Posted on 06/02/2014 3:21:30 PM PDT by NYer
Interesting exchanges here. Would you agree that with GOD in her womb, Mary was protected by His Presence? Or is there some other thing about the Presence of GOD within that you could tell me about? ... When Jesus said that those in The Father’s Hand cannot be taken from Him, I would read ‘Hand’ as meaning in God’s possession. So with GOD in Her, Mary would be in that special position, wouldn’t she? As to her protection from original sin, as in her state prior to GOD in her womb, well, that tradition is purely Catholic and I do not adhere to that. ... Except that God’s perspective, once one is in His possession, is so perfect that the life before ‘is no more’ as far as ... well, you get he picture. By having God in her, all of Mary’s existence is purified, from her beginning to her everlasting, because God is in the entire volume of Time now in Jesus.
“I’m not responsible for your bastardized understanding of scripture. Take it up with the “Reformers” “
Then you should have absolutely no problem “unbastardizing” them and posting them here to prove your 4 claims.
But of course you cannot because they do not exist in Scripture.
The Catholic Church is the synagogue of Satan.
MHGinTN,
Nice to run into you again!
“Would you agree that with GOD in her womb, Mary was protected by His Presence?”
It would simply be an opinion from whoever gave it. Would God the Father have an interest in protecting and preserving His Son? Sure. Is He sovereign and omnipotent? We know He is. We also know she carried to the exact time God chose for His Son’s birth. Draw a conclusion from that. It is never addressed in Scripture that I remember off the top of my head.
“When Jesus said that those in The Father’s Hand cannot be taken from Him, I would read ‘Hand’ as meaning in God’s possession. So with GOD in Her, Mary would be in that special position, wouldn’t she?”
It seems you are trying to ease into this backwards, step by step. :-)
“As to her protection from original sin, as in her state prior to GOD in her womb, well, that tradition is purely Catholic and I do not adhere to that.”
I agree with that position.
“... Except that God’s perspective, once one is in His possession, is so perfect that the life before ‘is no more’ as far as ... well, you get he picture.”
Yet, I would hasten to add, though we are in God’s hand as you pointed out above, we still have Adam’s nature within our physical body until we reach glory. At that point, we will have only His nature. Mary had Adam’s life and nature within her also, though protected in whatever way God arranged.
“By having God in her, all of Mary’s existence is purified, from her beginning to her everlasting, because God is in the entire volume of Time now in Jesus.”
And yet those who entrust themselves to Him and are saved, still sin. Their future is secured by Christ’s sacrifice. Their experience in this life on earth does not yet reflect what they will be in eternity.
To argue more for Mary is simply not in Scripture. She was highly favored *among* women - not above all other women. Her choice as bearer of Messiah was pure grace from God.
Blessings to you friend of many years.
But these guys are doing exactly what Jesus said to do...You're mocking the wrong crowd...
Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Luk 10:17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Luk 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
You need to be mocking those religionists who let people bow down to them...Those who place themselves higher than anything written in the scriptures, etc...
That tradition had to start somewhere...It certainly didn't start with the apostles...Where did it originate???
Pentecost.
Ah! So this is where we take scripture literally. Let me head on over to the herpetological section of my local Petsmart and get started on that. And yet but that whole John 6 Bread of Life discourse was metaphorical language...Okay.
P.S. I didn't know the Roman Catholic Church was forbidding me to marry.
You didn't get that from the words of God...
That means your religion made it up...Your religion was hatched from pagan worship and human philosophy and usurps some scriptures to legitimize itself...
Because the Catholic Church says so...Right...
Not my problem you only possess half of Divine Revelation. Maybe if protestants spent their time with the scripture in lectio divina rather than playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon with it they might be better off.
Kecharitomene is an utterly unique word (a hapax legomenon), that had never appeared anywhere in Greek literature prior to the passage in Luke.
The traditional English translation for kecharitomene is "full of grace." While the translation "full of grace" for kecharitomene not perfect--because it doesn't go far enough--it is far better, it seems, than the rather insipid "most highly favored" with which some have wanted to replace it.This sort of watering down landed the 16th century humanist scholar Erasmus into controversy when, in his Latin translation of the Greek New Testament, he translated the word kecharitomene as gratiosa or "favored." To translate kecharitomene as "highly favored" rather than "full of grace" still troubles Catholic, as I think it should.
Lectio difficilior potior, goes the old saying. The stronger interpretation is the better one. As Scott Hahn puts it in his notes on this part of the Gospel of Luke in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, "the best translation," and the one most in accord with the analogy of faith, "is the most exalted one," In other words, "full of grace" best fits the bill to translate kecharitomene, though Hahn acknowledges the word is not quite a perfect fit.
The reason why "full of grace" does not go far enough and so is not a perfect fit is that "full of grace" is the literal translation of the Greek πληρης χαριτος (pleres charitos). That phrase is used to refer to St. Stephen, the first martyr, in Acts 6:8. It is also used to refer to Jesus, the Word made flesh, in The Gospel of John 1:14.
The same words ("full of grace"), it would appear obvious, ought not to be used to translate different Greek words (pleres charitos in Acts 6:8 and John 1:4 and kecharitomene in Luke 1:28). This is what drives the "most highly favored" crowd.
This is particularly true in that in both Acts 6:8 and John 1:4, the words "full of grace" are used in an obvious adjectival sense, and not as a noun, even a proper name or title, which is the case in Luke 1:28.
What the Angel Gabriel wants to communicate to Mary and to us is in the word kecharitomene is that Mary has a unique name, a unique title, a unique role in sacred history, and so--though human--is a unique being in the economy of salvation.
Mary is she whose very name, whose very title, whose very office, whose very person is to have been endowed with grace in anticipation of her role as Mother of God and Mother of the Church.
That's one reason why using "full of grace" does not go far enough. It is remarkable--in fact it is of utmost importance--that kecharitomene is clearly used by the angel Gabriel--the messenger of the most High God--as a proper noun, as Mary's heavenly name.
It is sad when people make Mary into less than God did. It is heretical to make her more than God did. Your quoted passage does the second.
“The fact that Gabriel greeted Mary as he did and did not greet Zechariah the same way shows Mary’s favored position (chosen to bear Messiah)
“Gabriel’s greeting was customary: Hail! or Greetings! (Gr. chaire). Mary was highly “favored” (Gr. kecharitomene) because God chose to bestow special grace (“favor,” Gr. charis) on her (cf. Eph. 1:6, the only other New Testament occurrence of kecharitomene). “. Thomas Constable
Eph1:6 uses this word in the same way - God’s grace bestowed on believers through no merit of their own.
.
Besides in Exodus where the scripture was first given at Mt. Sinai, This passage stands out:
2Timothy 3:
16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
There you have it! Only scripture is assigned those tasks.
You may recall my being pilloried for pointing out that Mary likely carried cells from Jesus’s gestation all the rest of her life. Those cells were made by Jesus yet remain behind after birth in normal gestation and birth. It is an interesting topic ...
There. And now we have the protestant understanding.
>> “Mary has a unique name, a unique title, a unique role in sacred history, and so—though human—is a unique being in the economy of salvation.” <<
.
Nonsense in the highest!
Mary had the most common woman’s name, no title whatsoever, was not unique as a person in any way beside her lineage through David, and has absolutely nothing to do with our salvation.
If you really believe a word of what you posted there, there is no hope for you.
.
Our Blessed Mother's "Yes" to God echoes throughout all of eternity and salvation history.
Well, according to Yeshua, it is true that only scripture was given by inspiration of Yehova, but that was not the question that I intended to answer.
Traditions of men are roundly condemned by Yeshua, and by his words, only those whose righteousness exceeds that of the men that promote traditions will find his Father’s rest.
.
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.