Question to Protestants regarding certain Catholic beliefs

[TheNorwegian]

I personally have no doubt that you are very educated, and have been educated in ancient Greek.

Thank you

St. Jerome was also, and lived from 347 to 420 a.d. Jerome was contextually closer to the living form of the Biblical languages as "living" languages. It has only been in more recent times that a few translators have not used Jerome's Vulgate as a cross reference; those who translated the KJV as well as Martin Luther when he translated the Bible into German looked to the Vulgate, other translations and commentaries as well. Jerome's Vulagate was certainly good enough in that it's use was retained in those Lutheran Churches that continued to use Latin into the 1500's.

I agree that the old translations are helpful in understanding the text. We should also look at the Church Fathers. I would like to substantiate my understanding of the Greek text of Luke 1:28 with quotes from the Ancient Fathers, but that requires an open and friendly discussion. Therefore, I have refrained from doing so.

For me it is a great blessing that I am able to consult translations in many different languages. I regularly consult various English, Norwegian, Swedish and German translations - as well as various Greek texts. Unfortunately, Latin is not one of the languages I know, so it is not possible for me to have a meaningful debate about Latin texts.

We need to keep an open mind. If one studies at a Catholic Sem, one will receive Catholic indoctrination; if one studies in a Lutheran Sem, Lutheran indoctrination will be the norm; if one studies in a particular protestant or reformed school, you will get their slant on things. If one's professor has a bit of an anti-traditional stripe, like it or not, that will influence what he teaches; we all have bias and to say otherwise is self deception.

I did my Greek studies in the Norwegian School of Theology in Oslo, which is the largest seminary in Norway. This University offers several different masters (and beyond) for a variety of denominations. The language classes include student who are looking for qualifications in Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Methodist, or Pentecostal studies. This means that the students are exposed to a variety of views all through their first few years in seminary. I find the approach of this school fascinating and refreshing. That is of course not to claim that I do not have any bias - since, as you say, we all have that!

If we can't agree, we can't agree. When that happens, it is time to respectfully accept differences and maybe walk away. Beating each other with rhetoric and rolls of sheep-skin only tend to degenerate the discussion.

Let's keep it civil.

I agree! When I entered this discussion I naively thought that my qualifications in Greek would be helpful. For me, the position of Mary is not very important so I have not studied Luke 1:28 in detail before now. When I saw the claim that the word used there did not appear elsewhere in the Bible, I decided to check the Greek texts. When I found the same word in Sirach I just thought it would be a helpful fact that would help the discussion ...

 

[TheNorwegian]

κεχαριτωμένῳ (Sir 18:17) is simply not an adjective. This is not how adjectives look like in Greek

It's an adjective, accept it.

No, I will not accept it. Your approach is not very scientific: You ask me to accept something just because you say so
You also refuse to share your qualifications (if any) in Greek. It would be truly stupid of me to "just accept it" just because somebody who does not know Greek says so

A participle does not become an adjective just because you claim it
If it looks like a participle, sounds like a participle and works like a participle, then it likely is a participle
Can you please explain why you believe this is an adjective?
Please, also give a short overview of how adjectives are constructed in Greek and how that applies to this word in Sirach
Maybe you can use this opportunity to teach me something about Greek adjectives!?

I guess what you are thinking about is adjective use of a participle, but that is something quite different from this word being an adjective. Participles are a hassel in Greek - as everybody who has ever studied the language knows. It is quite common to translate Greek participles as adjectives, but that does not mean that they are adjectives in the original texts. This is what makes it so helpful to understand Greek grammar: It gives a new depth of understanding to the Biblical text.

 

[Cis.jd]

No, I will not accept it. Your approach is not very scientific: You ask me to accept something just because you say so
You also refuse to share your qualifications (if any) in Greek. It would be truly stupid of me to "just accept it" just because somebody who does not know Greek says so

I did not say you have to accept it because I say so, i'm saying there is too much evidence that throws all your arguments out the widow: "Why would their be "Hail" in Luke, why is it that both κεχαριτωμένῳ different when translated to the Latin Vulgate, common sense shows they are different in meaning. This better not be an alt of Keltoi again.

A participle does not become an adjective just because you claim it
If it looks like a participle, sounds like a participle and works like a participle, then it likely is a participle. Can you please explain why you believe this is an adjective? Please, also give a short overview of how adjectives are constructed in Greek and how that applies to this word in Sirach Maybe you can use this opportunity to teach me something about Greek adjectives!?

Why are you saying i'm claiming these things. You see, comments like this shows why your "credentials" in Greek is doubtful. Lets see, closest (one letter difference) is in Sirach 18.17
> οὐκ ἰδοὺ λόγος ὑπὲρ δόμα ἀγαθόν - Lo, is not a word better than a gift?
> καὶ ἀμφότερα παρὰ ἀνδρὶ κεχαριτωμένῳ: But both are with a gracious man.
κεχαριτωμένη - voc fem Luke 1.28
κεχαριτωμένῳ - dat masc 18.17
lets look at Sirach 18.17 when it's translated
DRB 18:17 Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a justified man.
NAB 18:17 Indeed does not a word count more than a good gift? But both are offered by a kind person.

You see, all different translations show it is an adjective. You are claiming that you have credentials in Greek yet don't know anything this basic and need proof of it being an adjective? Justified, Kind, and find any translation.. it's all adjectives. And again, the Latin Vulgate.. It's really odd for a person to claim they studied actual Greek yet have not gone through Latin when it is also one of the oldest translations of the Bible. I don't want to insult you, but a lot does not add up.

Clem Vulg Sirach 18:17 Nonne ecce verbum super datum bonum? sed utraque cum homine justificato. They are all adjectives, your whole "hey man i'm got credentials in greek" is not impressive or convincing after reading this.

 

[TheNorwegian]

Why are you saying i'm claiming these things. You see, comments like this shows why your "credentials" in Greek is doubtful. Lets see, closest (one letter difference) is in Sirach 18.17
> οὐκ ἰδοὺ λόγος ὑπὲρ δόμα ἀγαθόν - Lo, is not a word better than a gift?
> καὶ ἀμφότερα παρὰ ἀνδρὶ κεχαριτωμένῳ: But both are with a gracious man.
κεχαριτωμένη - voc fem Luke 1.28
κεχαριτωμένῳ - dat masc 18.17
lets look at Sirach 18.17 when it's translated
DRB 18:17 Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a justified man.
NAB 18:17 Indeed does not a word count more than a good gift? But both are offered by a kind person.

You see, all different translations show it is an adjective. You are claiming that you have credentials in Greek yet don't know anything this basic and need proof of it being an adjective? Justified, Kind, and find any translation.. it's all adjectives. And again, the Latin Vulgate.. It's really odd for a person to claim they studied actual Greek yet have not gone through Latin when it is also one of the oldest translations of the Bible. I don't want to insult you, but a lot does not add up.

Maybe part of the misunderstanding comes from who knows which languages. I only comment on Greek since that is the language I know. Latin is probably common in Catholic circles, but Protestants tend to start with the "real" Biblical languages (Greek + Hebrew) and only a few go on to study other ancient languages, like Latin.

I know that Greek participles often are translated as adjectives, but that does not make them adjectives in Greek
This is simply because many other European languages cannot properly translate a participle without using many words, which would make the text difficult to follow for the ordinary reader.

One of the first things you learn when you study Greek is to analyse a word to see which form it is

The word in Luke 1:28 is: Verb - Participle - Perfect - Passive - Vocative - Feminin - Singular
The word in Sirach 18:17: Verb - Participle - Perfect - Passive - Dative - Masculine- Singular

Both sentences use the same word but in slightly different forms Feminin/Vocative - Masculine/Dative
This was my initial claim (that the same word is used in both verses) - and it is still my claim

That context add nuances to a word is obvious, and I could discuss this. For instance, you are right that in Sirach the participle is used in a adjectival way, since it has the same form as the preceding noun. ἀνδρὶ and κεχαριτωμένῳ are both datives. The word is still a participle just as in Luke and the exact same word as in Luke. But of course, dative functions differently than vocative.

But I think I will refrain from more comments unless the discussion becomes more "civil" as one recently said in this thread

 

[Cis.jd]

Maybe part of the misunderstanding comes from who knows which languages. I only comment on Greek since that is the language I know. Latin is probably common in Catholic circles, but Protestants tend to start with the "real" Biblical languages (Greek + Hebrew) and only a few go on to study other ancient languages, like Latin.

I know that Greek participles often are translated as adjectives, but that does not make them adjectives in Greek
This is simply because many other European languages cannot properly translate a participle without using many words, which would make the text difficult to follow for the ordinary reader.

One of the first things you learn when you study Greek is to analyse a word to see which form it is

The word in Luke 1:28 is: Verb - Participle - Perfect - Passive - Vocative - Feminin - Singular
The word in Sirach 18:17: Verb - Participle - Perfect - Passive - Dative - Masculine- Singular

Both sentences use the same word but in slightly different forms Feminin/Vocative - Masculine/Dative
This was my initial claim (that the same word is used in both verses) - and it is still my claim

That context add nuances to a word is obvious, and I could discuss this. For instance, you are right that in Sirach the participle is used in a adjectival way, since it has the same form as the preceding noun. ἀνδρὶ and κεχαριτωμένῳ are both datives. The word is still a participle just as in Luke and the exact same word as in Luke. But of course, dative functions differently than vocative.

But I think I will refrain from more comments unless the discussion becomes more "civil" as one recently said in this thread

"but Protestants tend to start with the "real" Biblical languages (Greek + Hebrew) and only a few go on to study other ancient languages, like Latin."

what kind of person who claims to have studied/have credentials on Greek would say something like this? Of course you will have to tackle other translations, most importantly the Latin and Hebrew during your course. You just shot yourself in the foot and exposed yourself of not having any knowledge of Greek at all by saying this.

You claim the European Languages cannot properly translate participles with out using many words, this shows you don't know or understand what I am talking about. You don't even know what the Vulgate is after reading this. If all translations are different, including the Latin, then your understanding of the greek is wrong. You've cleared that you have no actual reputable background with Greek. Saying "we just study on the real translation, not the Greek" is like an Architect saying "i just study sketching and not geometry". If you are taking Greek, you'll have to learn/read the Latin.

Luke is strictly a title as to what all the evidence shows, i've explained the hail, you just don't know what i'm talking about.

You are keltoi, you are shifting into different alts just to argue with me because all of them have been blocked for trolling and going "accross the world out of context". lol

 

[TheNorwegian]

"but Protestants tend to start with the "real" Biblical languages (Greek + Hebrew) and only a few go on to study other ancient languages, like Latin."

what kind of person who claims to have studied/have credentials on Greek would say something like this? Of course you will have to tackle other translations, most importantly the Latin and Hebrew during your course. You just shot yourself in the foot and exposed yourself of not having any knowledge of Greek at all by saying this.

Just go check a course in theology in any Protestant University and you will find that Latin is not compulsory in most of them
You really do live in a bubble. Protestants and Orthodox study Greek, Catholics study Latin

" with me because all of them have been blocked for trolling and going "accross the world out of context". lol

I am not trolling, I am sticking to my initial claim: That it is the same word used in both Sirach and Luke
Why can you not admit such a simple thing: Same word, different form

Then you brought up some wild allegation on how the word in Sirach is an adjective in Greek, so I commented on that
I am curious whether you still claim the word in Sirach is an adjective as opposed to a participle
You just skipped that part of my last comment, didn't you? Why?
If it is so obvious, it would be easy for you to show how it is an adjective in Greek - would it not?
Just cite a reliable Greek source as t what kind of word this is, if you are not Abel to analyse it yourself.

Luke is strictly a title as to what all the evidence shows, i've explained the hail, you just don't know what i'm talking about.

Vocative in Greek does not mean "strictly a title"
There are several uses of 'chaire' - from Homer to the Church Fathers that proves otherwise
But no point in discussing this with someone who does not know Greek

 

[Cis.jd]

Just go check a course in theology in any Protestant University and you will find that Latin is not compulsory in most of them
You really do live in a bubble. Protestants and Orthodox study Greek, Catholics study Latin

Where did you get "Catholics only study Latin"? And Protestant University. Those are likely bad schools if they don't have any subjects teaching the Latin version. Stoping making up arguments Keltoi.

I am not trolling, I am sticking to my initial claim: That it is the same word used in both Sirach and Luke
Why can you not admit such a simple thing: Same word, different form

You are trolling because this was already proven that both words have different meanings. You are actually a sock account of Keltoi. You and your other accounts have been blocked because of trolling like this, look at you trying to use alts just to have some sort of attention seeking.

Then you brought up some wild allegation on how the word in Sirach is an adjective in Greek, so I commented on that
I am curious whether you still claim the word in Sirach is an adjective as opposed to a participle
You just skipped that part of my last comment, didn't you? Why?
If it is so obvious, it would be easy for you to show how it is an adjective in Greek - would it not?
Just cite a reliable Greek source as t what kind of word this is, if you are not Abel to analyse it yourself.

You already proven this, you were given the Latin translation. So use your common sense, keltoi. If these two verses are the same words with the same meaning and significance, then why is it translated differently in Latin? Your best argument on this is something you just guessed out of your head which is "well we only study greek, we don't know latin, because we are protestants and greek is the first so we da best..." The Latin is the closest to the Greek translation, and it just proves that your understanding of the greek is wrong, and much more that you really don't have any good knowledge on Greek at all.

Vocative in Greek does not mean "strictly a title"
There are several uses of 'chaire' - from Homer to the Church Fathers that proves otherwise
But no point in discussing this with someone who does not know Greek

Chaire in Luke means Hail. Just so you know, you've been harshly refuted at all accounts you've tried to use.. this just shows you are some desperate person who is trying to satisfy his anti-catholic ego by making any form of ridiculous statements and just trolling when facts are countered on him.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

IMO much was lost in translation when translating Hebrew/Greek into Latin. Greek is a far superior language with 4X the vocabulary! So when there was a Greek or Hebrew word that had no Latin equalivalant, Rome was forced to replace it with the closest thing they had. For example, for arguement sake, let's say the original Greek scripture said " Jack walked his hound down an alley". Let's assume that Latin did not have the word "hound" or "alley" so the scripture was translated to "Jack walked his dog down the street". Obviously they both sound similar but it clearly paints a different picture.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Cis.jd]

IMO much was lost in translation when translating Hebrew/Greek into Latin. Greek is a far superior language with 4X the vocabulary! So when there was a Greek or Hebrew word that had no Latin equalivalant, Rome was forced to replace it with the closest thing they had. For example, for arguement sake, let's say the original Greek scripture said " Jack walked his hound down an alley". Let's assume that Latin did not have the word "hound" or "alley" so the scripture was translated to "Jack walked his dog down the street". Obviously they both sound similar but it clearly paints a different picture.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

While this is true, the debate that we were having wasn't about what was the superior translation. Everybody knows that the original Greek is the main source however we are dealing with a word that is referenced in Sirach and Luke and both of these words are different when translated to the Latin.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Vulgate may have been influenced by unique theology that developed by Jerome's time, that seems obvious to me, by choosing the words gratia plena. It's a much less exact translation of the Greek (BTW, I don't believe Latin has a direct equivalent to the Greek word).

"Hail, Favored One" seems to be a common modern translation. I'm not sure how that relates to Roman Catholic-Protestant theological debates.

 

[FireDragon76]

The woman clothed with the sun is symbolic of redeemed Israel, not Mary, and that is evident from the entire chapter. Since Christ came from Israel, he is the child depicted therein.

I think its more complicated than that because there is the tradition of also identifying Mary as Israel typologically, and nobody is exactly sure where that started in church history. I've even heard something vaguely like that in Protestant sermons. Granted, not from churches that have built up their identity on anticatholicism, but the typological thinking is not alien to magisterial Protestants.

The cult of Mary arose a few hundred years after the apostles had departed, and false teaching began to permeate the churches.

There is a hymn about Mary in Syriac/Aramic that dates to the early second century. Devotion to Mary did not happen "hundreds of years later". I won't pretend to say this can be proven just with the Bible (which wasn't even developed into a full canon until centuries later), but these men believed they were guarding an apostolic deposit of faith, taking their responsibility seriously, often speaking out against heresy and deviance from what they had received. If they felt Marian devotion contradicted that faith, they would have said something about it... but the record is silent.

 

[Albion]

"Hail, Favored One" seems to be a common modern translation. I'm not sure how that relates to Roman Catholic-Protestant theological debates.

It eliminates the favorite argument (and sole Scriptural one) used by Roman Catholics on behalf of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[FireDragon76]

It eliminates the favorite argument (and sole Scriptural one) used by Roman Catholics on behalf of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Maybe, but the doctrine doesn't rest completely on scriptural grounds, but also on a theological tradition.

It's interesting that the Orthodox "Hail Mary" is usually translated into English, "Rejoice O Virgin Theotokos, Mary, full of grace" even though Orthodox do not have a Latin understanding of grace (it's never created by God... it is God), or the immaculate conception. The original Greek word in the prayer for "full of grace" is κεχαριτωμένη

 

[Cis.jd]

The Vulgate may have been influenced by unique theology that developed by Jerome's time, that seems obvious to me, by choosing the words gratia plena. It's a much less exact translation of the Greek (BTW, I don't believe Latin has a direct equivalent to the Greek word).

"Hail, Favored One" seems to be a common modern translation. I'm not sure how that relates to Roman Catholic-Protestant theological debates.

The top part is something i will not get into at the moment, but your bottom segment is what i'm talking about. I've been saying that Luke has it as a title.

 

[Albion]

Maybe, but the doctrine doesn't rest completely on scriptural grounds, but also on a theological tradition.

They normally aspire to make us think that it's more than a legend or theological speculation, however; and this part of that verse is the only real Scriptural evidence that they are able to point to in order to try to convince us that there is some Scriptural basis for it. Give the correct translation for those words and that basis disappears.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm curious to hear more of this discussion. Particularly because the western conceptualization of original sin and the resulting "immaculate conception" is so convoluted compared to the Orthodox understanding. AND we mostly have Augustine's Latin text to thank for that!

 

[childofdust]

Hello, i'm here because i'm interesting in understanding the Protestant point of view that contends with Catholic teachings.

Tell ya what, I'll give it a go! Full disclosure: I'm not Protestant.

1. Referring to Mary as the Mother of God.
> Why are protestants so against this title, when it is actually true in away.

Hmm... Sorry, can't answer that one. I have no problem with calling Mary the Mother of God, Theotokos, or whatever.

1. Praying to Mary, angels, and the Saints?

Don't really have a problem with that either. Considering that they're dead, I'm not really sure why someone would have a problem with it. I'd rather pray to someone who is alive, personally. When the resurrection happens, I'll have no issue giving Mary, the Mother of God, a hail.

My problems with Catholicism are primarily pragmatic, not dogmatic. But let's see if there's anything else here...

my next question is about Justification. Another big debate among Catholics and Protestants. I believe in Faith and good works, and I don't understand why Protestants differ from that. I do think it is logical that a Christian is identified by the works he does...

Yeah, I don't get Protestant Justification either. I'm pretty sure it all started with Luther and his maladies of body, mind, and spirit. He was such a tortured soul that couldn't believe that there was anything “good” about him, which meant that if he were to be “saved” (another obsession of Protestants that doesn't make sense to me), it would have to mean that it was all God's doing and not his own. The nice thing about that kind of belief is that it sounds so holy. The big bonus, though, is that it gives people who are scared of hell a way to live with their wicked acts and, perhaps, even a get-out-of-hell-free card to boot.

At the end of the day, my people (the Anabaptists) were hunted down, beaten, robbed, drowned, burned, starved, thrown in jail, tortured, and banished by both Protestants and Catholics. So whether they believed in Justification or not, they both condemned and persecuted Christ (my brothers and sisters), and thereby showed their true affiliation.

Anyway, I don't think I did very well answering your questions... I seem to have agreed with you more than anything. Take from it what you will.

 

[TheNorwegian]

How does Catholics explain the greetings to Hermas (Hermas 1:1:4) where he is greeted in the same way as the angel greeted Mary with 'chaire' and a vocative: Ερμᾶ χαῖρε I assume this is not seen as a title for Hermas?

 

[Cis.jd]

How does Catholics explain the greetings to Hermas (Hermas 1:1:4) where he is greeted in the same way as the angel greeted Mary with 'chaire' and a vocative: Ερμᾶ χαῖρε I assume this is not seen as a title for Hermas?

It's not.
1:4 Now, while I prayed, the heaven was opened, and I see the lady, whom I had desired, greeting me from heaven, saying, "Good morrow, Hermas."

 

[TheNorwegian]

It's not.
1:4 Now, while I prayed, the heaven was opened, and I see the lady, whom I had desired, greeting me from heaven, saying, "Good morrow, Hermas."

But in Greek the word "chaire" is used. Why is it translated "Good morrow"?