Christian: Mary, Mother of God (Jesus Christ, Earth, gospel, grace)

[athanasius]

MR Writer Said

based on your summary, i don't think i could fairly call him that

My answer

Wow. Again your haughty arrogance comes out. Well if you think you can refute him using your knowledge of the Greek go ahead. But let me ask you this. Are YOU a New testament Greek Scholar? What credentials do you have in Greek? How many years have you studied?

Do you have a Masters or doctorate in New Testament Koine Greek? Have you written books or taught it? What makes you think you can make a better case using Greek than he can if he has far more knowledge of the language than you?? Again this just a example of anti-intellectual fundamentalist boohooing.


Writer also said


if you respect it, feel free to share any of it. If u want

My answer

I will not type six pages worth of info on this board. Father Mateo has demonstrated in 6 pages why this is. If you would like to read it, its in his book “Refuting the attack on Mary” (Pages 20-26). When you read his examples from the Greek in the new testament lets see you refute it with your own knowledge. This I would like to see.


writer also said

Thanks Mr A. But i think you're downright mistaken. I said "kind poster's"---that is, You. Singular. I didn't accuse all Catholics,

My response


Oh, Sorry!!! You just think I Worship Mary! Well, big difference there!!! Again. When Did I ever say I worshipped Mary???????? I never did! So why do you believe I do? This is just sneaky and dishonest wording on your part. YOu(Like most fundamentalist) have the false idea that Catholics worship Mary.

When you said that I did, what you really meant was We(Catholics) do, because I am the one in this debate who is representing the Catholic side. I have already shown you that we do not and have never taught that. And Our Catechsim states this plainly.


Writer said

Catholics do not teach that Mary HAD TO BE to bear Jesus...how much more sinless would you HAVE TO BE to have Jesus..."
So, if i understand u correctly, dear Athanasius, you're teaching what Catholics do not teach?

My response;

Ok, I can admit my wording was not the best for this sentence. The Catholic Church officially teaches(And I assent to their teaching) that Mary didn’t have to be sinless, but Jesus made her sinless(as alluded in Luke 1:28 and Others Passages) because it would be the most "fitting" thing for him to do. Perhaps I should have phrased it this way:

“If the ordinary wisdom of God won’t dwell in a normal Body full of sin(Wisdom 1:4), then it would seem only logical and “fitting” typologically that Jesus (The wisdom of God incarnate(1 Cor 1:24) would gift his mother with this grace, being that he would dwell in her for 9 months literally".



Writer said


Jesus' human nature didn't create His mother. Rather: His mother's human nature, by reproduction, and the Holy Spirit's divine fertilization, created Jesus' humanity.
As God, of course, the Son of God created Mary along with all things


My answer

Thank you for your response. Yes of coarse Jesus Created his mother before he became incarnate. That is not what I am debating here. I simply meant, It would make sense and would seem to be most “fitting” in my mind that Jesus would Honor her and glorify her with this special gift of sinlessness. (the early Christian Fathers of the church who knew Greek thought this too) Think about it.

If you could create your own Mother, would you create her defiled in sin? I sure wouldn’t. The Gospel of Luke (1:28) has been traditionally understood that Jesus didn’t. Jesus being a Jew and the Son of God would have fulfilled the law perfectly.

Part of that law was to “Honor your Mother and father” . In the Hebrew the word for honor literally means to “glorify”. We know he glorified his Father. We also believed he glorified his mother by giving her special grace and creating her sinless(As Luke 1:28 suggest).

We believe he also glorified her and made her the Ark of the new covenant and the New Eve(also as Luke 1 suggest) and the fathers of the Church and Christianity for 2000 years have taught. So sorry but your wrong.


writer said

God didn't create sin, nor sinful humanity. God created man "very good." Sinless. Sin is Satan's own (John 8:44). As you kindly, and accurately, point out: Jesus' mother did not need to be sinless to conceive and deliver Him


My answer

Yes God didn’t create sin! Amen! You are right. But he did make his mother sinless . She did not need to be but we believe(With the church for 2000 years) that he saw that it was “fitting” for her(Since she would fulfill the Old Testament typologies of Eve and the Ark of the covenant) and He glorified her in a way only sons on earth would dream of being able to glorify or honor their mothers. Amen!

[writer]

61 Again your haughty arrogance comes out.
'gain? I wuz tryin to respond humbly to u or your friend

if you think you can refute him using your knowledge of the Greek go ahead.
I 'ready did (post 58, 2nd para)

Are YOU a New testament Greek Scholar?
Enuf to refute your kind amigo's nonsense. Tho it takes no Greek to see thru such transparent silliness. No offence, pleze

What credentials do you have in Greek?
I can read that the kechariton in Lk 1:28 has the same root ("charitoo"), and hence the same basic meaning as most or all other uses of "grace" or "favor" in the NT

How many years have you studied?
A few

Do you have a Masters or doctorate in New Testament Koine Greek?
No

Have you written books or taught it?
Jus a little informally. Kinda like i'm doing now

What makes you think you can make a better case using Greek than he can if he has far more knowledge of the language than you??
'cuz whether somethin's true or factual, or not, duzn't depend on the knowledge, and/or purported knowledge, of the speaker. Instead: it depends on whether the particular something's true or not

Again this just a example of anti-intellectual fundamentalist boohooing.
Az i mentioned in my last post to you (60, para 4): i would characterize more as anti-intellectual your apparent attempt to substitute arguments about credentials for arguments on the merits. If by "fundamentalist" you mean someone who takes the Scriptures as God's preeminent and infallible written authority, then i guess that's fair. If you seek to slur me, or mean something else by "fundamentalist," or "boohooing": then mebbe someday u can share what you mean

I will not type six pages worth of info on this board.
Thas why i wrote in my post 60, para 3: ANY of it. But i understand if you're "protecting" your source. I wouldn't wanna pass on gibb'rish, at least publicly, either

Father Mateo has demonstrated in 6 pages why this is. If you would like to read it, its in his book “Refuting the attack on Mary” (Pages 20-26).
Based on your vague summary, i wouldn't advise you or anyone else to waste their time. But, for purposes of debate, if you respect it, by all means, anytime, feel free to share some

When you read his examples from the Greek in the new testament lets see you refute it with your own knowledge. This I would like to see.
If u would, print all or some of his examples here. Thanx

Oh, Sorry!!! You just think I Worship Mary! Well, big difference there!!!
Thanks for apology

Again. When Did I ever say I worshipped Mary????????
55 how much more sinless would you have to be to have Jesus(Wisom Personified) literally dwelling in your body for 9 months?
57 We gladly give glory and honor and praise to her but we never ever worship her.
The four living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits upon the throne...Worthy is the Lamb who's been slain to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing. And every creature which's in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea and all things in them, I heard saying, To Him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped

61 When you said that I did, what you really meant was We(Catholics) do, because I am the one in this debate who is representing the Catholic side.
To the contrary, i wrote, and meant, what i wrote.
Whereas (and i again thank you sincerely for your apology) what you've just written was:
61 Ok, I can admit my wording was not the best for this sentence.
Thanx

...Jesus made her sinless(as alluded in Luke 1:28 and Others Passages) because it would be the most "fitting" thing for him to do.
I find it absolutely unfitting, to say nothing of unscriptural, to imagine such a thing b4 He was born. To borrow a thought from JamesThePersian's post 44: such fantasy is Maryological. Not a Christological statement at all. Who is the center of both God's economy, plan; and of all Scripture. And the only One sinless from the womb

If the ordinary wisdom of God won’t dwell in a normal Body full of sin(Wisdom 1:4)
I'll have to look at your book Wisdom 1. But it is not, never was, never has been, never will be, and never could be Scripture. And like the rest of the Apocrypha, contains much junk

It would make sense and would seem to be most “fitting” in my mind that Jesus would Honor her and glorify her with this special gift of sinlessness.
He will and has begun to honor and glorify His entire Body, including all His members, with something vastly and instrinsically superior to sinlessness. That is: Himself. The eternal life. Eventually, in such consummate glorification, entire sinlessness will of course be ours. Perhaps many deceased in Christ, like Mary, even though not yet glorified, already are enjoying that. One reason your above comment makes no sense, and's absolutely unfitting, in my mind, is that Christ's Body is Christ. He's all and in all. And His members equally, in that sense, should and will reflect Him. Not other members

the early Christian Fathers of the church who knew Greek thought this too) Think about it.
Think about whut? i do think o' their superstitiousness or ignorance in that regard

If you could create your own Mother, would you create her defiled in sin?
God (the Word) didn't create man sinful. Adam and Eve He created good. Man fell. That's the situation of inherited sin

I sure wouldn’t. The Gospel of Luke (1:28) has been traditionally understood that Jesus didn’t. Jesus being a Jew and the Son of God would have fulfilled the law perfectly.
Thas why much tradition is incompatible with both God and His book. In any case, there's no law that Jews, or God, must create their mother sinless

“Honor your Mother and father” . In the Hebrew the word for honor literally means to “glorify”. We know he glorified his Father. We also believed he glorified his mother by giving her special grace and creating her sinless(As Luke 1:28 suggest).
Mary sought to correct God incarnate by telling Him "Child, why have you treated us like this? Behold, Your father and I, being greatly distressed, have been seeking You." (Lk 2:48). Jesus, altho nice, of course didn't take her mistaken notion. And used the opportunity to correct them, even though they didn't understand. "And He said to them, Why is it that you were seeking Me? Did you not know that I must be in the things of My Father?" (2:49-50). In any case, He honored them completely and was subject to them (2:51) as a youth. Them. Being subject to His adoptive dad Joseph too. Whom, like Mary, wasn't sinless. As Creator of the universe, Christ is under no obligation to old-create His mother sinless

[athanasius]

When told that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary had been “graced” unlike any other, Mr writer said she had not. He also claimed that he took a few years of Greek.

I do not know how Mr Writer thinks that a 2nd or 3rd year student in Greek could possibly take down a New testament Biblical Greek Scholar who has Graduate degrees in Koine and taught Greek a universities, but we will let Mr Writer amuse himself.

He also seemed to ignore the fact that the Fathers of the Church(Who knew Greek first hand) saw Mary as being blessed with a special “grace” of holiness and Sinlessness. He just says that all the Fathers of the church are “Superstitious”. Shame on him. It was these fathers of the Church who were taught by the Apostles themselves and their successors.

It was these fathers of the Church that Mr Writer owes a great deal to(though he won’t admit it) for preserving, teaching, and preaching the Christian faith and giving him the biblical Canon, but we have already seen that Mr writer does not know anything about the canon issue or church history(As my debate with him on Sola scriptura has clearly shown, check it out) so why should this be surprising?

Again how does Mr writer thinks he can interpret the Word of God better than those Christian Fathers who knew firsthand the apostles and their disciples and the languages better than him and have been much closer to the time of Christ than he was.? Simple because he believes in Sola Writer.

Only Writer can correctly interpret the Word of God correctly(Just ask Baerly he’ll tell you), only writer can really know what the Greek says even though he is not a Greek Scholar and the historical fathers disagree with him., Only writer is always right! Sola Writer! Now, as for your comments on Luke 1:28, you said the following to me:

“I can read that the kechariton in Lk 1:28 has the same root ("charitoo"), and hence the same basic meaning as most or all other uses of "grace" or "favor" in the NT”

“Enuf to refute your kind amigo's(Father Mateo’s, a Greek scholar) nonsense. Tho it takes no Greek to see thru
such transparent silliness.”


“to the contrary: it's the same root”


“To the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He graced us in the beloved, wrote Paul”(Eph 1:5-6)


Now My response to your folly:

Wow your in Luck Mr writer. The Verse you quote from (Eph 1:5-6) and the arguments you just made, are the exact arguments that Father Mateo refuted amply in his Book “Refuting the attack on Mary”(Pages 20-26). I will simple type a little of what he had to say about the Greek and its meaning in regards to Mary and the passage you quote.

Here is what the New testament Greek Scholar Father Mateo had to say :

“THE VERB IN EPH 1:6 DOES NOT IMPLY SINLESS PERFECTION, BUT THE FORM OF THE SAME VERB IN LUKE 1:28 DOES, BECAUSE THE TWO VERB FORMS USE DIFFERENT STEMS, EACH EXPRESSING A DIFFERENT MODALITY OF THE VERBS LEXICAL MEANINGS. EPH 1:6 USES THE FIRST AORIST ACTIVE INDICATIVE FORM, ECHARITOSEN, ‘HE GRACED , BESTOWED GRACE’. THIS FORM , BASED ON AN AORIST STEM, EXPRESSES MOMENTARY ACTION, ACTION SIMPLY BROUGHT TO PASS. IT CANNOT EXPRESS ANY FULLNESS OF BESTOWING BECAUSE THE AORIST TENSE DOES NOT SHOW COMPLETION WITH PERMANENT RESULT.

BUT LUKE 1:28 USES THAT PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE, KECHARITOMENE. THE PERFECT STEM OF THE GREEK VERB DENOTES ‘CONTINUANCE OF A COMPLETED ACTION’ ; COMPLETED ACTION WITH PERMANENT RESULTS IS DENOTED BY THE PERFECT STEM. ON MORPHOLOGICAL GROUNDS, THEREFORE, IT IS CORRECT TO PARAPHRASE KECHARITOMENE AS ‘COMPLETELY , PERFECTLY, ENDURINGLY ENDOWED WITH GRACE. THIS BECOMES CLEARER WHEN WE EXAMINE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES OF VERBS IN THE PERFECT TENSE.”(FATHER MATEO , REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY PAGE 20-21)

Of coarse the early fathers of the church also believe this:


Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom GRACE has made INVIOLATE , free of every stain of SIN."
Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, Immaculate of the Immaculate, one of the one."
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and NO STAIN in thy Mother."
"Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of GRACE for overcoming SIN in every particular was CONFERRED UPON HER who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin."
Augustine,Nature and Grace,42[36](A.D.415),in NPNF1,V:135


Of coarse Mr writer says these fathers were all just superstitious. Again Mr writer your non-answer to the fathers is exactly where I get the idea that your a anti-intellectual fundamentalist . 

But Mr writer seems to have one more problem up his sola scriptura sleeve. If he disagrees that Mary is given special grace that made her free of sin in Luke 1:28 then not only does he disagree with the early Church but he also disagrees with other Bible only, Sola scriptura Christians such as Martin Luther.

Martin Luther, went by the bible alone. Sola Scriptura. He prayed for grace from God to be able to interpret the Scriptures just like writer would do.
But Luther would interpret Mary to be graced with sinlessness in Luke 1:28; Here is what the reformer himself had to say:

“she is full of Grace proclaimed to be entirely without sin...Gods grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil”(Martin Luther Personal Prayer book 1522)

So what is Mr writer to do with this? He not only avoids the historical interpretation of this passage by the Fathers, but now he avoids the interpretation that uncle Marty gives himself. Remember folks, Martin Luther went by the Bible alone, just like Writer claims to do. Could it be possible that Writer is wrong, and Luke 1:28 does imply the sinlessness of Mary as Martin Luther taught?


Can Mr writer who claims to go by sola scriptura really say that Luke 1:28 doesn’t teach Mary’s sinlessness? If he does then by what authority can he say that? By biblical Authority alone and the Holy Spirit? Martin Luther would say he got his interpretation the same way.

And Yet Mr writer disagrees with him on this important doctrine. If other bible only Christians like Martin Luther can say that this verse teaches Mary’s sinlessness then how can Writer be for sure that he isn’t wrong and Luther’s interpretation isn’t right? Can sola scriptura solve this for us.

This Im afraid is the nail in the coffin for Mr Writer on this issue. He keeps avoiding these types of questions and giving non-answers for them(See my debate on sola scriptura). We have now seen that Mr writer cannot ever really know for sure that Catholics are wrong about the interpretation of Luke 1:28 and Mary’s sinlessness.

He cannot know given that sola Scriptura is his method and sola scriptura has just proven itself to be unworkable as we have just seen. Oh sure he will say Martin Luther is wrong, but by what authority? Biblical? Luther would say the same thing to him. Sola Scriptura cannot give your surety on doctrine.

In the end this is the folly of Mr writer’s argument. It becomes clear that Not only the bible alone is needed for understanding proper doctrine, but also we need to hold fast to those oral Traditions that apostles gave us and handed down to the fathers(2 Thess 2:15). And we need a authoritative Church that Jesus established(Matt 18:15-20) top guide us into proper scriptural understanding(Act 8:30-32). Of coarse Mr writer wouldn’t even have that bible if it wasn’t for the fathers of the Catholic church and her councils and Popes, but he will never admit that(See my debate on sola scriptura)

[writer]

63 When told that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary had been “graced” unlike any other, Mr writer said...
Since u seem to want to address your pretend audience rather than me, would u like me to respond dear Athanasius? In the 3rd person?

When told that Luke 1:28 shows that Mary had been “graced” unlike any other, Mr writer said she had not.
To the contrary: Writer wrote that Mary, like all other saints, wasn't sinless.
And that she, like all other members of Christ's Body, has been equally graced in the Beloved in His resurrection (Eph 1:6, post 58). That's the point of a Body. As far as Mary having the unique favor, grace, and blessing of bearing Christ in her womb physically for 9 months as a fetus (post 58): there's no debate about that. Is there Mr Athanasius?

He also claimed that he took a few years of Greek.
To the contrary, post 62 reads "How many years have you studied?" "A few"

I do not know how Mr Writer thinks that a 2nd or 3rd year student in Greek could possibly take down a New testament Biblical Greek Scholar who has Graduate degrees in Koine and taught Greek a universities, but we will let Mr Writer amuse himself.
If u really were interested in knowing how, Mr A, you could feel free to print here any of what your so-called New Testament Biblical Greek Scholar, who has graduate degrees in Koine and taught Greek in universities, says

the Fathers of the Church(Who knew Greek first hand) saw Mary as being blessed with a special “grace” of holiness and Sinlessness.
What "grace" isn't "holiness," Mr A? Which grace isn't sinful? Mr A. What human was uniquely sinless? Jesus Christ (Rom 23; 2 Cor 5:21). Who is the focus of your Bible, even the parts about Mary or Joseph etc, Mr A: Christ or Mary? Who do you think was the apostles' focus, Mr A: God or Mary?
You appear not only to misrepresent the apostles, but also some early postapostolic believers. Some, sorry to say, did have the superstition to which you refer, such as, apparently, Origen, Irenaeus, and Augustine, however and for example, contradict your and their blasphemous superstition where he writes:
"When Mary was urging on to perform the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, 'Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come'" (Iren Against Heresies book 3, ch 15, section 7). Although Iren was mistaken to associate the Lord changing water into wine in John 2 directly with the Lord's Table; he was accurate to point out that the Lord corrected His mom. Similar to how the Lord corrected Mary's improper blame of Him in Luke 2. As mentioned in post 62.
Tertullian, similar to Irenaeus, had no supestition that Mary was sinless. He wrote, against certain heretical teaching, in On the Flesh Of Christ, ch 7: "There is some ground for thinking that Christ's answer denies His mother and brothers for the present...While there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother's adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him. In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, while strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; because they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait, as if they had something they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work...Did not Christ, while preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ the same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work?"

He just says that all the Fathers of the church are “Superstitious”. Shame on him.
Thank u for your help, dear Mr A. But to the contrary, if you're capable of shame: my post 62 reads: "the early Christian Fathers of the church who knew Greek thought this too) Think about it." "Think about what? Their superstitiousness or ignorance in that regard? I do." I specified superstion, here, only in THIS REGARD. And, as seen partially from the paragraph above: only in regard to some early believers, unlike Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine, who had such a superstition

It was these fathers of the Church who were taught by the Apostles themselves and their successors.
To the contrary: no apostle ever taught sinlessness of Mary from her mom's womb

[Victor]

Just a recommendation athanasius and writer: Try using the forum buttons and features to enhance clarity. It makes it easier for others to follow along when things are different colors and are quoted. Play around with it to get comfortable with it.

[writer]

63 THE VERB IN EPH 1:6 DOES NOT IMPLY SINLESS PERFECTION, BUT THE FORM OF THE SAME VERB IN LUKE 1:28 DOES, BECAUSE THE TWO VERB FORMS USE DIFFERENT STEMS, EACH EXPRESSING A DIFFERENT MODALITY OF THE VERBS LEXICAL MEANINGS.
Thank you Mr A. You Did print some of your Greek "scholar's" arguments. I'm sorry I didn't notice them till the end of your post. Please accept my apology. Here's my response.
Since grace, ultimately, is God Himself; In Christ; As Spirit; of course grace is "sinless." But according to the apostle's teaching in 1 John 1:8-2:2----"If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us...If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us...He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for those of the whole world"----although grace is sinless: for anyone such as believers in Christ to be graced doesn't mean that they themselves are sinless, or that sin has been eradicated from their flesh or their being. Such a thing is impossible until the resurrection or glorification of the believers' physical bodies (cf Eph 1:4); or perhaps in decease. And, offhand, I'm aware of no NT use of "grace" in that explicit regard. Certainly not Luke 1:28. So regardless of prefixes or suffixes, tenses or modalities, nothing can alter the root meaning(s) of the NT word "grace." Certainly not Mr Mateo's gibberish or babbling. Highly-favored, highly-graced simply means what it says. Highly-favored. Highly-graced. It does not mean "sinlessness." Grace is one thing. Sinlessness is merely one, eventual, result. And a different, separate, word

EPH 1:6 USES THE FIRST AORIST ACTIVE INDICATIVE FORM, ECHARITOSEN, ‘HE GRACED , BESTOWED GRACE’. THIS FORM , BASED ON AN AORIST STEM, EXPRESSES MOMENTARY ACTION, ACTION SIMPLY BROUGHT TO PASS. IT CANNOT EXPRESS ANY FULLNESS OF BESTOWING BECAUSE THE AORIST TENSE DOES NOT SHOW COMPLETION WITH PERMANENT RESULT.
Luke 1:28 says no such thing as "fullness of grace." It simply says "graced." "Highly-graced." In addition, to depreciate Paul's blessing as the introduction to one of his highest works, concerning Christ and the church, shows how nonchristian or poor Mr Mateo's thought, revelation, or understanding of Christ and salvation may be in general. "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus and are faithul in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with EVERY spiritual BLESSING in the heavenlies IN CHRIST, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He graced us in the Beloved." God's eternal. His salvation, His gracing, is of course eternal. It's even predestinated. That's part of His grace. Of course it hasn't been completed yet. This is much more than a physical pregnancy for 9 months. Mary's grace in Lk 1:28 was "completed" because she was chosen to be the conduit through which God became flesh. That's all Lk 1:28 refers to. And Mary's grace in Lk 1:28 is not her end. It's not the end. It's not an end in itself. It's for the grace of salvation available thru Christ to all humans. It's for God's predestination unto sonship. It's for Mary's (and my, and all other believers') grace in Ephesians 1. God the Father's choosing before the foundation of the world; His predestinating through His Son; and His gracing in His Beloved (Christ); is, contary to your Mr dear Mateo's evil and superstitious phrasing: extremely full

BUT LUKE 1:28 USES THAT PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE, KECHARITOMENE. THE PERFECT STEM OF THE GREEK VERB DENOTES ‘CONTINUANCE OF A COMPLETED ACTION’ ; COMPLETED ACTION WITH PERMANENT RESULTS IS DENOTED BY THE PERFECT STEM. ON MORPHOLOGICAL GROUNDS, THEREFORE, IT IS CORRECT TO PARAPHRASE KECHARITOMENE AS ‘COMPLETELY , PERFECTLY, ENDURINGLY ENDOWED WITH GRACE.
To the contary: the simple past, "graced," will do. And does do. Mr Mateo seems to be wanting to use Mary's "graced" to try and turn her into a goddess. Mary's grace in Lk 1:28, 30; somewhat like Paul's "grace" in Eph 1:2 ("Grace to you and peace"); is completed because it refers to a certain transaction. A particular event. Again, this duzn't in the least suggest eternal or static sinlessness, or glorification, on the part of the recipient from that instant onward

THIS BECOMES CLEARER WHEN WE EXAMINE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES OF VERBS IN THE PERFECT TENSE.”(FATHER MATEO , REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY PAGE 20-21)
Feel free to share 'em. It's one thing to talk about words. It's another to turn 'em into fantasies

Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom GRACE has made INVIOLATE , free of every stain of SIN.
Mary was a virgin when conceiving and delivering Christ. However, it's demonic to suggest, if Ambrose or anyone were to do so, that Mary's conception and delivery of her later 4 sons and 2 or more daughters by Joseph her husband, is in any way something "defiled." In addition, Ambrose grossly misrepresents both God, the Bible, the apostles, and Mary by claiming she was sinless

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, Immaculate of the Immaculate, one of the one."
Az i mentioned in my post above, Origen's both superstitious and mistaken, and not taught of the apostles, in this regard

Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and NO STAIN in thy Mother."
This approaches blashphemy if putting Mary on a plane with Christ

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of GRACE for overcoming SIN in every particular was CONFERRED UPON HER who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.
In this statement, however well-intentioned, Augustine was both wrong and demonstrates at least the germ of the seduction of idolatry

Mr writer says these fathers were all just superstitious.
In that one regard at least: Absolutely. It's sad

Again Mr writer your non-answer to the fathers is exactly where I get the idea that your a anti-intellectual fundamentalist.
Rom 3:23; Lk 2; Jn 2; and Mk 3 (among other writings of the apostles) pre-refuted, and pre-answered, your "fathers" on this subject; just like i have in all my previous posts. Which makes your accusation of "non-answer" on my part demonstrate either your own dishonesty, or your own inability to read posts of those who u debate w/

Martin Luther, went by the bible alone. Sola Scriptura. He prayed for grace from God to be able to interpret the Scriptures just like writer would do.
But Luther would interpret Mary to be graced with sinlessness in Luke 1:28;
That's one point, Mr A: Martin Luther didn't go by the Bible, nor by the Bible alone, on this superstition. Since the Bible's not superstitious. He, sorry to say for him, was mixed with a goofy tradition on this one

she is full of Grace proclaimed to be entirely without sin...Gods grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil
To the contrary: Neither Luke 1:28, nor anywhere else in the Bible, proclaims (nor implies) Mary "entirely without sin" anytime she was alive. Indeed, 1 John 1:8-10; Romans 3:23; and simple sense say just the oppostite. As would Mary if or when you ask her

So what is Mr writer to do with this?
Whut i just did with it, above?

He not only avoids the historical interpretation of this passage by the Fathers, but now he avoids the interpretation that uncle Marty gives himself.
How could i "avoid" it if you only just posted it in your last post, Mr A? Do i "avoid" your arguments in advance just becuz i can't read your mind? In any case, since you began listing some of your "fathers" absurd statements, i've done just the opposite of "avoiding" them. I've Responded to them. Even quoting them first

[Victor]

Oh well, I tried...

[writer]

66 This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God,
This's good and not superstitious. Although she, like all other Christians, is made worthy thru the blood of the lamb


21 did Jesus sin? If not, how is this possible for him, but not his mother?
Becuz He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18, 20; cf 1 Cor 11:12). She wasn't


21 If not, how is this possible for him, but not his mother?
59 Catholics do NOT teach that Mary “HAD” to be sinless for her to bear Jesus in her womb.
Is Mr A indicating that Mr Scott (poster 21, 1) is not Catholic? Or that 21's not teaching that Mary had to be sinless? Thanks


59 you believe in Sola Writer.
Iz that the same thing as declaring one's own teaching, or one's job, infallible? Or declaring in 1854, comically, that Mary was sinless, officially? Thanks


ONly writer is right on all things.
To the contrary: i, like the apostles and Mary, neither said i was, nor am i. It's kinda sad and funny at the same time if the very "things" you or your religion believes in becomes your criticism and false accusation against me, dear A



you didn’t have the God given authority passed down from you to the apostles to be able to interpret the written word correctly.
To the contrary, as Peter indicated in 1 P 1:10-12 and elsewhere: believers in Christ are born of His Spirit. Thus possessing, in their spirit, the very Authority who breathed-out His Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16; Jn 6:63; etc)


like The Eunuch needed(Acts 8:30-32).
To the contrary: u and i have what the eunuch got. Their very meeting and conversation recorded: Acts 8:27-39


You also lack the hindsight of 2000 years of Christian tradition to guide you.
To the contrary: i can read @ least as well as u


Again its sola Writer.
kindly don't attribute to me the kind of ridiculousness u mite attribute to infallible Popes


you have no idea if what you believe is the correct interpretation of Baptism in the bible.
To contrary: i possess both the Author, His book, His Spirit, and can read it as well as various interpretations of it


You say you go by sola Scriptura.
Where? What exactly do you mean by sola Scriptura, since you introduce the term here? Thanks


So does Baerly. And yet you both disagree with each-other on what Titus 3:5-7 means and what baptism is. You say you are teaching the truth of the bible. Well so does Baerly.
And, i believe, so Pope (az to your last 3 sentences)


You see how you cannot really ever know doctrine based on sola scriptura.
To the contrary: i hope to base anything i teach on the Bible


If you say he’s wrong then by what authority can you?
By the Scripture. Certainly neither by my infallibility or Pope's


By Scriptural Authority?
Yes


By the Holy Spirit Guiding you?
He contradicts not His word thru apostles 'n prophets in Scripture


That won’t work cause he will just say the same thing to you?
To the contrary: i find what He says "works." And in this particular case, what you say doesn't


You’ll quote scripture. He will quote scripture.
So too Satan (Mt 4:6). In Scripture


Both of you think your interpreting it correctly
And, evidently, so do u, as well as Pope. Pope, however, like nonchristians Jim Jones or Brigham Young, may have "advantage" of having himself, or a predecessor of his, declarin himself infallible. Mebbe he thinks thas correk too

But you can only guess. You can only give it the old college try.
Then i guess it's fair to say you may also


Sola scriptura is not practically workable.
To the contrary: all Scripture's God-breathed, wrote the apostle, and profitable for teaching, conviction, correction, instruction in righteousness, is able to make one wise unto salvation, and that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:14-17). In addition, i find it alot more "workable" than sup