wad caused the 'breakaway'?
-
Doctrine of Assumptions?
walk away.... -
I did not say Noah is sinless. I believe the Bible never say (as also quoted by you) that Noah has fullness of Grace. Nowhere in the Bible except Luke 1:28 mentioned about fullness of Grace.Originally posted by Icemoon:Using your logic, are you saying Noah is sinless?
You said "What stops Him from making everyone without sin? He is God. Do we want to question Him in this sense?". Before that, you said "Why not? He is God. With His infinite power He can choose to make a person sinless by His Grace, if He want to."
So are you saying God is not benevolent? He wants to see us suffer? Or rather, He wants to see us suffer, then send His Son Jesus Christ to a tragic death on Calvary.
Are you worshipping a sadistic God?
It is very clear in the Bible that Mary is proclaimed sinless... What's the matter with accepting the whole Bible but not the single verse? Do you find it hard to accept scriptural word 'kecharitomene' which is stated only in Luke 1:28?
To answer your last two paragraphs, it's No, No, and No. We suffer because of our sins. God made everything good, but we chose to sin by disobeying God, to the wages is death (suffering being the lesser evil of death). A sadistic and non-benevolent God will not tear the veil from top to bottom to open the way between Himself and mankind. -
Acts 6:8Originally posted by munyc:I did not say Noah is sinless. I believe the Bible never say (as also quoted by you) that Noah has fullness of Grace. Nowhere in the Bible except Luke 1:28 mentioned about fullness of Grace.
It is very clear in the Bible that Mary is proclaimed sinless... What's the matter with accepting the whole Bible but not the single verse? Do you find it hard to accept scriptural word 'kecharitomene' which is stated only in Luke 1:28?
To answer your last two paragraphs, it's No, No, and No. We suffer because of our sins. God made everything good, but we chose to sin by disobeying God, to the wages is death (suffering being the lesser evil of death). A sadistic and non-benevolent God will not tear the veil from top to bottom to open the way between Himself and mankind.
(NIV)Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.
(NASB)And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.
(KJV)And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
*The full of Grace here was translated as full of faith in KJV, while that in Luke 1:28 was translated as highly favored in KJV,NIV and favored one in NASB
Luke 1:28
(KJV)And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
(NIV)The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
(NASB)And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." -
And in Douay-Rheims Bible,Originally posted by vince69:Acts 6:8
(NIV)Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.
(NASB)And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.
(KJV)And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
*The full of Grace here was translated as full of faith in KJV, while that in Luke 1:28 was translated as highly favored in KJV,NIV and favored one in NASB8 And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people.
Ho seh la .. even Catholic Bible uses "full of grace".
I rest my case. -
We have torn down your argument in the first paragraph.Originally posted by munyc:I did not say Noah is sinless. I believe the Bible never say (as also quoted by you) that Noah has fullness of Grace. Nowhere in the Bible except Luke 1:28 mentioned about fullness of Grace.
It is very clear in the Bible that Mary is proclaimed sinless... What's the matter with accepting the whole Bible but not the single verse? Do you find it hard to accept scriptural word 'kecharitomene' which is stated only in Luke 1:28?
To answer your last two paragraphs, it's No, No, and No. We suffer because of our sins. God made everything good, but we chose to sin by disobeying God, to the wages is death (suffering being the lesser evil of death). A sadistic and non-benevolent God will not tear the veil from top to bottom to open the way between Himself and mankind.
It is not any clear in the Bible that Mary is proclaimed sinless. I did a check on Strongs (much as I dislike Strong) .. entry 5487 is also in Ephesians 1:6. I quote the Douay-Rheims version for you:6 Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son.
Your last paragraph does not explain away the problem. The problem is - if it is so easy for God to proclaim anyone sinless (as He did for Mary), why didn't He do it for everyone? Why must Jesus be sacrified at Calvary? -
Ok .. then tell me what is Paradise then.Originally posted by munyc:You seem to know Protestant doctrine clearly, sola gratia, sola fide, sola Christus, sola scriptira, only only, but just too many onlys. You know so well yet you know little about the Gospel. I wonder you know as much the Catholic doctrine.
How sure are you that Paradise = Heaven? Bible never equates that.
And, I think you've forgotten that Jesus bleeds blood and water when he was pierced. Yes, the thief's leg was broken, but it never mentioned that once his leg was broken, he died. Seconds later, water flowed from Jesus' body (to be exact, heart). How sure are you that the water does not splash on the repentent thief?
Huh .. what water and blood? I am lost. -
Water and blood. Don't you have a Bible? Don't you know your Bible? Search for it.Originally posted by Icemoon:Ok .. then tell me what is Paradise then.
Huh .. what water and blood? I am lost. -
Cool... good for you. But, if you really want to argue on translations, let me show you something:Originally posted by Icemoon:Ho seh la .. even Catholic Bible uses "full of grace".
I rest my case.
[Good News Bible - Catholic] Stephen, a man richly blessed by God and full of power, performed great miracles and wonders among the people.
[NKJV] And Stephen, full of faith[a] and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
[New Life Version] Stephen was a man full of faith and power. He did many great things among the people.
The root is, Acts 6:8 in Greek does not contain 'kecharitomene'. Somehow... -
Icemoon, I see that you argue by catching word by word. I also see is that you are searching for argument more than understanding. And I see that you never fully know the Bible - understandable as you said, you're not a pro.
Ben, vince, I agree we are circling around wasting time.
As my FINAL comment, I quote something I just found, if you insist that Stephen is also full of grace.
http://www.frtommylane.com/homilies/years_abc/immaculate_conception4.htmWe get one hint of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception in our Gospel today, the account of the Archangel Gabriel’s visit to Mary announcing the birth of Jesus. The angel said to Mary, “Hail, full of grace!” Sometimes this is translated as “Rejoice, highly favored one” but that is not really a good translation of the Greek in which Luke wrote his Gospel. The particular word Luke used to describe Mary as “full of grace” (kecaritwmenh) means that Mary was full of grace all her life. (This is signified by kecaritwmenh being a perfect passive particle). It means that Mary is full of grace not just at the moment the angel comes to her but that she is full of grace since the beginning of her life. He could have used a different word to show that Mary was only full of grace at that particular moment as he did when he described Stephen as “full of grace” (plhrhV caritos) only for a moment in Acts 6:8 before he was stoned to death. But Luke insists that Mary was full of grace all her life. So indirectly we get a hint of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in our Gospel today in the account of the angel Gabriel’s visit to Mary.
-
Once again.
Catholics' effort to defend doctrine of Marianology far surpasses doctrine of Christology when compared, it is rather clear to me where the weight and placement of Marianology is, in the Catholic church. -
i would question such a criticism. In fact, didn't the doctrine of other issues like Trinity, Divinity of Jesus, Sacramental Issues, Nicene Creed, etc come from the Catholic Church?Originally posted by M©+square:Once again.
Catholics' effort to defend doctrine of Marianology far surpasses doctrine of Christology when compared, it is rather clear to me where the weight and placement of Marianology is, in the Catholic church.
the reason why Marian Doctrine keeps coming up is because we cannot agree on this issue. Protestants and Catholics both agree on the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus, Salvation through Faith, so definitely we wun be having dialogue on these issues.
However, to say that we place Mary above Christ is not a fair criticism and it goes against the very teachings on the Catholic Church.
btw, u've been MIA for quite some time MC! -
i forsee a long night of discussion ahead
-
(off topic)Originally posted by M©+square:Once again.
Catholics' effort to defend doctrine of Marianology far surpasses doctrine of Christology when compared, it is rather clear to me where the weight and placement of Marianology is, in the Catholic church.
So are you going to continue the fundamental qns or not?
-
Yes, i'll pm you when i'm ready again.Originally posted by davidche:(off topic)
So are you going to continue the fundamental qns or not? -
Your few examples (mix of Catholic and Protestant translations) above and vince's few examples on the Luke passage only show that you cannot conclude that Mary is sinless from the rather vague usage of 'full of grace'.Originally posted by munyc:Cool... good for you. But, if you really want to argue on translations, let me show you something:
[Good News Bible - Catholic] Stephen, a man richly blessed by God and full of power, performed great miracles and wonders among the people.
[NKJV] And Stephen, full of faith[a] and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.
[New Life Version] Stephen was a man full of faith and power. He did many great things among the people.
The root is, Acts 6:8 in Greek does not contain 'kecharitomene'. Somehow...
If you want your 'kecharitomene', according to my search on Strongs, the one in Ephesians is tagged identically as the one in Luke. What do you have to say?
I didn't know GNB is Catholic, I always thought Douay Rheims and NJB are more authoritative.
So I quoted from an authoritative Catholic translation .. only to have it casually dismissed by a Catholic?
-
I also have water and blood in my body. Big deal.Originally posted by munyc:Water and blood. Don't you have a Bible? Don't you know your Bible? Search for it.
I was asking for the significance. -
If you accuse me of catching word by word, then you are guilty of the same sin. You also catch word by word without referring to the context. One "full of grace" and the receipent became sinless.Originally posted by munyc:Icemoon, I see that you argue by catching word by word. I also see is that you are searching for argument more than understanding. And I see that you never fully know the Bible - understandable as you said, you're not a pro.
Ben, vince, I agree we are circling around wasting time.
As my FINAL comment, I quote something I just found, if you insist that Stephen is also full of grace.
http://www.frtommylane.com/homilies/years_abc/immaculate_conception4.htm
Understanding comes from argument. It'll be good if you read up on Socratics dialectics.
Fully know the bible? Come on, who here is fully knowledgeble on the bible? I can't believe you resort to this ad hominem way of handling a debate - you are not a pro so your points are trash.
I might not be a pro, but let's agree that even the pros make mistakes. I refuted an argument made by a pro, but it was not answered by any of you. No wonder you say we are all going around in circles. People here are too engrossed in defending their church's position, and they ignore the real reason why we are here.
I believe my argument is intellectual enough to warrant a serious reply:
The author of this argument, either he failed his comprehension or his bible cheong one.Originally posted by ben1xy:Reply to Objection 1. This was an argument of Nestorius, and it is solved by saying that, although we do not find it said expressly in Scripture that the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of God, yet we do find it expressly said in Scripture that "Jesus Christ is true God," as may be seen 1 John 5:20, and that the Blessed Virgin is the "Mother of Jesus Christ," which is clearly expressed Mt. 1:18. Therefore, from the words of Scripture it follows of necessity that she is the Mother of God.1 John 5:20 -
Question - who is "He is the true God" referring to?
And we know that the Son of God is come: and he hath given us understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his true Son. This is the true God and life eternal. (Douay Rheims)
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (NIV)
We are well aware also that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know the One who is true. We are
in the One who is true as we are in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and this is eternal life. (NJB)
(Chinese Union Bible)
I say "He" DOES NOT refer to Jesus Christ, but God, ie. the Father. The verse is talking about Jesus Christ pointing us to the Father isn't it?
What a shame .. the author said it is "expressly said" somemore. I think one of us must have failed our comprehension.
What say you? -
Oh, i didn't reply to this for one simple reason. u just went through this whole debate with SGMac over Mary being the Mother of God or MAry being the Mother of the God Incarnate.Originally posted by Icemoon:Question - who is "He is the true God" referring to?
I say "He" DOES NOT refer to Jesus Christ, but God, ie. the Father. The verse is talking about Jesus Christ pointing us to the Father isn't it?
What a shame .. the author said it is "expressly said" somemore. I think one of us must have failed our comprehension.
What say you?
My reasoning for this is simple or maybe borders around naive. But I dun call Jesus the God Incarnate. I call Jesus God. To me, Jesus is fully Man and fully God. Based on this reasoning, i do not think it is unreasonable to call MAry the Mother of God. Because, i do not see how u can seperate the divinity of Jesus from Jesus.
To me, it's not a case of who fails his comprehension. It's just a matter of perspective. I see where u r coming from and i see where St. Aquinas was coming from. Yet, i made my choice and u made yours. I do not think a difference in perspective equates to being right or wrong. Not many things in life can be put in such a simplified dichotomy anyway -
eh.... so Jesus is not God?
I thought Jesus once said "I am He who sent me". -
Anyway, since i am taking a break .. i'll share some thoughts. (this is not directed at anybody)
When Atheists come into the forum and bombard the authencity and authority of the Bible, Protestants are quick to jump to it's defense. Can't we as Catholics do the same for our Sacred Tradition?
When Atheists challenges Protestants to use methods outside the Bible to debate on issues, Protestants stick to the Bible. (Which i respect)
But yet, Protestants use the same methods that Atheist uses to attack the theology and doctrine of the Catholic Church. We have mentioned countless time that we have 3 pillars. If Protestants expect Atheist to respect their use of the Bible, can we as Catholics ask for that same respect from Protestants?
It seems to reek of double standards somehow if you ask me. Again this post is not directed at anyone neither should it be taken in a negative light neither is this written with any connotation of offending anyone. -
Icey is arguing that Mary is not the Mother of the Trinity neither is she the mother of Logos. that's why we should call Mary; Mother of the God Incarnate.Originally posted by Honeybunz:eh.... so Jesus is not God?
I thought Jesus once said "I am He who sent me". -
??? ok.. I always thought the 3 pillars are not suppose to be contridictory to each other...Originally posted by ben1xy:Anyway, since i am taking a break .. i'll share some thoughts. (this is not directed at anybody)
When Atheists come into the forum and bombard the authencity and authority of the Bible, Protestants are quick to jump to it's defense. Can't we as Catholics do the same for our Sacred Tradition?
When Atheists challenges Protestants to use methods outside the Bible to debate on issues, Protestants stick to the Bible. (Which i respect)
But yet, Protestants use the same methods that Atheist uses to attack the theology and doctrine of the Catholic Church. We have mentioned countless time that we have 3 pillars. If Protestants expect Atheist to respect their use of the Bible, can we as Catholics ask for that same respect from Protestants?
It seems to reek of double standards somehow if you ask me. Again this post is not directed at anyone neither should it be taken in a negative light neither is this written with any connotation of offending anyone.
ok...loh... lets all back off from this then... -
Qiang2 ci2 duo2 li3.Originally posted by munyc:As my FINAL comment, I quote something I just found, if you insist that Stephen is also full of grace.
http://www.frtommylane.com/homilies/years_abc/immaculate_conception4.htm
We get one hint of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception in our Gospel today, the account of the Archangel Gabriel’s visit to Mary announcing the birth of Jesus. The angel said to Mary, “Hail, full of grace!” Sometimes this is translated as “Rejoice, highly favored one” but that is not really a good translation of the Greek in which Luke wrote his Gospel. The particular word Luke used to describe Mary as “full of grace” (kecaritwmenh) means that Mary was full of grace all her life. (This is signified by kecaritwmenh being a perfect passive particle). It means that Mary is full of grace not just at the moment the angel comes to her but that she is full of grace since the beginning of her life. He could have used a different word to show that Mary was only full of grace at that particular moment as he did when he described Stephen as “full of grace” (plhrhV caritos) only for a moment in Acts 6:8 before he was stoned to death. But Luke insists that Mary was full of grace all her life. So indirectly we get a hint of Mary’s Immaculate Conception in our Gospel today in the account of the angel Gabriel’s visit to Mary.
I will defend the biblical position that Stephen is full of grace - literally.
All greek references are taken from http://www.greekbible.com/index.php
I will tear down the author's argument bits by bits.The angel said to Mary, “Hail, full of grace!” Sometimes this is translated as “Rejoice, highly favored one” but that is not really a good translation of the Greek in which Luke wrote his Gospel. The particular word Luke used to describe Mary as “full of grace” (kecaritwmenh) means that Mary was full of grace all her life. (This is signified by kecaritwmenh being a perfect passive particle).
The author insists that the original greek means "full of grace". Bear in mind other translations have it differently and he did not explain why his is the best choice. IMHO, this is fallacious and circular - you assume that Mary is sinless (full of grace) and you interpret the word accordingly.
Furthermore, if we go by a literal translation, "plhrhV caritos" actually means full of grace.
plhrhV,a {play'-race}
1) full, i.e. filled up (as opposed to empty) 1a) of hollow vessels 1b) of a surface, covered in every part 1c) of the soul, thoroughly permeated with 2) full, i.e. complete 2a) lacking nothing, perfect
cariV,n {khar'-ece}
1) grace 1a) that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech 2) good will, loving-kindness, favour 2a) of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues 3) what is due to grace 3a) the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of divine grace 3b) the token or proof of grace, benefit 3b1) a gift of grace 3b2) benefit, bounty 4) thanks, (for benefits, services, favours), recompense, rewardIt means that Mary is full of grace not just at the moment the angel comes to her but that she is full of grace since the beginning of her life.
This point is moot in view of what I said earlier. The "full of" is not established, neither is the "grace". We don't even need to bother about his "perfect passive particle" argument.He could have used a different word to show that Mary was only full of grace at that particular moment as he did when he described Stephen as “full of grace” (plhrhV caritos) only for a moment in Acts 6:8 before he was stoned to death. But Luke insists that Mary was full of grace all her life.
This is hu2 shuo1 ba1 dao4 .. hun4 shui3 mo1 yu2.
Let me quote another verse that uses the same greek and demolish his argument.John 1:14 - kai o logoV sarx egeneto kai eskhnwsen en hmin, kai eqeasameqa thn doxan autou, doxan wV monogenouV para patroV, plhrhV caritoV kai alhqeiaV.
For those who never read their bible (like me), here are the english translations. Note that they are unequivocal in their usage of "full of grace"!
c.f. Acts 6:8 - stefanoV de plhrhV caritoV kai dunamewV epoiei terata kai shmeia megala en tw law.
NIV - 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[a] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
ESV - 14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
KJV - 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
NKJV - 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
NRSV - 14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a fatherÂ’s only son,* full of grace and truth.
Douay-Rheims - 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
So what have you to say? That Jesus was only "full of grace" at that moment? Ah hah! Gotcha!
So indirectly we get a hint of MaryÂ’s Immaculate Conception in our Gospel today in the account of the angel GabrielÂ’s visit to Mary.
The author obviously never do his research. By trying to downplay the part about Stephen, may I say he has dragged his Lord into the picture and downgraded him below Mary. May I say that this is an affront to God.
It is time for him to do penance. -
I urge readers who are still thinking creatures to read my long post above. It shows how some Catholics (the one who wrote and the ones who quote him) have tarnished the dignity of the Lord and His Holy Scripture.
-
Technically, you are wrong to call Jesus fully Man and fully God. Is Jesus fully Man now?Originally posted by ben1xy:My reasoning for this is simple or maybe borders around naive. But I dun call Jesus the God Incarnate. I call Jesus God. To me, Jesus is fully Man and fully God. Based on this reasoning, i do not think it is unreasonable to call MAry the Mother of God. Because, i do not see how u can seperate the divinity of Jesus from Jesus.
To me, it's not a case of who fails his comprehension. It's just a matter of perspective. I see where u r coming from and i see where St. Aquinas was coming from. Yet, i made my choice and u made yours. I do not think a difference in perspective equates to being right or wrong. Not many things in life can be put in such a simplified dichotomy anyway Bear in mind God is eternal and immutable, it will be wrong to say God is not what He is yesterday.
I don't think it is a matter of perspective. It is somehow obvious that the author equates the "He is true god" in the verse to mean Jesus Christ, when what is referred to, in my opinion, is God the Father.
If what is needed is just a simple "Son of God" reference, he could have taken it from anywhere. I don't think the emphasis is on "true god", after all readers agree that god is true. The question is whether Jesus is the true god.