 18:17 says , 'is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a gracious [Kecharitomenos] man," than one could also argue, consistent with Cath reasoning, that such men uniquely always were gracious.
As for other technical arguments, once again here is an extensive examination of the basic argument by one who has quite a resume of scholarship, Robert Dean Luginbill, Ph.D. Greek:http://ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm
The phrase "hapax legomenon" is applied to the unique occurrence of a word in a corpus. It is not applied to the every specific form a word may take. In Greek, any given verb can potentially have hundreds of different forms (depending upon how one counts these). Therefore in any highly inflected language – like Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and virtually all of the ancient languages – trying to carry this concept which rightly belongs to core words over to individual forms is ludicrous. The word charitoo is not a true "hapax" in the Bible because it occurs more than 'once' (which is what hapax means), and because of the wide variety of forms any verb or substantive in Greek can manifest it makes no sense to apply this term to an individual form of a word and call it a "hapax" (or, alternatively, one can say such a thing, it's just that saying such a thing is meaningless). The point behind identifying a word as a hapax legomenon" (i.e., "mentioned/said only once [in the corpus]") is generally that one has very little information about what the word might mean precisely because it only occurs "once".
If a word is a "hapax" only in a particular author or specialized corpus but appears elsewhere in the language, then the value of this "uniqueness" is greatly reduced. When one has multiple contexts to judge from, one is not in the same position as in the case of a true "hapax" where there is indeed only one single context on which to base one's decision about what a word might mean. As the matter at hand actually stands, moreover, in the case of charitoo, we have an abundance of riches: 1) it occurs elsewhere in the NT; 2) it occurs widely in the literature elsewhere; 3) it is a simple verbal formation on a very well attested noun – so much so as to make its essential meaning so crystal clear that even if this verb only occurred here in all of Greek literature there would still not be any serious doubt as to its meaning.
Your correspondent does not really quibble with the essential meaning of the verb as reflected in every dictionary and every version, namely, "to bestow grace/favor upon". Where you correspondent falls down – and where he over-reaches the Greek scholars he is consulting – is in his attempt to take a simple verb form and make it bear a meaning it cannot bear. You mention that this fellow "really didn't mean that the Greek perfect form here meant that Mary was "perfect", but that is the essence of his argument. His translation is "Having been Graced with all Possible Grace both past present and future." Further he says that the "past" part means that "Mary was saved before ever falling in to sin". Clearly, this person's argument is entirely dependent upon making the perfect tense "magical" in the sense of infusing 'perfection,' even if he is trying to couch this lunacy in grammatical-sounding expressions:
Hi Dr. Luginbill--Once again, I have a question for you about "full of grace". You pointed out that Eph. 1:6 uses the same verb and it doesn't mean "full of grace" there, and therefore, "sinless". A Catholic correspondent has found this by some scholar or other; what do you think of his argument?
This argument is silly. Tense stems in Greek (and there are really only three which matter in such things: aorist, perfect, present) reflect 'aspect', which is something we have in English too (i.e., 'I go' = simple point action akin to the Greek aorist stem, vs. 'I am going' = repetitive action akin to the Greek present stem). These are not "magic", and investing them with layers of meaning invisible to the human eye and untranslatable into English is always a huge mistake (or a deliberate attempt to deceive). The Greek perfect has a meaning very similar to the English perfect, while the Greek aorist is very similar in meaning to the English past. By very similar I mean "essentially indistinguishable in the indicative mood". The only reason this issue of aspect even comes up is because Greek uses the different tense stems in places where we are no longer able to do so in English (i.e., while English users are generally unaware they even use a subjunctive, in Greek we can choose between present and aorist subjunctives in all contingent subordinate clause situations). This person's argument seems to rest entirely upon his quotation of Smyth. However, he misquotes Smyth by leaving out a critical part of the statement.
..If the perfect tense could do all the author claims, then every time it says anything about "knowing" in scripture (for oida is perfective in all of its forms), it would mean "knowing with a perfect knowledge that was conceived in eternity past": such a convention of translation would lead only to utter nonsense (cf. Acts 16:3).
More here , by God's grace.
That's probably my fault. I had pinged an Eagleone instead of an eagleone.
Yourself pointing towards slightly differing usage in context (in Sirach) simply is not enough to rescue all the (phony) theological baggage that Romanist such as yourself insist belongs to the Greek term -- which Greek term was not invention of the angel who had appeared to Mary, who explained to her the how and why she had found favor with God, in verses following (Luke 1:30-33, 35-37).
This portion of your response;
indicates to me that you most likely HAD seen the previous note sent to you more than a month ago, and had already formulated response crafted to save the falsehood/false-note baggage thsat yourself and others (Keating, is it?) have been busy trying to strap onto the poor little donkey of Greek language terminology.
Gotta go. To the hospital. For real. Time is getting short.
Peace. It may be better to pray than to post.
I hope that whatever is bringing you to the hospital, will be resolved in healing and restoration, by the grace of God.
The whole spectrum of inferences from this may be debatable (and will be debated) but the idea that the Bible proves Mary's sinfulness, is dubious, to say the least. She was preserved from sin by the One whom she worshiped as "God, my Savior"--- her Savior and ours --- Who did great things for her.
No, it’s not wrong to honor those whom God honors.
Tagline
It is not intended as an insult...but your position has been more than sufficiently repudiated....again.
Maligned and make into a substitute Jesus by Catholicism.
It's been shown over and over for years from Catholicism's own writings that this is doctrine to be followed.
Let her be who God created her to be, not a co-redeemer or a demonic apparition such as at Fatima and other places across the globe.
Years ago I was visiting in the hills above Watsonville CA (large Mexican population} and a relative-who knew I was a Christian- said that Mary has appeared in a tree and many were gathering and bowing and worshiping and she asked if I wanted to go down there and join them.
From the smile on her face I knew she knew my answer...
Please no long answers "showing" me how wrong my statements are.
Thank you Daniel
Hopefully your scholarly Biblical explanations will open some eyes to the Truth.
Puh-lease. I knew that long before I became an ex Catholic. The point is, I knew it, and did something about it.
Then the Bible fails to prove my sin as well
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.