Mary and Luke 1:28

Yes, this would be very interesting.

 

The word "kexaritomena" is a passive verb in Luke 1:28. The action (grace, favor) is being done to her and is not coming from her.

The angel is telling Mary she has been shown favor by God. She will bear the Messiah.

There is absolute nothing in the passage about Mary's sin or lack thereof.

The entire comment is nothing but Catholic propaganda.

peace to youraying:

 

Well there is a lot more than one error in your quote SCB. The line of:

is the first one. The Catholic church can date back to the 4th century, but the New Testament church has been around since Pentecost. Those Landmarkers we get on here from time to time would love to challenge you on that one.

How about the line

A lot of people here can take issue with you on that. How about salvation by grace alone? How about indulgences? How about baptism? How about confession? I think there are plenty of Christ’s teaching that has been perverted and changed over the history of the Catholic church.

But back to your original question and the Greek word “kecharitomene,” blue letter bible gave me this:

χαίρω chairō [thouthatart]highlyfavoured, g5487

I am guessing that what Syracuse calls kecharitomene is the same as Strong’s G5487, charitoō. This Greek word only occurs in one other verse, Eph 1:6 where it is translated accepted. Look at Eph 1:5-7:

Looking at this verse in context we can see that this word charitoo refers to our acceptance before God. It is linked with the idea of foreknowledge (or predestination for you Calvinists) and the idea of our redemption through the blood of Christ. In verse 7 it is clear that our sins are forgiven. The linking of charitoo to the forgiveness of our sins in Eph 1 seems to me to make it impossible to think that it referrs to a permenant state of sinlessness in Luke. If it implied sinlessness then what do we need to be forgiven of?

Now that is “Using the Bible to translate and interperit the Bible” which is I believe a valid approach. Since this word only occurs twice in scripture this may not be a strong argument for skeptics although it is plenty strong for me as a believer. The dictionary definition of charitoo is:

1) to make gpermanentinterpretraceful
a) charming, lovely, agreeable
2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3) to honour with blessings

I don’t see a lot of help here to be honest with you, but I don’t see anything to support the sinless argument either.

 

Whatever. From the Orthodox Church in America site:
"Jesus Christ is Mary's Savior, as well as ours, as testified in her own statement in St Luke -- the Magnificat -- where she says, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior." If Mary had been "sin-proofed," so to speak, from all eternity, the Orthodox would argue as to why she would need a Savior."

 

Amen! Also, it would be very strange for her to present two doves as a sacrifice if she were without sin.

 

Consider this reasoning. If Jesus is to be born naturally sin free, how is this posssible if Mary is not sin free herself with Jesus in her womb? An unborn fetus carries with it all the innate functions and attributes of the mother, and by seed, father. Yes, Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit,,,,absolute purity...then the human Mary is also involved...human qualities. How is a sinless state possible?

Even the Catholic churches admit that an infant is in grave danger of sin, and hence sprinkle as soon as possible after birth to rid it of original sin.

By the way, I am not endorsing the Catholic thinking. I am just postulating a thought, which must be considered.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Sin is passed through the father, as it was through Adam, per the order of creation.

 

So, Eve was without sin as are all women?

Cheers,

Jim

 

This might be a more interesting thread if a moderator would move it to the "Other Christian Denominations" forum.

 

Yes. Especially me. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Then, Amy, you must be in line after me..........Sinless purr-fection, pussy cat!

Cheers,

Jim

 

So...THAT'S why you have been casting the stones at me :laugh:

 

No, but God said she was deceived. We died the moment Adam sinned because he sinned willfully. The OT sacrificial system had atonements for sin that was committed unwllfully.

 

It still doesn't explain how Mary could give birth to anyone without sin,,,,,,unless she was declared immaculate.

Sin passed to all men (creation-adamic).

Cheers,

Jim

 

It passed to all men through him...not her. Since Christ was 100% human, it also doesn't make sense that someone without sin could die physically in a fallen body designed to do so, yet Christ did.

 

sin passed to all creation, not just a man..Yes, We are told about Adam, the man's, situation, but all sin is passed through adam, the creation. Adam did not always mean Adam, the man. He was named later. In Genesis Adam also referrred to all creation. Check out your Hebrew.

Secondly, you are suggesting that women do not inherit sin because Adam sinned and so all men are sinners.

Was Jesus, the baby, enclosed in a special sac and fed mysteriously outside of Mary's body? When does human life receive a soul or spirit? Is it after or upon birth? At what point is a fetus responsible for sin and where did that sin come from?

Cheers,

Jim

Cheers,

Jim

 

There is a problem with the logic of this.
If Mary had to be free of sin in order to give birth to a sinless Savior, then for her to be free of sin her mother and father also had to be sinless. This problem would exist with each generation all they way back to Adam and Eve. Only intervention by God could solve this problem, which He did by sending Jesus (not Mary) as the sinless savior.

 

How?

Cheers,

Jim

 

It's not that women did not inherit sin - it's that the blood comes from the father. Jesus' blood did not come from Mary, it never mingled with Mary's. There was no need for any special sac, as no baby in the womb ever shares it's mother's blood.

The Bible seems to indicate that sin is passed down through the father - there is evidence to say that the blood is how that happens.

To comment more on what the Catholic statement proposed - in order to believe that Jesus HAD to have had a sinless mother in order for Him to be sinless, we also must wonder how Mary could have been sinless. This doctrine of the Catholic church, if carried to it's logical conclusion, would have to propose an entire line of sinless women starting with Eve and ending with Mary. How else could Mary be sinless unless her own mother were sinless? And so on and so on?