Question to Protestants regarding certain Catholic beliefs

[FireDragon76]

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

Because "Hail" is archaic?

 

[TheNorwegian]

Because "Hail" is archaic?

I agree. But this relates to Luke 1:28 where the angel greets Mary with the exact same phrase.
Did the angel say "Good morning, Mary" or "Hail, Mary"

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I agree. But this relates to Luke 1:28 where the angel greets Mary with the exact same phrase.
Did the angel say "Good morning, Mary" or "Hail, Mary"

I apologize if this has already been brought up but I could not let this pass. The word "hail" according to Luke 1:28 was:
χαίρω (chaírō, khah'-ee-ro - a primary verb; to be "cheer"ful, i.e. calmly happy or well-off; impersonally, especially as salutation (on meeting or parting), be well:—farewell, be glad, God speed, greeting, hall, joy(- fully), rejoice.

So although it does not mean "good morning " but it is rather close. It would be more accurately translated as "greetings" So "good morrow" would not be inaccurate.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yeah, I don't get Protestant Justification either. ..... 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.

This is perhaps the most important question in all of Christian theology. This question is the cause of the Reformation, the split between the Protestant churches and Catholic Church. This question is a key difference between biblical Christianity and most of the “Christian” cults. Is salvation by faith alone, or by faith plus works? Am I saved just by believing in Jesus, or do I have to believe in Jesus and do certain things?

The question of faith alone or faith plus works is made difficult by some hard-to-reconcile Bible passages. Compare Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works). Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works. This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his/her life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his/her life, then he/she likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).

Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their lives is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17). James and Paul do not disagree in their teaching regarding salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that genuine faith in Christ produces good works.


So in short, both Catholics and Protestant put a high value on works. The difference is in the motivation to do works. Catholics do good works in order to be justified but protestants do good works because they are justified. Catholics believe that works are a part of the justification process and by doing good works will lead them to the path of salvation. Luther could not excape the fact that there was an "inward bending " involved with it. He felt that it was selfish in nature to do good works in order to be justified. However, Protestants believe they are justified by faith and as a result, called to do good works . So they do good works for no other reason than to please God and carry out His will.

 

[Albion]

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.

You're right. According to what you wrote above, you don't know a thing about "Protestant Justification." Shall we work on correcting that--or just let it pass?

 

[Rick Otto]

You're right. According to what you wrote above, you don't know a thing about "Protestant Justification." Shall we work on correcting that--or just let it pass?

Thank you. I saw that and wondered where my mop and bucket are.

 

[Rick Otto]

Because "Hail" is archaic?

Good morning would be an "edict" translation, if "Hail" is archaic and EVrybody knows...
we can't have archaic and edict, too.

 

[FireDragon76]

I generally don't believe in dynamic equivalence or paraphrase, the best translation is probably "Rejoice", as Orthodox Christians do. "Good Morning" is not very close at all: I would rather have a simple "Hello", in that case.

 

[shadowhunter]

I can't change your decision on not wanting to use the formula, but a lot of protestants accuse this of blaspheme.

It is made a basphemy when it is imposed by coersion. The doctrine is not as important as the imposed authority.

Now, why is it discouraged to use due to confusion? Does this title make God sound nerfed? If that is so, then why make statements like "God died on the cross", this could also cause confusion to those who are not Christian because "how can a God die?". One of the main things that Romans mocked Christians for was the belief that they were worshiping a man who was killed in Palestine, in there view a god could not be killed by mortals, this view is still carried on by Muslims, Hindu's, and other different religions. If you try to correct it "God didn't die, Jesus physically died, temporarily" then the question will raise "so is Jesus God, did he die on the cross...".

Actually I don't say God died on the cross. God was divided on the cross. The split vail, water, stone, baby, tablets all say the same thing.

The incarnation of God, died on the cross. Your argument is more Muslim than Catholic. Catholics don't say God died on the cross either, to the best of my knowledge.

Trying to make a distinction between Jesus and God is illogical to Christianity, when you say Jesus you automatically say God, because he is God John 1:1.

It was even said by Elizabeth "the mother of my Lord". The title is Biblical.

Your observation is not Catholic either. Neither Protestant nor Catholic have any problem making a distinction between Father, Son and Holy Ghost even though they are one God.

 

[Open Heart]

I mean, if protestants cling to the "Jesus is the only mediator (which is true) between God and man" then wouldn't it be hypocritical on a protestant to ask for a fellow church mate for prayers?

Yes

 

[Open Heart]

What you're speaking of is intercession, not mediation.

And what exactly is the difference? The two words are synonyms. They share the same definition.

This ought to be interesting.

 

[Albion]

And what exactly is the difference? The two words are synonyms. They share the same definition.

This ought to be interesting.

Wow. You're replying to a post from ten months back.

Anyway, the answer to your question is this:

They're not synonyms. In Christian usage, a mediator is one who is empowered to act as a go-between, like a negotiator appointed in labor-management disputes. That's why we say that Jesus is "our only mediator and advocate." He effects the reconciliation between mankind and God that had been ruptured by sin.

An intercessor, however, can be anyone who speaks up for you and makes an entreaty. A familiar example is when you ask a neighbor or friend to pray for you. His prayer may be no more or less acceptable to God than yours, but it's an additional petitioner asking on your behalf.

 

[Open Heart]

They're not synonyms.

me·di·a·tor
ˈmēdēˌādər/
noun

1. a person who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between.
   "the government appointed a mediator to assist in finding a resolution to the dispute"
   synonyms: arbitrator, arbiter, negotiator, conciliator, peacemaker, go-between, middleman, intermediary, moderator, intervenor, intercessor, broker, honest broker, liaison officer; More

Synonyms and Antonyms of intercessor

1. one who works with opposing sides in order to bring about an agreement<eventually, they hired an intercessor, because they were getting nowhere on their own>Synonyms broker, buffer, conciliator, go-between, honest broker, interceder, mediator, intermediary, intermediate, interposer, middleman, peacemaker
   

 

[Albion]

As I said, they're not synonyms.

I also said that "In Christian usage..." which means in the theological sense of these words. And I assure you that the distinction is important.

Dictionaries are written to incorporate the various ways that people in general commonly use words, even incorrectly.

 

[Open Heart]

As I said, they're not synonyms.

I also said that "In Christian usage..." which means in the theological sense of these words. And I assure you that the distinction is important.

Dictionaries are written to incorporate the various ways that people in general commonly use words, even incorrectly.

Looks like we're going to have to disagree about this, Albion. If you don't accept a Dictionary as a source for the meaning of words, I don't know what to say to you.

 

[Albion]

Looks like we're going to have to disagree about this, Albion. If you don't accept a Dictionary as a source for the meaning of words, I don't know what to say to you.

Or me. I'd think that we both would know that a Dictionary doesn't work like an Encyclopedia and that it usually gives all the ways that a word is commonly used, whether correctly or not, and in a wide range of contexts.