Friday, January 13, 2023

Staples sophistry, take 2.

 

Staples sophistry, take 2.

Having exposed Staples misdiagnosis on “The Protestant Achilles' Heel,” Morgana simply proceeds to provide another opportunity to expose cultic Catholic devotion which drives them to deny what Scripture reveals and compel Scripture to support teachings which are part of the many traditions of men that developed over time. While RCs cannot see Scripture as the only supreme sufficient (in formal and material aspects) standard for faith as described in my prior rebuttal, yet in-credibly they see the “Immaculate Conception” in Scripture, which is neither taught nor required in Scripture.

In my new book, Behold Your Mother - A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines, I give eight reasons for belief in the Immaculate Conception..Here, I will present some snippets from three of these biblical reasons for faith. But first, I must say I am sympathetic to my Protestant friends, and others, who struggle with this teaching of the Catholic Faith. says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” adds, “If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression... Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact.

Here the sophistry begins by arguing that since salvation and God being a Savior can mean being protected from sinning then this supports the premise that Mary never sinned. However, the former does not equate to the latter, and which remains to be established.

But what about “all have sinned,” and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him?” Wouldn’t “all” and/or “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No Christian would dare say that!

And the reason “No [true] Christian would dare say that!” is actually a refuting argument against the Immaculate Conception! For the reason why no true Christian would dare say that Christ sinned is because He is plainly declared to be without sin many times. (; ; cf. ; ) And which is consistent with how the Holy Spirit characteristically mentions notable deviations from the norm — which the sinless state of Mary certainly would be — even of far less primary persons. from From extraordinary age (Methuselah), to not dying (Enoch), to length of fast, to miraculous birth (Abraham and Sarah), to extraordinary height (Ogg) or strength (Samson) or toes (Goliath), or holiness (Job, Noah, Daniel) to supernatural transport (Phillip), to the extraordinary length of celibacy of Anna, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to virgin birth (Mary), to diet (John the Baptist), to the sinlessness of Christ, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, to the signs of an apostle, etc. Yet despite this the Holy Spirit says nothing about Mary being either sinless, or a perpetual virgin, or created beings being prayed to. And instead what He does teach weighs towards the norm for Mary having sinned and sexually cleaving in marriage.

Thus the argument for unrecorded Marian exception has no warrant, but instead only warrants her being as others in these aspects.

will deal with original sin...Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited.

Actually, we inherit a spiritually dead Adamic nature that is prone to sin, and thus all do sin in time, except one who was God incarnate. And while we enter into the effects of the actions of others, yet we are not judged for what we are not culpable for, but judgment is always according to what we ourselves have done in the respective judgments of redeemed and lost, (; . 20:11-15) and in accordance with light and grace given. ()

The question remains: how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of “all have sinned?” And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is. Indeed, there is much biblical support,

Which audacious claim is typical of RCs who are all to willing to see whatever is needed or desirable to support Rome, and as if this support was the basis for their veracity, which they are not. And even to relying on arguments their own church does not officially teach, but who will dismiss ours on that basis and tell us we need to rely on Rome to interpret Scripture.

And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.”... First, according to many biblical scholars as well as Pope St. John Paul II, the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.”

Wrong. His own RC Bible for America does not say this “full of grace,” as the word for “full” is not even there. Kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in , is never used for "full" elsewhere, but simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in .

CARM finds,In Greek: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. Repeated: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.... More technical data from source here: In contrast, the only one (though in some manuscripts Stephen in ) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT. If Mary was uniquely perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was, as Christ was, (plērēs charis) and RCs would not have to engage in such egregious extrapolations in seeking to justify this invention.

However, seeking to compel Scripture to support her tradition of men, Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB correctly translates as "in which he hath graced us."

When you add to this the fact that St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle...The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being...But only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.

Mary is not given a name (see below) and nor said to be “full” of grace, and uniquely so, nor from what i read does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in , as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." ()

See more on this issue here as White gets into detail with the Greek. (And notes that the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

Even Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin said of on the word kecharitomene:

"This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense" like Mary's grandmother). He went on to say, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." Meaning the text does not teach the IM, nor is that necessary, but tradition becomes binding doctrine under the ultimate presumed authority of Rome.

Moreover, while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess!

Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would almost be expected to be found in the immediate context.

And indeed, in context that the angel was simply telling Mary she was graced of the Lord is confirmed in v. 30, “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour [charis] with God,” (KJV), or as in the RC DRB: “hast found grace with God.”

The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common...

The fact is that the angel simply does not, but simply tells her that she is graced, as she was. Which is like the greeting given to Daniel, “O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong,” () Likewise, literally in Greek, the angel tells Mary “Hail” [rejoice], graced [one], the Lord is with thee: blessed thou among women.”

In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named...What’s in a name? A lot according to Scripture!

But there is no name change here, as unlike cases such as “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham,” () “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel,” () ”Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone, () Mary is never addressed as “full of grace,” but is said to have found grace with God, and thus it is said of her, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,” and “henceforth all generations shall call me blessed,” (,48) And which does not say “more blessed than all women” due to Mary having surpassing virtue. And in fact, as Ratzinger admits, Mary “in the gospel tradition is quite marginal,” (God and the world, p. 296) while the Holy Spirit is far far more descriptive of the sacrificial labor of Paul, to whom He never manifestly attributes sin after his conversion.

Nor is “blessed art thou among women” a unique type of appellation, as Scripture also says, “Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent.” ()

Thus there is nothing in that teaches or even infers Marian sinlessness, which we can be sure the Holy Spirit would have stated if that was the case as He did with other notable exceptions to the norm, especially among principal persons.

2. An Ancient Prophecy—:..I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Not only do we have the Virgin Birth here implied because the text says the Messiah would be born of “the seed of the woman” (the “seed” is normally of the man), but notice “the woman” is not included as “the seed” of the devil. It seems that both the woman and her seed are in opposition to and therefore not under the dominion of the devil and “his seed,” i.e., all who have original sin and are “by nature children of wrath” as St. Paul puts it in . Here, we have in seed form (pun intended), the fact that the woman—Mary—would be without sin, especially original sin, just as her Son—the Messiah—would be. The emphasis on Mary is truly remarkable in that the future Messiah was only mentioned in relation to her. There can be little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary and their absolute opposition to the devil.

In-credible! The RC again examples he can see what he wants to if it can support his Roman religion. Note first that though I agree the seed of the women is Christ, both Hagar and Rebekah are said to have seed. (;24:60) . Meanwhile the Hebrew words in this entire verse actually only says, “put/place enmity/hostility between woman between seed seed it/he bruise head thou shalt bruise heel.” And much commentary has been written about how this is best translated and what it precisely means. Thus the “little doubt that a parallel is being drawn between Jesus and Mary” being both sinless is based upon a text for which there is much doubt about its precise rendering and meaning,

And while I agree with the text Staples quotes, yet nowhere does it say the women is uniquely different from the rest of mankind, as it only distinguishes between the seed of the devil and seed of Eve, which prophetically would be between the lost and Christ coming ultimately through Mary, or perhaps between demons and Christ. “Seed” is singular, but it can refer to a single line of decedents. And as Christ genealogy is full of souls who were lost at least at one time, the only exclusion of any seed that is not fallen is the sinless Christ. The seed of the women no more excludes her from being fallen then it does the parents of Mary.

Behind the Roman reasoning is the premise that a sinless vessel is essential for Christ to be sinless, but which is fallacious. and states that there is "no one holy as the Lord" and "Thou only art Holy." Yet God used impure men to bring forth His pure expressive word to men, and if God could preserve Mary from sin then it is certain He could preserve Christ from being contaminated from the impurity of the vessel through which His body was supplied. For states that “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me.”

And it is also argued, that "The human male determines the sex of the offspring. His entrance into the unfertilized egg of Mary caused it to develop without the expected duplication of the female X chromosomes. When an artificial egg duplicates its chromosomes in response to artificial stimulation. the result is female" D. Hocking from his Christology course (animal studies). And thus “The blood type of the Son of God was a separate and precious type unlike any other, it had no sin. Because of this method of conception, it is not possible that Mary could have supplied any of her Adamic blood for Jesus who was to be the spotless lamb of God.” “The Holy Spirit who is God, protected His sinlessness, as God the Son entered the womb and the egg of Mary and took upon Himself a human nature in addition to His divine nature (clothed himself in humanity ). There was no change of nature but an addition, adding humanity to His deity.” (http://www.letusreason.org/rc11.htm)

I am not sure if I agree that the sin nature is dependent on the male seed, but if God can produce a male from a female virgin then He can certainly bring forth a perfect sinless male from a fallen vessel tainted by sin.

Note also here that Staples is not arguing for a binding, infallible interpretation of , while Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for "Ineffable God") which defines the infallible (which presumed status only pertains to the actual pronouncement) dogma of the Immaculate Conception relies upon a Vulgate translation [and thus the Douay Rheims] of which changed the “he” to “she shall crush thy head,” and thus that “the most holy Virgin” “was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.” (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm)

However, as the Catholic Encyclopedia (Immaculate Conception) states, The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm)

As with others, the official Roman Catholic Bible for America translates this,

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.”

The approved notes (1970 ver.), while also noting the Traditional Messianic exegesis, explains this saying, “They will strike…at their heel: the antecedent for “they” and “their” is the collective noun “offspring,” i.e., all the descendants of the woman.” (http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm)

RC apologist Jimmy Akin also states,
Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims and the New American Bible differ. I’m sure you know what I am talking about.

...The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman... just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew. (www.jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315)

The Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission explains the controversy:

“The Hebrew text of speaks about enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between the offspring of both. The personal pronoun (hu’) in the words addressed to the serpent, “He will strike at your head”, is masculine. In the Greek translation used by the early Church (LXX), however, the personal pronoun autos (he) cannot refer to the offspring … but must refer to a masculine individual who could then be the Messiah, born of a woman. The Vulgate (mis)translates the clause as ipsa … This feminine pronoun supports a reading of this passage as referring to Mary which has become traditional in the Latin Church. (Source.)

The Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin.

As a reformed source states, “He” .. in the original Hebrew is masculine. It is pronounced “hoo” and can also mean “it.” Many think it means “it” in reference to collective offspring of the woman crushing the head of the serpent. In the LXX, however, it is rendered autos “he,” indicating that the passage should be understood as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ alone crushing the head. “He [Jesus] will crush the serpent’s head.” (http://reformedapologeticsministries.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholic-misuse-of-genesis-315.html)

More here.

The Hebrew Masoretic text reads that one who will crush the serpents head is in the masculine, speaking about Christ, and the NT does not mention Mary of doing this, but that “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [Christ] also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (,15) Glory be to God.

3. Mary, Ark of the Covenant: The Old Testament ark of the Covenant was a true icon of the sacred. It was a picture of the purity and holiness God fittingly demands of those objects and/or persons most closely associated with himself and the plan of salvation. Because it would contain the very presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming Messiah—the manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s staff—it had to be most pure and untouched by sinful man (see ; ff; ; ).

In the New Testament, the new and true Ark would not be an inanimate object, but a person—the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new and true Ark be...

This is another attempt to glorify the creature rather than the Creator, God blessed for ever, as it is Christ who best fulfills the typology of the ark of the Covenant.

• God commanded Moses to “make an ark of shittim wood,” which wood represents the humanity of Christ, “And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it,” (,11) and which gold can be seen to represent glory. And thus the wise men brought gold as a gift to Christ (not Mary), and was girded about His loins and breast with a golden garment, (; ) which also is never said of Mary.

• The Ark, once made, was moved via poles, so as not to be directly touched by sinful man (; ), yet which men Mary was touched by, as well as Christ. And the former was ritually defiled by giving birth, and thus observed the required days of purification, (; cf. Lv. 12:2,6-8) and then brought the required living creatures to the priest “for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood.” (,7)

But the sanctity of the Ark corresponds to the spiritual purity of Christ, who being the Lamb of God is alone said to be “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” () “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” () “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” ()

Which is never said of Mary. Yet Catholics have the audacity to make Mary was sinless, even as binding doctrine, when Scripture nowhere teaches it, and we can be confident that it would say so if that was true, and especially if was a binding doctrine, just as it clearly records the sinlessness of Christ and other extraordinary or otherwise notable aspects of its subjects, even far lesser ones.

• And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold....And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end:...And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims (,19,22) On top of the ark was the mercy seat on which rested the cloud signifying the presence of God, between two cherubs of gold. The Greek word () for “mercy seat” is hilasterion, meaning “that which makes atonement.”

This easily corresponds to ,5, in which Moses and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, can be seen to answer to the two cherubims, and who talk with Christ under a bright cloud, and in which context all are called to commune with Christ, the atonement: “While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him,” thus directly communing with God. (cf. ) And which is said to Peter, James and John, whom Paul later states () appeared to be pillars of the church (if not in that order), thus this call to directly commune with God via the mercy seat under the cloud is to the church.

• “And in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.” ()The Ark contained the 2 tables of the Law, which testimony in the NT becomes grace and Truth, and the Scriptures uniquely state Christ was “full of grace and Truth.” () For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. ()

• And they commanded the people, saying, When ye see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, and the priests the Levites bearing it, then ye shall remove from your place, and go after it. () And it was Christ, not Mary, who said “Follow me,” () and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,” () as Christ alone was God manifest in the flesh. (,14; 20:28; )

• “And the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey, to search out a resting place for them.” () And Christ, not Mary said,”I go to prepare a place for you.” ()

Therefore it is Christ, not Mary who is clothed with gold, and declared to be undefiled, sinless, and the atonement/mercy seat, with two cherubs of glory on each side, by whom believers commune with God under the cloud of glory, and whom constrains the testimony of grace and Truth, and goes before believers.

And thus by God grace Staples compulsion of Scripture to support vain traditions of men is once again exposed, which he inventively adds to within the rest of his book (which is not dealt with here), promoting the Mariolatry of the false Mary of Catholicism, thinking of mortals above that which is written, () to his own condemnation and those who sadly subscribe to this. It is the Lord who is high and lifted up, not any Queen of Heaven, which is only found among pagans. But despite what Scripture says and fails to say, likewise many Catholics basically insist,

“But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem...” ()

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

If I see notifications of comments then I will try to respond to comments within one or two days, however, I may not see notifications (I hardly ever get comments) and this has not been where I usually engage in dialogue.
Please try to be reasonable, willing to examine things prayerfully and objectively, and refrain from "rants" and profane language, especially regarding God and the Christian faith. The latter type are subject to removal on this Christian blog, but I do try to help people no matter who they are. May all know the grace of God in truth.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)