The RC Mary has Godly attributes?

Bonnie, you know full well what I am asking. This "Christian Church" this "The way" what TYPE of Christians were they? Were they Lutherans? Methodists? Baptists? What?

That isn't the question Bonnie. I am not suggesting we can't all spread the Gospel. I am asking who has the authority to TEACH.

All believers have the authority to spread the Gospel. Not all believers have the authority to TEACH.
So, how can we spread the Gospel without teaching someone what it is? And Jesus DID say in His Great Commission about "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded." (paraphrasing).

However, not everyone is given the gift of being a formal teacher in the church, that is true. But still, sharing the Gospel does require teaching someone what the Gospel IS.
 
Bonnie, you know full well what I am asking. This "Christian Church" this "The way" what TYPE of Christians were they? Were they Lutherans? Methodists? Baptists? What?

Asked and answered, MANY times.

The true church is not limited to only one denomination, like you are (unsuccessfully) trying to force us to do.
 
Asked and answered, MANY times.

The true church is not limited to only one denomination, like you are (unsuccessfully) trying to force us to do.
Actually--RCC'ers would agree with this. The Church of Christ, says Vatican II, "subsists" in the RCC, but the Church of Christ is not strictly identified as the RCC.

In other words--we agree that the Church of Christ is broader than any one sect, or even the visible boundaries of the Roman Catholic Communion.

But you know as well as I know that this misses the point.

You yourself admitted in a post to me that----I forget what sect you are--but you admitted to me that you believe your particular sect is the most Biblical of all the sects.

Given this--why wouldn't you want and encourage all people to be part of your sect? Why wouldn't any Christian who calls themselves a "Bible Christian" not want to be in the sect that most fully conforms to Biblical teaching? Why would they be content to allow other "Bible Christians" to wallow in error in their sects?
 
Actually--RCC'ers would agree with this. The Church of Christ, says Vatican II, "subsists" in the RCC, but the Church of Christ is not strictly identified as the RCC.

Um, no.

That would be like saying,

"The Church of Christ subsists in the LDS church, but the Church of Christ is not strictly identified as the LDS church."

The church of Christ does not "subsist" in the LDS church.
The church of Christ does not "subsist" in the RCC.

But you know as well as I know that this misses the point.

No, I don't "know" that at all.
Please don't be so rude as to presume to make claims on what I allegedly "know".

You yourself admitted in a post to me that----I forget what sect you are--but you admitted to me that you believe your particular sect is the most Biblical of all the sects.

I believe so, yes.

Given this--why wouldn't you want and encourage all people to be part of your sect?

I do.
However, I go by the truism:

"In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
In all things, charity."

Why wouldn't any Christian who calls themselves a "Bible Christian" not want to be in the sect that most fully conforms to Biblical teaching?

There are many reasons why Christians might disagree with true doctrines. Monotheism is CLEARLY taught in the Bible, yet LDS reject it. The deity of Christ is CLEARLY taught in the BIble, yet JW's reject it. There are many reasons why Christians allow other factors to alter their understanding of the Bible.

Why would they be content to allow other "Bible Christians" to wallow in error in their sects?

What would you have us do?
Force them to join?
Are you actually trying to defend the Inquisition?

You don't have to have a perfect 100% understanding of Biblical theology to be saved. Even I don't claim to have such an understanding.

As long as they have the essentials, it's all good.
It'd be better if they had the non-essentials correct as well, but they'll get that on the other side of glory.
 
Here is His church:

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

He does not live in an institution or denomination. He lives in the children of God. From the day of Pentecost until this very day.
 
Um, no. That would be like saying,

"The Church of Christ subsists in the LDS church, but the Church of Christ is not strictly identified as the LDS church."

The church of Christ does not "subsist" in the LDS church. The church of Christ does not "subsist" in the RCC.
Um, yeah---no--it wouldn't be at all like saying that.

There is a big difference between a pseudo-Christian sect like the Mormons, that is in essence the Arian heresy in modern packaging---and Christianity. You are comparing apples and oranges.
I do. However, I go by the truism:

"In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity."
As I have argued before and will restate: that just pushes the question back. What are the essentials, what are the non-essentials? Protestants can't agree on that either. If they could, there would be no need for separatist sects. The Baptists, for example, felt the issue of infant baptism was important enough to have to found a separatist sect that does not have the practice. If that wasn't so essencial, we would not have Baptists would we?
There are many reasons why Christians might disagree with true doctrines. Monotheism is CLEARLY taught in the Bible, yet LDS reject it. The deity of Christ is CLEARLY taught in the BIble, yet JW's reject it. There are many reasons why Christians allow other factors to alter their understanding of the Bible.
Yeah--and it is all called "Private Judgement." This is what happens when ever believer with a Bible is given a license sit in judgement of the Church and feel free to reject any teaching they feel is not scriptural.

That is the principle of Private Judgement in action, sir. This is what happens when one rejects the teaching authority of the Church in favor of the individual.
What would you have us do? Force them to join? Are you actually trying to defend the Inquisition? You don't have to have a perfect 100% understanding of Biblical theology to be saved. Even I don't claim to have such an understanding.
How do you know you got biblical teaching right when you admit you do not have a perfect understanding of Biblical theology?
As long as they have the essentials, it's all good.
Yeah--if you can figure out and agree on what those are, sure! It is great!
 
There is a big difference between a pseudo-Christian sect like the Mormons, that is in essence the Arian heresy in modern packaging---and Christianity. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Romanism is a pseudo-Christian sect, so my analogy was spot on.

As I have argued before and will restate: that just pushes the question back.

I thought you just said, "the debate is over?"
Oh, that's right, you felt you had another opportunity to bash Protestants, which is OFF-TOPIC.

What are the essentials, what are the non-essentials?

What would be the point, since you would simply want to argue the point. Your opinion is IRRELEVANT to what Christians agree on as to the essentials.

Protestants can't agree on that either. If they could, there would be no need for separatist sects. The Baptists, for example, felt the issue of infant baptism was important enough to have to found a separatist sect that does not have the practice. If that wasn't so essencial, we would not have Baptists would we?

And here you go, continuing to bash Protestants, which is OFF-TOPIC.
This is proof that you know that Romanism is bankrupt and indefensible. That's why you can't defend it.

Yeah--and it is all called "Private Judgement." This is what happens when ever believer with a Bible is given a license sit in judgement of the Church and feel free to reject any teaching they feel is not scriptural.

More worthless Protestant bashing.
The Bible is very easy to understand.
That's why Romanists hate the Bible.
 
Bonnie, you know full well what I am asking. This "Christian Church" this "The way" what TYPE of Christians were they? Were they Lutherans? Methodists? Baptists? What?

That isn't the question Bonnie. I am not suggesting we can't all spread the Gospel. I am asking who has the authority to TEACH.

All believers have the authority to spread the Gospel. Not all believers have the authority to TEACH.
Your problem is you see a denomination, including yours, as the Christian church. It is not it is the real believers who come from all walks of like.

Your institution has leaders who do not meet the scriptural requirements for leaders, who do not do what is right, who do not expose sin therefore prove they have no authority to teach and that is why the teach false dogmas, doctrines etc.

The HS is our teacher, He reveals false teachings if we listen to Him. False leaders (yours) do not have any authority at all.
 
So what?
John was "beloved" as well.
All Christians are "beloved by God".
Mary wasn't
Where does it say that in Scripture?
It's NOWHERE found in Scripture.
That's why you don't even try to defend it.
Sure it does, Luke chapter 1.
You know Romanism is bankrupt and indefensible.
Opinion. And not a good one at that.
Truth isn't determined by "the Early Fathers".
Truth is determined by SCRIPTURE.
The Church teaches what we know of truth.
Where does Scripture teach that Elias was "sinless"?
You keep asserting this bogus claim.
He came down from heaven at Christ's transfiguration. Must've been important on earth and heaven.
I hate to break it to you, but you wife is a sinner.
Your children is a sinner.
Your priest is a sinner.
Even the pope is a sinner.
I hate to break it to you that you don't know if I have a wife or children.
It's actually a GOOD thing to confess that you are a sinner.
Yes it is. Been?
Like the publican.... 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
LIke Paul, "I am the chief of sinners."
Once again you don't know if I'm a publication, Democrat or a Republican.

JoeT
 
Wrong again.
Luke 1 says that Mary was "highly favoured", NOT "most" favoured.

Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace (most favored), the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"

Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle (feminine) of charitoo, a late Hellenistic verb. Like other verbs ending in oo (such as thaumatoo, fill with wonder: spodoomai, burn to ashes; haimatoo, tun into blood; karoo, plunge into deep sleep; ommatoo, furnish with eyes; it expresses the full intensity of an action. . .​
Michael J. Gruenthaner, S.J., in his article “Mary in the New Testament,” sums up the grammatico-etymological significance of the word very nicely: “It denotes one who has been and still is the objective of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this stat.” [The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol., CXXXIX, No. 1, July 1958. c. What Did St. Luke Mean by Kecharitomene, by Eugene R. Cole. Pg 228]​
Seems not. Seems you are wrong.

And Romanism is not Christ's church.
The Church is known as "Catholic Church". The "rite" is known as the Roman Rite (Latin: Ritus Romanus). Insofar as I know there is no "ism" to kt.

JoeT
 
Wrong again.
Luke 1 says that Mary was "highly favoured", NOT "most" favoured.
Can you quantify the difference between "most" and "highly"? We can identify anyone, in or out of Scripture, besides you self, that is "“completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.", "perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God" [Deuteronomy 18:13]. Seeing as she is full of God's grace, Mary was perfect, without spot before God. Can't get much more favored than that. Do you know any other spouce of the Holy Spirit who was favored to carry the Son of God?

Let's fill a glass full of water, when the glass if full, it is a perfect container. Excess water spills out into other containers, some wasted on the earth . We can say the the container was perfect in that it contained the quantity of water it was designed to hold. In similar fashon, Mary is a container full of grace, when the quantity of grace exceeds the capacity of the Mary it spills out unto us imperfect less favored container. Hence Mary is "most favored".

And Romanism is not Christ's church.
A reiteration for all that you missed in my last post, The Church is known as "Catholic Church". The "rite" is known as the Roman Rite (Latin: Ritus Romanus). Insofar as I know there is no "ism" to kt.
 
Can you quantify the difference between "most" and "highly"?

Childish questions...you already know the answer to.

You added "most" favored, where the Holy Spirit never did. You have to make up your own terminology because you are unhappy with following the lead of the Holy Spirit on this.

Seeing as she is full of God's grace, Mary was perfect, without spot before God.

Scripture says Steven is full of grace too.

Looks like your Mary myth has competition!


Can't get much more favored than that.

So Steven is God's most favored!

You area a genius, Joe!
 
Childish questions...you already know the answer to.

You added "most" favored, where the Holy Spirit never did. You have to make up your own terminology because you are unhappy with following the lead of the Holy Spirit on this.



Scripture says Steven is full of grace too.

Looks like your Mary myth has competition!




So Steven is God's most favored!

You area a genius, Joe!
Yep it is hard for RCs to really know who the top dog is, I mean when you replace Jesus with humans then it could be anyone.
 
Can you quantify the difference between "most" and "highly"? We can identify anyone, in or out of Scripture, besides you self, that is "“completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.", "perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God" [Deuteronomy 18:13]. Seeing as she is full of God's grace, Mary was perfect, without spot before God. Can't get much more favored than that. Do you know any other spouse of the Holy Spirit who was favored to carry the Son of God?

Being full of God's grace does not make someone sinless. The Greek words used simply mean "graced with favor; graced with grace." And God's grace in the bible usually means "undeserved favor."
Let's fill a glass full of water, when the glass if full, it is a perfect container. Excess water spills out into other containers, some wasted on the earth . We can say the the container was perfect in that it contained the quantity of water it was designed to hold. In similar fashon, Mary is a container full of grace, when the quantity of grace exceeds the capacity of the Mary it spills out unto us imperfect less favored container. Hence Mary is "most favored".

Mary was gifted with God's grace, as are all true believers. That didn't make her perfect and sinless any more than it does us. It made her and us gifted with the grace of God, with God's "undeserved favor."
A reiteration for all that you missed in my last post, The Church is known as "Catholic Church". The "rite" is known as the Roman Rite (Latin: Ritus Romanus). Insofar as I know there is no "ism" to kt.
The true church is anyone everywhere who confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and God and Savior, trusting in Him only for salvation, great and free.
 
Can you quantify the difference between "most" and "highly"? We can identify anyone, in or out of Scripture, besides you self, that is "“completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.", "perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God" [Deuteronomy 18:13]. Seeing as she is full of God's grace, Mary was perfect, without spot before God. Can't get much more favored than that. Do you know any other spouce of the Holy Spirit who was favored to carry the Son of God?

No one but Jesus Christ ever fit this description and HE alone in all the Bible was said to be without sin.
Mary was NOT PERFECT. She rejoiced in God her Savior, as do we all. She was "graced with grace; graced with favor", NOT possessing of all possible grace, making her sinless. That is the RCC reading into that verb. I consulted my cyberscholar friend, Dr. Luginbill about this, many years ago. He knows Biblical Greek and teaches it at a university. He told me about this verb:

1) Transliterated the word would be kecharitomene, but anyone dealing with Greek would describe it as what it is, a participle of the verb charitoo.

2) Of all Indo-European languages of which I am aware, Greek is the most root-focused. The import of that fact here is that the word "grace" or "favor" which is at the root of charitoo is the key to discovering what that verb means or might mean. To put the matter in terms of its essential accidence, charitoo is merely a factitive verb, that is, it's what someone does when they want to take a noun and turn it into a transitive verb. Therefore, by its structure and root the verb ought to mean "to give or bestow grace/favor to or on someone". In the case of a perfect participle in passive voice (such as we have here), the form would then mean "someone who has had grace/favor given/bestowed to/on them".

And Mary certainly was bestowed with God's favor, since He favored her to bear the Messiah, a singular honor if ever there was one. But that didn't make Mary sinless.

Years ago, a Catholic poster called this a "hapax" for reasons I no longer remember, but Luginbill responded about that, too:

3) To call this word a "hapax" in an attempt to bestow some sort of uniqueness on it is disingenuous. Not only does this verb occur throughout Greek literature - it also occurs in the Bible at Ephesians 1:6:

Having foreordained us for adoption to Himself through Jesus Christ according to the good pleasure of His will, for the purpose of producing (at salvation) praise for the glory of His grace which He has graciously bestowed on us in the Beloved [One]. Ephesians 1:5-6
Were the Ephesians perfect?

Luginbill wrote some other stuff, but I will finish with his last paragraph to me:

Also in Luke, Luke 2:52 to be precise, we are told that "Jesus continued to grow in wisdom, and in stature, and in grace with God and men". If grace or favor is progressive in the case of our unquestionably perfect Lord, how is it that in Mary's case it is "perfect from eternity"? Clearly, even our Lord in His capacity as a true human being was required to grow spiritually, showing that even in the case of someone who really didn't have a sin nature, grace or favor is still a relative thing and is dependent upon one's actions rather than being some sort of "magic" one just has. Long story short, this idea about Mary being perfect coming from Luke 1:28 is ridiculous on the face of it. Even the preferred R.C. translation doesn't say or imply that - unless, as I say, we imagine grace as "magic" and give "full of" the idea of absolute perfection and eternal residency, neither of which is either biblical or theologically reasonable to anyone who is consulting scripture and thinking for themselves.

He made a good point...our Lord grew in Grace in His earthly sojourn, yet His mom was born perfect and stayed perfect?
Let's fill a glass full of water, when the glass if full, it is a perfect container. Excess water spills out into other containers, some wasted on the earth . We can say the the container was perfect in that it contained the quantity of water it was designed to hold. In similar fashon, Mary is a container full of grace, when the quantity of grace exceeds the capacity of the Mary it spills out unto us imperfect less favored container. Hence Mary is "most favored".

Mary was HIGHLY favored and she was blessed AMONG women, not ABOVE all women.
A reiteration for all that you missed in my last post, The Church is known as "Catholic Church". The "rite" is known as the Roman Rite (Latin: Ritus Romanus). Insofar as I know there is no "ism" to kt.
YOUR church is known as the "Catholic Church." We know yours is the "Roman Rite" but that doesn't make it "right" in its theology and in some of its practices. In fact, those make your church very "wrong."
 
Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace (most favored), the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"

Oh, I see we have another member of the "magic brackets" club, where you think you can add to God's word.

Luke 1:28 ... and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, ... (KJV)
Luke 1:28 ... “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” (ESV)
Luke 1:28 ... “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” (NASB)
Luke 1:28 ... “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!” (NET)
Luke 1:28 ... “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” (NIV)

The only translation I can find that renders it "full of grace" is the Rheims. Even the NAB renders it, "favoured one".

Kecharitomene is the perfect passive participle (feminine) of charitoo, a late Hellenistic verb. Like other verbs ending in oo (such as thaumatoo, fill with wonder: spodoomai, burn to ashes; haimatoo, tun into blood; karoo, plunge into deep sleep; ommatoo, furnish with eyes; it expresses the full intensity of an action. . .​

What is your source for this? Is it Gruenthaner?
I've never come across any grammar that asserts that the perfect tense "expresses the full intensity of an action".

It simply refers to the "completion" (a common connotation of "τελειος" in the Bible) of an action which happened in the past, or as often expressed, "a completed past action with enduring effects into the present".

Michael J. Gruenthaner, S.J., in his article “Mary in the New Testament,” sums up the grammatico-etymological significance of the word very nicely: “It denotes one who has been and still is the objective of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this stat.” [The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol., CXXXIX, No. 1, July 1958. c. What Did St. Luke Mean by Kecharitomene, by Eugene R. Cole. Pg 228]​

This is correct.
Mary was "graced", and continues to live in that grace.
Just like ALL Christians.

Nothing about "full of grace" here.

Seems not. Seems you are wrong.

No, it seems that I'm 100% correct.

The Church is known as "Catholic Church". The "rite" is known as the Roman Rite (Latin: Ritus Romanus). Insofar as I know there is no "ism" to kt.

Okay, you want to nitpick.
Fair enough.
The "Catholic Church" is not the church of Christ.
 
Luke 1:28: "Hail, full of grace (most favored), the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women"

Btw, the "full of grace" rendering is a mistranslation of the Vulgate into the Rheims New Testament.

So not only does it have the problem of the "telephone game" (Greek to Latin to English), but the Greek to Latin translation lost precision, since Latin is a less expressive and more limited language than Greek.
 
Back
Top