Perpetual virginity of Mary!

[BreadOfLife]

PREFIX κε—
Means the verb is a perfect passive participle tense verb: "having been" root-verb'd; "having had" root-verb happen/done to [you]; being [now a result of being] root-verb'd

e.g.

verb slay —> past participle slain (soldier).

verb burn —> past participle burnt (wood).

(different from an adjective which is usually identical, but which does not imply the perfected sense that a past participle does—slain, and remains dead—no resurrection yet; burnt, and there is no restoring it—and it remains in that burnt state to the present)

ROOT χαριτόω
From the root noun χάρις charis—grace or loosely favor—more specifically the verb form of this, χαριτόω charitoó—I (divinely or not) (en-)grace/bestow grace/show favor)

(dictionary form of Greek words are in the present tense first person singular)

The only other use of this verb in the New Testament is in Ephesians 1:6:

Ephesians 1:5-7

5 He predestined us for our being divinely adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 unto the praise of His glorious grace with which *He graced [ἐχαρίτωσεν echaritōsen]* us in [His] Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood: the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

SUFFIX —μένη
This means the object (Mary) of the action (being engraced) being done by the subject (God) is the passive recipient of the result (being endued/filled with grace) of the action, not actively responsible for it.

The sense in which Mary was graced (not "full of all possible grace," and the word for "full" is not used, as it is for Stephen and Christ) is not because of she possessed surpassing personal virtue, which is nowhere referred to - though no doubt she was a virtuous young women - but contextually it was because the Lord highly favored her, was with her, and graced her above women to be the mother of the Messiah, and which meaning of being graced is shown by her words in the Magnificat, and not because of anything she herself possessed.
"All possible grace" - there is nothing in the root of the verb to introduce the idea of "all possible", and the perfect tense most assuredly does not lend to the base meaning of a verb the idea of perfection implied in the words "all possible".

2) "past present and future" - the perfect tense doesn't say anything about the future; it expresses a present result based upon past action, that is all; the past action does not have to begin at 'the earliest possible time', just prior to the point in question, and, indeed, there is nothing in the verb form to indicate the time of commencement (

3) "The reason Bible Scholars both Catholic and Protestants translate the way they do is so the translation is flowing" – there is quite a difference between "highly favored" and "Having been Graced with all Possible Grace both past present and future." No version, no dictionary, no serious scholar would ever dream of even interpreting kecharitomene in this way, let alone translating it that way.

Now, I'll explain to you WHY you're wrong.
If you read my last post carefully - than answer is there as well.

As I told you before - the word Kecharitomene indicates as PAST event with a PERMANENT result.
There is NO need to mention the future because the result is PERMANENT - got it?

As for the language "FULL of grace" not being used - again, the word itself already indicates "FULL".
As I educated you before, Kecharitomene is defined as "COMPLETELY, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace".

As to your final blunder above in RED - you are WRONG again . . .

According to Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament -
"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase Kecharitomene as 'completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace'."

According to H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b. -
Kecharitōmĕnē is the perfect passive participle of charitŏō. It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.[1] Verbs ending in ŏō, such as haimatŏō (turn into blood), thaumatŏō (fill with wonder), spodŏōmai (burn to ashes) frequently express the full intensity of the action. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.

YOUR turn Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus had actual sisters and brothers, so, no Mary did not remain a Virgin.
The Virgin promoters say they were just cousins of course.

Why didn’t the writers use the Greek term for cousins (anepsios)? The Greek word did exist and was used in Scripture (Colossians 4:10). If they were more distant relatives, then why not use a Greek word that meant relatives (suggenes), such as the one describing Mary and Elizabeth’s relational status in Luke 1:36? Why did Matthew and Mark use the words most commonly translated as brothers (adelphos) and sisters (adelphe)? In any other context no one would have questioned this meaning.


The first chapter of Acts tells how the disciples met to select a replacement for Judas. Luke specifically singled out Mary and the brothers of Jesus.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey. And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. (Acts 1:12–14)


“Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS” (Matthew 1:24–25,

You can twist scripture all around if you like, but I will continue to believe is's plain meaning.

I destroyed this argument PAGES ago,
Here it is again for your edification. Try to give a sound, Scriptural refutation - bot your usual desperate denials . . .

First of all - these adelphoi of Jesus, James, Joseph (Joses), Jude (Judas) (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5) are NEVER called the sons of Mary, mother of Jesus

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joseph (Joses). She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25).

James is elsewhere described as the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3), which would mean this other Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. However, Alphaeus and Clopas are the SAME person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus OR as Clopas.

What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
ANY attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus is SQUASHED by the Bible.

YOUR turn . . .

 

[Renniks]

Now, I'll explain to you WHY you're wrong.
If you read my last post carefully - than answer is there as well.

As I told you before - the word Kecharitomene indicates as PAST event with a PERMANENT result.
There is NO need to mention the future because the result is PERMANENT - got it?

As for the language "FULL of grace" not being used - again, the word itself already indicates "FULL".
As I educated you before, Kecharitomene is defined as "COMPLETELY, perfectly and enduringly endowed with grace".

As to your final blunder above in RED - you are WRONG again . . .

According to Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament -
"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase Kecharitomene as 'completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace'."

According to H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b. -
Kecharitōmĕnē is the perfect passive participle of charitŏō. It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state.[1] Verbs ending in ŏō, such as haimatŏō (turn into blood), thaumatŏō (fill with wonder), spodŏōmai (burn to ashes) frequently express the full intensity of the action. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.

YOUR turn Einstein . . .

Shrug. You can believe a falsehood if you choose.
Mary was blessed by God. Not because she was somehow more holy than anyone else.
In the same way we are all more blessed than we deserve, due to nothing in us, but due to God's grace.
I get the impression that Catholics have this image of Mary that you see in the nativity scenes... Kneeling by a manger without a hair out of place with a halo around her head, sweetly smiling right after giving birth. I suspect the reality was slightly more messy and I'm quite sure Mary had the same doubts and fears we all do. She was commended for her obedience, and that should give us hope that an ordinary person can be chosen and used by God... Not some creature that we need to put on a pedestal.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Shrug. You can believe a falsehood if you choose.
Mary was blessed by God. Not because she was somehow more holy than anyone else.
In the same way we are all more blessed than we deserve, due to nothing in us, but due to God's grace.
I get the impression that Catholics have this image of Mary that you see in the nativity scenes... Kneeling by a manger without a hair out of place with a halo around her head, sweetly smiling right after giving birth. I suspect the reality was slightly more messy and I'm quite sure Mary had the same doubts and fears we all do. She was commended for her obedience, and that should give us hope that an ordinary person can be chosen and used by God... Not some creature that we need to put on a pedestal.

Yet you haven't proven that ANYTHING I've said is a "falsehood".
I've provided scholarly linguistic evidence, a litany of OT Types and NT Fulfillments - and verse after verse of Scriptural evidence showing that the "brethren" of Jesus are actually the children of ANOTHER woman.

All YOU'VE done is hurl empty, impotent denials - without a SHRED of Scriptural OR linguistic evidence to the contrary.
Denials and opinions without evidence are as worthless as a basketball without a pump.

It's okay to be wrong.
It's NOT okay to be wrong and still insist that you're right . . .

 

[Renniks]

It's NOT okay to be wrong and still insist that you're right . . .

Look in the mirror and tell yourself that...

 

[Renniks]

If I was a better artist, I'd draw that picture that we all need to see, of Mary sprawled on the hay, crying uncontrollably with a squalling newborn held close, both of them covered in sweat and slime...so we can all identify with the raw and rugged reality of the incarnation and how like us Mary and Joseph really were. So we can quit pushing them away into sainthood, on stain glass windows and understand that we are as much saints as they were...and all the glory goes to God, no us.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If I was a better artist, I'd draw that picture that we all need to see, of Mary sprawled on the hay, crying uncontrollably with a squalling newborn held close, both of them covered in sweat and slime...so we can all identify with the raw and rugged reality of the incarnation and how like us Mary and Joseph really were. So we can quit pushing them away into sainthood, on stain glass windows and understand that we are as much saints as they were...and all the glory goes to God, no us.

So, why don't you wish that for EVERY memorial statues or painting of everybody?
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln relieving themselves on the toilet?

Why not have paintings of Jesus all "covered in slime" coming out of the womb?

What an idiotic statement . . .

 

[Renniks]

So, why don't you wish that for EVERY memorial statues or painting of everybody?
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln relieving themselves on the toilet?

Why not have paintings of Jesus all "covered in slime" coming out of the womb?

What an idiotic statement . . .

Yes, why not have a painting of Jesus squalling as a newborn? What is idiotic about portraying reality?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, why not have a painting of Jesus squalling as a newborn? What is idiotic about portraying reality?

Do YOU display a picture of YOUR mother spread-eagle giving birth to YOU?
Think about it, Einstein . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Look in the mirror and tell yourself that...

Funny - the more rabid the anti-Catholic, the more impotent the responses.

You haven't been able to refute a SINGLE thing I've said - but that "mirror" remark was real winner . . .

 

[Renniks]

Do YOU display a picture of YOUR mother spread-eagle giving birth to YOU?
Think about it, Einstein . . .

I never said anything about showing genitals, but ironically, there are scads of religious art that do, on God himself, no less. So, go argue with the Sytene Chapel ceiling..I'm talking about showing Jesus as a realistic babe, not as an angelic creature that we can't really relate to.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I never said anything about showing genitals, but ironically, there are scads of religious art that do, on God himself, no less. So, go argue with the Sytene Chapel ceiling..I'm talking about showing Jesus as a realistic babe, not as an angelic creature that we can't really relate to.

No - your original argument was about depictions of Mary - NOT Jesus.

 

[Renniks]

No - your original argument was about depictions of Mary - NOT Jesus.

And Jesus... still nothing about nudity. Weird your mind went there.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And Jesus... still nothing about nudity. Weird your mind went there.

Ummmmm, I'm not the one who was talking about being "covered in slime".

Weird YOUR mind went there . . .

 

[Renniks]

Ummmmm, I'm not the one who was talking about being "covered in slime".

Weird YOUR mind went there . . .

I guess you never were present at a birth. It's a miracle, but a very messy miracle.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I guess you never were present at a birth. It's a miracle, but a very messy miracle.

And I guess YOU were never present at a birth because the mother isn't waring anything from the waist on down.

 

[Renniks]

And I guess YOU were never present at a birth because the mother isn't waring anything from the waist on down.

So? I never said I was going to draw the actual birth. I have been present at the birth of all my kids.

I think it's amusing though, because Catholic art portrays Mary breastfeeding. I guess that's ok, as long as she has perfect clothes, posture and doesn't look anything like a real Mom in real life.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So? I never said I was going to draw the actual birth. I have been present at the birth of all my kids.

I think it's amusing though, because Catholic art portrays Mary breastfeeding. I guess that's ok, as long as she has perfect clothes, posture and doesn't look anything like a real Mom in real life.

And again, that's why I pointed out that MOST monuments, be it a painting or a sculpture usually show the subject in a respectful, almost "unrealistic" pose. It's out of respect.

Do you actually believe that George Washington was standing that way in the boat in the famous painting depicting him crossing the Delaware?
Do you believe the numerous paintings of Christ n the cross with only a few droplets of blood trickling down - or did He look more like the actor in the Mel Gibson movie??

Most of the works of art that were commissioned down through the centuries were used as educational tools for a largely illiterate population.
Seems that among MANY other things - you don't understand art OR its purpose . . .

 

[Renniks]

Most of the works of art that were commissioned down through the centuries were used as educational tools for a largely illiterate population.
Seems that among MANY other things - you don't understand art OR its purpose . . .

The purpose of good art is to inspire and stimulate deep thinking on the subject in question.
Which is why portraying Christ and Mary realistically would be an excellent evangelism tool.
But as long as we keep them in the stained glass other worldly types of images, they will remain only stories to most people, not much different than looking at pictures of the Greek gods.

 

[Renniks]

Do you believe the numerous paintings of Christ n the cross with only a few droplets of blood trickling down - or did He look more like the actor in the Mel Gibson movie??

And which images brought more people to Christ? The true ones or the fake looking ones?
The reason The Passion of the Christ shook people to the core is that it didn't sanitize what really happened.