Posted on 07/29/2014 4:02:28 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Jessa Duggar is currently courting Ben Seewald, a very strong Christian with very strong views on things. His views on the Catholic faith, however, recently caused a social media scandal and Seewald deleted the comments he had posted to his Facebook page.
"Where Catholics depart from Scripture, I will in no way support, but will call them out because I love them and desire that they be turned from their deadly errors," Seewald wrote. He also noted that he disagreed with the claim that Jesus' mother Mary was a "sinless being. I have nothing against individuals who are Catholic," he continued. "I know a lot of Catholics who are great people. What I DO have a problem with is the teaching that man can merit God's favor through his own works or the works of other fallen men."
Seewald was still not through expressing his disappointment with the Catholic tradition.
"I DO have a problem with the teaching that man can come to God through Mary or any other person besides Jesus … I DO have a problem with the deification of Mary as a sinless being. Mary herself admitted her need for a Savior. If she had no sin, she would need no Savior," he concluded.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
If we go extra-Biblical the door is wide open to other teachings. I cited Mormonism as one. They can make the same claim the RCC does in that their extra-Biblical "teachings" were handed down from the apostles as well.
Their claim that Christ appeared to the Indians in North America can no more be disputed, or substantiated, than the RCC claims regarding Mary.
See the danger when you go extra-Biblical?
blue, you have set up a false choice there, bud
Your post suggests there are other forms of worship you may give to others.
Ultimate generally means the greatest or most extreme.
Did you mean to say you give only God worship?
If Mary is in need of salvation she is not sinless.
The biblical position on Mary is that she was a sinner and in need of salvation.
Glad you agree on this!
Who told you that fairy tale?
who told you the fairy tale that the church outside the Catholic church is all that and a bag of chips?
To which you attach a youtube link (to an 11 minute video?) Enjoy? You've got to be kidding.
I'm not going to sit through that as some sort of topper to the arguments you have been making here in regards to Luke 1:28.
Doubtless you have been shown before what I will here again proved partial information for, for I do seem to recall that this particular counter to your own argument has been posted to yourself at least once.
Guys like Matt Slick have blown huge holes in the precise Marion apologetic which you have been publishing here.
He is not the only one to have done so either.
Check out the Curriculum Vitae of Robert Dean Luginbill, Ph.D.. He also shreds the usual Marionist apologetic claims in regards to Luke 1:28 here-->http://ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm
The key aspect is that the "full of grace" passages when referring to Mary exist only in Latin Vulgate, and those later translations which rely upon that text as their base, rather than turning to Greek texts, which oldest are all well known, numbered and cataloged, and have been extensively compared to one another for many centuries, and are now more accessible than ever.
I checked the Peshitta also, just to make sure, and there is no "full of grace" but there was a "full...peace sort of thing. I would provide link to it, but had to shut tabs down for presently I have so many open this browser keeps hanging up.
All the Romanist huffing and puffing & bluffing that they alone hold some secret key to understanding may be comforting myth for [Roman] Catholics, but it is myth (and a prideful one) all the same. All the little rather organically arising 'mutual support for Marion mythology' societies are little ships full of FOOLS whom delude themselves and others, regardless of the fact the little "Mary" boats were being cobbled and fashioned from contrived, bad eisegesis (and more than a touch of Gnosticism, both capital letter and small case "g" gnosticism) rather than actual Apostolic and scriptural basis, from quite early in Christian history.
Men let their imaginations carry them too far along in their conjecturing of how things of God should be, with even many Christian churchmen seeing things which were not "there", and teaching things they themselves were not taught through Apostolic source. A bit of gnosticism and "fancy" entered the historic record in that manner.
Turning back more precisely to the Scripture itself,
As Matt (more gently than I) shares;
The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary."And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people." (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?
The Latin Vulgate is the Latin translation of the Bible done by St. Jerome in the fourth century. It is here in Luke 1:28 that is found the unfortunate Latin translation which says "ave gratia plena "Hail full of grace.'" Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek--not Latin--but the Roman Church has derived its doctrine from the Latin translation--not the Greek original. Therefore, it constructed its doctrine on a false translation. Of course, it cannot correct itself since so much is invested in the worship, adoration, and prayer to Mary in the Roman Catholic Church; and to recant of this false teaching would greatly lessen its credibility. Unfortunately, this means that millions of Catholics will continue to look to Mary for help--not Christ who is truly full of grace.
So what do the other translations say about Luke 1:28? Let's find out.
The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear--"having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you."The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament--And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."
American Standard Version--"And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."
English Standard Version--"And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!
Today's English Version--'"The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”
King James Version--"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
New American Standard Bible--"And coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.
He continues on with many more English language versions (we are discussing this "full of grace" aspect in English, aren't we?) demonstrating that none today (other than Vulgate-dependent versions) indicate the angel was telling Mary that she was "full of grace".
This is not some sort of "Protestant" plot, either, but rather is closer adherence to the texts, with the evidence of Jerome's Latin translation being somewhat accidentally(?) part of the departure from truth the matters (in regard to Mary). By Jerome's day, Marionism was off to good start, if we can call it good, rather than the subtly (and not so subtly) blasphemous error that it is, in regards to Hebraic monotheism to which we should as Christians adhere to, speaking of needing the "whole bible as context".
Link to Unbound Bible with side-by-side comparative English: New American Standard Bible, Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000); Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1550/1894) ; Latin: Vulgata Clementina.
Don't look now, but your argument and the little "ship" just received a broadside from which it can in no wise recover. There is a gaping hole in the main hull of your apologetic.
The previous link to Luginbill peppers it with additional devastating (to your position) well informed and educated truth, sending "full of grace" argumentative as basis for utter and complete sinlessness of Mary, to the bottom of the waters of Tiamat.
Again;
Who was it that told you;
Will you answer that or keep ducking the question?
It is not that I am seeking information, but that I am trying to force you to examine things more carefully.
To God alone goes the Glory.
See also the above #187
It sinks more than one of your battleships? ha!
"Infallible" dogmatic proclamations my foot.
I am not your pal and maybe you should read Scott Hahn
The Holy Spirit confirms that the initial part of that inquiry [church outside the Catholic church] is no fairy tale, any more than I myself, and millions of other Christians other than [Roman] Catholic sorts, are invisible.
As to a "bag of chips" the Lord spoke to me (by the Spirit) some 35 years ago, in response to my own whining "oh God. What am I going to do (for a job, career, etc.) ...what am I going to eat?" [whimper whimper]
THat irritated Him.
He was a bit cross with me (I could sense his anger) when he surprisingly replied, as accurately as I can recall, word-for-word the following;
coming as "words" spoken to me internally (as compared to hearing it through my physical ears). I do remember too, being quite stunned. It was unexpected to to not only receive immediate reply in that manner, but the information itself, and the very irritation which I was given to sense that I had caused in Him, all of that together toolme entirely by surprise.
It was one of the first times (if not the first?) I ever heard Him "speak" like that. I had one of those ruh-roh (I'm in trouble now) moments, but still had to thank Him, for all.
It's good to recall from time-to-time the things He has said.
I do tend to forget. We have the Scriptures to go by, too. The written record is like memory,
He of course, does not (forget) unless purposefully doing so, according to Scripture.
Micah 7:19 (NIV)
You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.
As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.
Though the Lord is in many ways rather invisible to us, He is also present wherever His ekklesia is to be found, regardless of ~any~ form of Romanist blathering commentary to the contrary.
He refuses to be held prisoner. He never promised that He would be available only under the auspices and [ahem] tender mercies of the [Roman] Catholic church either.
Whoever told you that, told you that as part of a pack of grievous LIES.
My own personal experience, the experience of millions of others, scripture itself and earliest Church history too, all bear witness against certain and particular Romanisms.
Deal with it.
Your pope is. The prior one did too.
Catholic theologians are. Bit by bit they are coming to grips with it.
Set yourself down and take a look around?
Pal or no pal I have read a bit of Hahn, and most every other modern day, popular apologist for Roman Catholicism.
I am not impressed with the apologetic which he offers, for I have examined much of it in light of wider evidences, and found it as wanting as the "story" has generally been for hundreds of years now.
Now instead of yourself ignoring all evidence set before you which does at times refute guys like Hahn (which you recommend for me to read) do as you direct others to do and do some reading (and thinking?) yourself, for a change, wise-guy.
that doesnt mean she is sinless
especially when she herself said she had a savior
sinless people do not need a saviour
you keep avoiding what it says
may be you are right but maybe you are not
proverbs tells both of us not to be so sure
I am returned to the Catholic Church after a long and unproductive detour to the Methodists
"Jeremiah 1:5 (ESV): "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you..."
or John the Baptist, who received the Holy Spirit when he was just a 6-months-young'un in the womb of Elizabeth.
The difference with Mary was just a matter of he being a few months earlier, even, than John the Baptist when it happened: she received His filling with grace when she was conceived. Conception is when human nature is transmitted to the next generation. Therefore she had an unflawed human nature, which is the human nature she transmitted to Jesus --- her Savior.
It has nothing to do with any kind of "personal merit" as if she had earned it. It has everything to do with God's predestining her to be the one to supply His human nature by her maternity.
Therefore the Angel of God addressed her with the unique title "She who is full of grace," which would have been a lie if she were a sinner.
Yes indeed! The mother of God is sinless. If she committed any sin the Bible would have said so since the Bible contains all truth, right.
"All" were not picked by God to be the Ark of the Covenant to carry God's Son, either.
No where, and I repeat no where, is Mary ever called the Ark of the Covenant in the New or Old Testament.
Hence, she has sinned and has fallen short of the glory of God.
are you serious???
You think that john the Baptist got saved in the WOMB???
HAHAHAHAHAAHahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha
You sure got some funny doctrine, this conversation ended!
Wow - Who made you God? Or infallible Bible reader?
What happened to Jeremiah, to John, and to Mary were three separate, distinguishable, prenatal events: which is why I said "analogously similar" and not "precisely the same." The point is that God can save a soul from from the stain of Original Sin and convey outstanding blessings on a person before birth --- not that one can be once-and-for-all "saved" before birth (in the sense of irreversibly destined for heaven.)
That's not how Catholics understand "saved"--- we don't see it as a permanent, irreversible destiny that cannot be altered by subsequent choices.
So I invited your misunderstanding by not first defining "saved."
At no point were Jeremiah, John, or Mary deprived of their free will, their ability to make moral choices. They did not at that point become automatons for the Lord. They were never more or less than human.
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.