Remitting Sins

[EricH]

[

The bottom line of my post is that the term used in Luke 1:28 is not the same on used in reference to Jesus in John 1:14. It is also not a special title given only to Mary. It is used in reference to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. The other term used for Jesus is also used in reference to Stpehen. So your entire premise is based on a false assumption. Whether one translates it favour or grace is meaningless. It can have either connotation. Both word are semantically the same.

The phrase "full of" simply does not exist in Luke 1:28. That is the greek word plene which is just not there. It is there is John 1:14 and Acts 6.

It is true that the tense is the perfect. But that does not imply fulness. Ithe perfect tense speaks of completed action as viewed by the author. In other words the act of bestowing is complete. Not that the object is as full as they could be. For the quote above to say full of is a better translation speaks to their theological bias, rather than any linquistic signals. The cleares way for the authro to have indicatred full would be the use of the word plene. The use of the perfect tense to convey this is not the usual function of the perfect. The perfect is used to convey action in time. It is a tense.

Eric, I just provided over 20 different sources of scholars some Catholic, Some Protestant who disagree with you. They clearly agree that "full of" is a proper understanding of how the word was used. You know I love ya but I am going to have to go with the experts on this one. And regardless, it also is clearly talking about Grace and not highly favored as Pointer was trying to say.

God Bless,

K.D.

But you have not addressed the key issue. It is not as you said that it was used only of Jesus and Mary. It was used Of Jesus, Mary, Stephen, and all believers. So how does this make Mary special. I noticed you ommited that part of my objection which is the key portion and the question on which the issue hangs. Even if I were to grant fullness. It is not unique to Mary.

Then we have the context of Luke itself Luke 1:30 defines the nature of the favour or grace God is granting:

Then the angel told her: Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name JESUS.

Luke 1:30-31 CSB

The favour or grace was not a special power. It was the fact that she would be bearing the Messiah.

I don't know if you paid attention to many of the experts you quoted. But they do not maintain that is must mean "fullness". They cannot hold that. The perfect tense has many uses. Most say it might mean that, or this would be the best understanding. Some say "much" rather than full. In other words, even the scholars you quoted are not in agreement and are not sure in many cases. That is because the perfect has many uses. The only way for there to be a sure reference to "fullness" is the use of plene.

The real issue is that you made a claims that were less than accurate:

1. You claimed that the phrase used for Mary was the same one used in John 1:14. It is not

2. You claimed this concept was only applied to Mary and Jesus. It was not.

So it seems of you are going to use this phrase to extend special status to Mary, you must extend the same status to the others who received the same phrase.

[pointer]

it also is clearly talking about Grace and not highly favored as Pointer was trying to say.

Never mind mere, incoherent pointer. The RC New Jerusalem Bible:

'"Rejoice, you who enjoys God's favour!"'

No 'grace', no 'full'; no 'highly', even.

[Kansasdad]

[

The bottom line of my post is that the term used in Luke 1:28 is not the same on used in reference to Jesus in John 1:14. It is also not a special title given only to Mary. It is used in reference to all believers in Ephesians 1:6. The other term used for Jesus is also used in reference to Stpehen. So your entire premise is based on a false assumption. Whether one translates it favour or grace is meaningless. It can have either connotation. Both word are semantically the same.

The phrase "full of" simply does not exist in Luke 1:28. That is the greek word plene which is just not there. It is there is John 1:14 and Acts 6.

It is true that the tense is the perfect. But that does not imply fulness. Ithe perfect tense speaks of completed action as viewed by the author. In other words the act of bestowing is complete. Not that the object is as full as they could be. For the quote above to say full of is a better translation speaks to their theological bias, rather than any linquistic signals. The cleares way for the authro to have indicatred full would be the use of the word plene. The use of the perfect tense to convey this is not the usual function of the perfect. The perfect is used to convey action in time. It is a tense.

Eric, I just provided over 20 different sources of scholars some Catholic, Some Protestant who disagree with you. They clearly agree that "full of" is a proper understanding of how the word was used. You know I love ya but I am going to have to go with the experts on this one. And regardless, it also is clearly talking about Grace and not highly favored as Pointer was trying to say.

God Bless,

K.D.

But you have not adressed the key issue. It is not as you said that it was used only of Jesus and Mary. It was used Of Jesus, Mary, Stephen, and all believers. So how does this make Mary special. I noticed you ommited that part of my objection which is the key portion and the question on whcih the issue hangs. Even if I were to grant fullness. It is not unique to mary

It is not that I have not addressed the key issue, it is that we must establish all the frame work step by step or we just spin circles. So (be it reluctant) we have established that " full of" and Grace are proper translations of what Luke wrote. Now when looking at Ephesians 1:6 we see the word is used differently, it is active. Indicating an event that is occurring. God is bestowing upon them Grace because of their faith in Jesus. With Mary it shows an event that was already completed. It shows that God filled her with Grace prior to the event in preparation of the event. So yes it clearly shows that Mary was uniquely prepared prior to the angels visit. Mary is indeed a very special vessel prepared in advance by God to bare the Christ Child. She was not just an ordinary woman favored to carry God in her womb. She was Graced fully before hand in preparation of the unique blessing.

God Bless,

K.D.

[pointer]

Mary is indeed a very special vessel prepared in advance by God to bare the Christ Child.

Where is the evidence for this? It cannot be

'"Rejoice, you who enjoys God's favour!"'

Jesus' words are evidence of the truth about Mary:

'One of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, " Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."' Luke 11:27-28 NASB

[EricH]

It is not that I have not addressed the key issue, it is that we must establish all the frame work step by step or we just spin circles. So (be it reluctant) we have established that " full of" and Grace are proper translations of what Luke wrote. Now when looking at Ephesians 1:6 we see the word is used differently, it is active. Indicating an event that is occurring. God is bestowing upon them Grace because of their faith in Jesus. With Mary it shows an event that was already completed. It shows that God filled her with Grace prior to the event in preparation of the event. So yes it clearly shows that Mary was uniquely prepared prior to the angels visit. Mary is indeed a very special vessel prepared in advance by God to bare the Christ Child. She was not just an ordinary woman favored to carry God in her womb. She was Graced fully before hand in preparation of the unique blessing.

God Bless,

K.D.

Again there are some inaccuracies above:

1. We have not agreed that fullness is the best transation. We have agreed it could be possible, but it is not demanded from the text. There are scholars on both sides.

2. When you refer to Ephesians 1:6 being in the active and Luke 1:28 being in the perfect, you are not comparing apples to oranges. "Active" refers to the voice. "Perfect" refers to the tense. The tense describes completeness or time. The voice describes the relation of the subject of the sentence to the verb. It is the use of the perfect tense in Luke 1:28 that would allow for a possible landing on fullness or completeness. The tense of Ephesians 1:6 is the aorist. The aorist also speaks of completed action in the past with results in the present. Thus most English versions translate the Aorist in the past tense:

to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:6 CSB

It can also have cumulative sense as the perfect can (meaning completeness or fullness). The voice of the passage in Luke 1:28 in in the passive. The voice of the passage in Ephesians 1:6 is the active. Voice does not address time or completeness. The passive voice in Luke 1:28 does not mean that the event is not currently occuring. The passive voice indicates that the subject of the sentence (in this case Mary) is not performing the action described by the participle. The subject in this case is the recipient. In Ephesians 1:6 the voice is active, indicating that the subject (God) is performing the action of the verb himself (giving grace to us). In both cases it is God giving the favor. In both cases it is completed (Aorist tense and Perfect tense). Remember, tense indicates time, voice indicates how the subject of the sentence relates to the verb.

3. You state that in Ephesians 1:6 the reason God is bestowing his favor is because of their faith in Jesus. I do not see that in Ephesians 1:6. In fact, Ephesians 1:4-6 indicate the opposite of what you are saying:

for He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favor and will, to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:4-6 CSB

So it seems from these passages that the basis of God's favor is not anything we have done, but his own gracious choice, and before the foundation of the world (just like Mary),

Again your conclusions are not correct, because your premises are false grammatically and contextually. You have confused tense and voice. You still have not addressed Stephen in Acts.

[Kansasdad]

It is not that I have not addressed the key issue, it is that we must establish all the frame work step by step or we just spin circles. So (be it reluctant) we have established that " full of" and Grace are proper translations of what Luke wrote. Now when looking at Ephesians 1:6 we see the word is used differently, it is active. Indicating an event that is occurring. God is bestowing upon them Grace because of their faith in Jesus. With Mary it shows an event that was already completed. It shows that God filled her with Grace prior to the event in preparation of the event. So yes it clearly shows that Mary was uniquely prepared prior to the angels visit. Mary is indeed a very special vessel prepared in advance by God to bare the Christ Child. She was not just an ordinary woman favored to carry God in her womb. She was Graced fully before hand in preparation of the unique blessing.

God Bless,

K.D.

Again there are some inaccuracies above:

1. We have not agreed that fullness is the best transation. We have agreed it could be possible, but it is not demanded from the text. There are scholars on both sides.

2. When you refer to Ephesians 1:6 being in the active and Luke 1:28 being in the perfect, you are not comparing apples to oranges. "Active" refers to the voice. "Perfect" refers to the tense. The tense describes completeness or time. The voice describes the relation of the subject of the sentence to the verb. It is the use of the perfect tense in Luke 1:28 that would allow for a possible landing on fullness or completeness. The tense of Ephesians 1:6 is the aorist. The aorist also speaks of completed action in the past with results in the present. Thus most English versions translate the Aorist in the past tense:

to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:6 CSB

It can also have cumulative sense as the perfect can (meaning completeness or fullness). The voice of the passage in Luke 1:28 in in the passive. The voice of the passage in Ephesians 1:6 is the active. Voice does not address time or completeness. The passive voice in Luke 1:28 does not mean that the event is not currently occuring. The passive voice indicates that the subject of the sentence (in this case Mary) is not performing the action described by the participle. The subject in this case is the recipient. In Ephesians 1:6 the voice is active, indicating that the subject (God) is performing the action of the verb himself (giving grace to us). In both cases it is God giving the favor. In both cases it is completed (Aorist tense and Perfect tense). Remember, tense indicates time, voice indicates how the subject of the sentence relates to the verb.

3. You state that in Ephesians 1:6 the reason God is bestowing his favor is because of their faith in Jesus. I do not see that in Ephesians 1:6. In fact, Ephesians 1:4-6 indicate the opposite of what you are saying:

for He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favor and will, to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:4-6 CSB

So it seems from these passages that the basis of God's favor is not anything we have done, but his own gracious choice, and before the foundation of the world (just like Mary),

Again your conclusions are not correct, because your premises are false grammatically and contextually. You have confused tense and voice. You still have not addressed Stephen in Acts.

Lets take a look at the actual verses in Ephesians:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric as you always say....context, context, context. Paul is obviously talking to the early Christians. He is talking about the Grace received by them through the Blood of Jesus Christ, not Grace they had since before time. If this were the case then there would have been no need for Jesus to have died on the cross. Obviously with Mary he can not be talking of Grace received through the Blood of Jesus. Sorry but it is you who is taking the two and comparing apples to oranges.

As far as Stephen, one step at a time. Would you plese give me the book and verse where kecharitomene was used in refference to Stephen.

K.D.

[EricH]

It is not that I have not addressed the key issue, it is that we must establish all the frame work step by step or we just spin circles. So (be it reluctant) we have established that " full of" and Grace are proper translations of what Luke wrote. Now when looking at Ephesians 1:6 we see the word is used differently, it is active. Indicating an event that is occurring. God is bestowing upon them Grace because of their faith in Jesus. With Mary it shows an event that was already completed. It shows that God filled her with Grace prior to the event in preparation of the event. So yes it clearly shows that Mary was uniquely prepared prior to the angels visit. Mary is indeed a very special vessel prepared in advance by God to bare the Christ Child. She was not just an ordinary woman favored to carry God in her womb. She was Graced fully before hand in preparation of the unique blessing.

God Bless,

K.D.

Again there are some inaccuracies above:

1. We have not agreed that fullness is the best transation. We have agreed it could be possible, but it is not demanded from the text. There are scholars on both sides.

2. When you refer to Ephesians 1:6 being in the active and Luke 1:28 being in the perfect, you are not comparing apples to oranges. "Active" refers to the voice. "Perfect" refers to the tense. The tense describes completeness or time. The voice describes the relation of the subject of the sentence to the verb. It is the use of the perfect tense in Luke 1:28 that would allow for a possible landing on fullness or completeness. The tense of Ephesians 1:6 is the aorist. The aorist also speaks of completed action in the past with results in the present. Thus most English versions translate the Aorist in the past tense:

to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:6 CSB

It can also have cumulative sense as the perfect can (meaning completeness or fullness). The voice of the passage in Luke 1:28 in in the passive. The voice of the passage in Ephesians 1:6 is the active. Voice does not address time or completeness. The passive voice in Luke 1:28 does not mean that the event is not currently occuring. The passive voice indicates that the subject of the sentence (in this case Mary) is not performing the action described by the participle. The subject in this case is the recipient. In Ephesians 1:6 the voice is active, indicating that the subject (God) is performing the action of the verb himself (giving grace to us). In both cases it is God giving the favor. In both cases it is completed (Aorist tense and Perfect tense). Remember, tense indicates time, voice indicates how the subject of the sentence relates to the verb.

3. You state that in Ephesians 1:6 the reason God is bestowing his favor is because of their faith in Jesus. I do not see that in Ephesians 1:6. In fact, Ephesians 1:4-6 indicate the opposite of what you are saying:

for He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favor and will, to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:4-6 CSB

So it seems from these passages that the basis of God's favor is not anything we have done, but his own gracious choice, and before the foundation of the world (just like Mary),

Again your conclusions are not correct, because your premises are false grammatically and contextually. You have confused tense and voice. You still have not addressed Stephen in Acts.

Lets take a look at the actual verses in Ephesians:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric as you always say....context, context, context. Paul is obviously talking to the early Christians. He is talking about the Grace received by them through the Blood of Jesus Christ, not Grace they had since before time. If this were the case then there would have been no need for Jesus to have died on the cross. Obviously with Mary he can not be talking of Grace received through the Blood of Jesus. Sorry but it is you who is taking the two and comparing apples to oranges.

As far as Stephen, one step at a time. Would you plese give me the book and verse where kecharitomene was used in refference to Stephen.

K.D.

KD,

You really have not responded to the inaccuracies in your argument that I provided above. Please respond to those. My reference to Stephen was in response to your assertion that Jesus and Mary were the only ones who were said to be full of grace. If you want your quote I can provide it. You referred to John 1:14 as part of your argument that Mary was special, because Jesus is special. I pointed out that the same phrase was not used in John 1:14. I also pointed out that the same phrase used in John 1:14 "full of grace" that you used for your argument, is used for Stephen as well in Acts (see my reference above). So, either you must concede that you were initially mistaken, or explain why if Mary is special because Jesus is special, why Stephen is not special

In terms of the context of Ephesian, God's sovereign choice of the believer is clearly stated in the passage. We are predestined. Your view of the context is based more on your own logic, than what the text actually says

So what about your errors in grammar from my previous post? You seem to have skipped that

[EricH]

Luke 1:28 - also, the phrase "full of grace" is translated from the Greek word "kecharitomene." This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just "highly favored." She has been perfected in grace by God. "Full of grace" is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Do inlighten us as to what version of the Bible you are using?

Here is your quote by the way

[EricH]

Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

Acts 6:8 CSB

Here is the Acts 6:8 verse which uses the exact same greek term used for Jesus in John 1:14. The passage you cited as part of your argument

[Kansasdad]

Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.

Acts 6:8 CSB

Here is the Acts 6:8 verse which uses the exact same greek term used for Jesus in John 1:14. The passage you cited as part of your argument

Again the context is completely different and more accurately it would be interpreted as filled with Grace, not full of Grace. This is used like Ephesians 1:6 It is contextually and grammatically different and you can not equate the two the same meaning as the verse in Luke. With Stephen the word is used differently, it is not used exactly the same. Stephen was filled with the Holy spirit after the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. As used to describe Mary the Angel indicates that she was already full of Grace, prepared ahead of time to be an acceptable vessel for the Christ Child. Stephen was filled, (active) at the time, because of his faith.

As far as responding to grammatical inaccuracies, I have already shown you that grammatically the correct interpretation is Full of Grace, but here it is again,

The Word Pictures in the New Testament, by the renowned Protestant Greek scholar A.T. Robertson, expounds Luke 1:28 as follows:

"Highly favoured" (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of chartoo and means endowed with grace ("charis"), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; (Plummer).[ Robertson, Archibald T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, 6 volumes, vol. 2, p.13] ( please take special note of the difference in endowed with Grace and enriched with Grace)

It is certain that kecharitomene is directly concerned with the idea of "grace," since, as Vine noted, it is derived from the root word charis, whose literal meaning is "grace. The word "Charis" is translated by the King James Version, for example, 129 times (out of 150 total appearances) as "grace".

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass & DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961, p.166; Smyth, H.W., Greek Grammar, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1968, sec. 1852:b. )

We also have the another Protestant Greek scholar John Nolland, who expounds the Greek word "kecharitomene" as found in Luke 1:28 as follows:

"Luke 1:28...kecharitomene is a quite rare Hellanistic verb (only found elsewhere in the NT at Eph. 1:6 in the active) Etymologically it should mean 'To be furnished with Grace" (Word Biblical Commentary, volume 35A, Pg 50, Nelson, 1989 )

( please also note that this quote was from a Protestant Greek scholar John Nolland, NOT from Kansas Dad)

Thus, in just this one verse, pregnant with meaning and far-reaching implications, the uniqueness of Mary is strongly indicated, and the Immaculate Conception can rightly be deemed entirely consistent with the meaning of this passage

Please also not the dates, 1930, 1961,1968, and 1989, so don't tell me newer information is available that improved their ability to translate.

Eric you claim that I have presented inaccurate grammatical and contextual arguments, however recognized Greek scholars refute your claims, it is you that has the grammar and context wrong.

I really have nothing more to add to this, I have as always appreciated your spirited debate, you are always a challenge. I really feel we have hijacked the thread and out of respect to the OP we should get back to the subject of remittance of sins.

God Bless,

K.D.