You say the Bible doesn't contradict itself: OK, but it does present paradoxes for interpretation. Every one who reads the Bible has seen this:
PS 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. Who is Josephs father?? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one. ISA 14:21 Prepare to slaughter the children for the iniquity of their fathers EX. 33:11"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." GEN 32:30"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." GEN 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." |
Relevant to our present discussion is that everyone sins and thus everyone has to die; but Elijah goes up to heaven in a fiery chariot without dying.
2KI 2:11"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
-vs-
JOH 3:13"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man."
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing in the manner of a smart-aleck atheist who reads Scripture without real study, and in a superficial way; nor in the manner of a ex-fundamentalist Scripture scholar like Bart Ehrman, who in a surfeit of scholarship, was driven right out of the faith by textual variants and scribal errors.
So, back to our topic. Every verse that says "For there is not a just (or righteous) man upon earth," can be matched by a verse that explicitly says such-and-such is just (or righteous) ---for instance Noah, Joseph, etc.
The text that says "All sin" can be matched by a verse that says Mary is full of grace (FULL of grace excludes sin.) . She was an exception. Predestined to impart a perfect human nature to Jesus (otherwise He would have received a damaged nature like everybody else, since He is a descasndant of Adam and Eve.) That's why the unique, exceptional sinlessness of Mary is expressed by the unique, exceptional word "Kecharitomene."
You need the whole Bible as context. Enjoy (LINK)
Who took Elijah up to Heaven?
How do we get to Heaven?
No contradiction here.
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!
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.