Gerry Soliman - Anti-Catholic Delusion Part II

Personally, I believe that this reply is not necessary; he doesn’t deserve much attention or any arguments from his article worth my time. But anyways, I will expose here how he stumbles over the truth:

[Gerry Soliman’s statements are in Red]

In his article entitled Kecharitomene: C. Pio's Broken Record he wrote:

We are just exposing the inconsistencies when Roman Catholics used the term full of grace. In this case, the rules changed on Stephen since he isn't Mary. Keep in mind that any rule is implemented by Rome as long as it is supportive of its Mariology.  But these so-called rules do not apply for all other persons. (emphasis mine)

He was referring ONLY to a SINGLE term full of grace, and he accused Catholics for being inconsistent in applying this term to other persons, [full of grace to Mary means she was Sinless from moment of her conception but Stephen was also full of grace and yet we don’t consider him to be immaculately conceived]

To make it clear this is what he was talking to in one of his article: [I]n Acts 6:8 of the Douay Rheims version, Stephen was full of grace. So was Stephen immaculately conceived? [Isahel Alfonso versus Marwil Llasos on the Immaculate Conception January 3, 2012]

To refute his non-sense accusation, I presented immediately that this term (full of grace) that he was referring were in fact are NOT THE SAME, IDENTICAL, ONE WORD, BUT TWO DIFFERENT GREEK TERMS WITH DIFFERENT MEANING. I made a comparison between pleres caritos (for Stephen) and the Ketcharitomene (used to address Mary) Kecharitomene

Arguments against Kecharitomene refuted!

His response:

We appreciate that C. Pio analyzed the Greek origins of the term full of grace between Luke 1:28 and Acts 6:8 (DRB). However, it doesn't hold water. Of course pleres caritos is not in the perfect passive participle because it isn't a verb like kecharitomene; pleres is an adjective while caritos is a noun. C. Pio is comparing apples with oranges! [C.Pio's Absurd Defense of Kecharitomene]

                                                                              

Now he mumbled (who’s then is absurd?)

A note to C. Pio: We are aware of the Greek terms, […]

A note to Soliman: you are aware of the Greek terms then why you keep claiming they are the same word earlier?

[…] you're only misapplying it.

Misapplying what? He keeps on accusing me of misapplication but he cannot provide any single proof to refute my argument. Again, as I’ve already pointed out, they are NOT the same word. So I suggest, unless you could provide proof that pleres caritos and kecharitomene are the same word, meaning and application in Greek I will concede!

We have also noted that kecharitomene is not the only verb that is in the perfect tense.  We have cited that "beloved" in 1st Thessalonians 1:4 is also in the past perfect tense Greek (egapemenoi) but with no theological meaning that the belovedness of the people in that verse started from birth. 

[after this I am hoping that he will get now what I mean when I stated straw man-fallacy on my previous post. lol]

The word translated "beloved" "egapemenoi" is in the perfect tense, meaning that God didn't just love us once in the past but rather that He loved us in the past and continues to love us. We stand in the constant state so to speak.

Then what? Even sinners are beloved by God but this does not necessarily mean that sinner became a sinless because God loves him. The Bible teaches that God loved us and though He loves us this is not an assurance that ALL He loves, loved Him in return [And if you didn’t love God you are in state of sin] in other word, it's up to every individual (his freewill) to either pursue a personal relationship with God or reject Him outright.

Kecharitomene on the other hand was speaking of God’s grace and grace excludes and saves us from sin [Romans 5:20-21] [Eph 2:5; 8] since Luke 1:28 says that Mary has been in the complete sanctifying grace of God, or has been filled with grace, it means that there was no part of her that was in sin - for otherwise God would not have sanctified with grace that part, and her grace would not have been complete, in God's eyes, if she was at all sinful.

By the way, let me help him where his argument came from, this argument was once used by Mr. James White, Mr. White argued that If 1 Thessalonians 1:4 have the same perfect passive tense as Luke 1:28, why don't we understand those verses the same way we understand Luke 1:28, as indicating a permanent state of fullness, completion, or perfection of the verb in question? Mr. White's response is that the perfect tense doesn't have to imply perfection, but only an emphasis. 

Yes, the condition started in the past time but not necessarily from conception.  Yes, it is an accomplished action that continues in the present but it doesn't necessarily mean permanency.  C. Pio is only adding words here that his references do not state.  He went as far as to present an "exegesis" of  caire kecharitomene, but if you do an analysis it doesn't help his case.       

Let us go first to his second presumption: Yes, it is an accomplished action that continues in the present but it doesn't necessarily mean permanency. 

Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action [H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968) 108-109, sec 1852:b)  (Blass and DeBrunner p.175.)]

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." [The Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, F. Blass and A. Debrunner, translated and edited by Robert Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 166.]

He is really AWARE with Greek Terms! lol

So, at this point his only question is at what point in her life is Mary made without sin?

I will quote here what pre-industrial Greek-speakers say about "Kecharitomene" means in the context of Luke 1:28:

Irenaeus was a hearer of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Evangelist:

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, "Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word." Eve […] who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children[…] having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin] [Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]]

Origen was a scholar and theologian of early Christian in Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jew:

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one [Homily 1 [A.D. 244]]

Both of them are Greek-speaker from a culture the same to that of Luke and both of them saw Mary as immaculately conceived!

Again, based on the proper application of term as I quote above [F. Blass and A. Debrunner]:

"Having been Graced with all Grace both past present and future." I will repost here the one that Soliman skipped: if one is graced with all Grace not only now, but in the past, and in the future, that is there is no more Grace they can possible have [completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace], what does that imply?

Or, denoting that the state of grace began in the past time, by a completed action and whose results continue in the present, meaning that at each and every moment she was under the sanctifying grace of God. There NEVER was a time that she was not under God’s sanctifying grace; therefore she could NEVER sinned because this would have caused her to no longer be in God’s sanctifying grace. In other words, it means from conception. Full of grace from conception to death!

But why Mary enjoyed this privilege? All the extraordinary graces Mary received and corresponded to made her a unique creature in the universe and in the economy of salvation lies in the fact that she was the Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ - the Mother of God. St. Alphonsus teaches and says that a man's highest honor is to be born of noble parents the glory of children are their parents (Prov.17:6) Mary's shame would have reflected on Christ had she been without grace. Thou art all fair, oh my love, and there is not a spot in thee (Song of Solomon 4:7). Mary’ Immaculate Conception

[My note for Mr. Redentor Dela Rosa: If I am going to explain the term Mater Die to a Theologian like you, I agree we both understand each term we are going to use, but I will tell you that knowing these [technical terms] is not enough. Telling these to a young Catholic, to all Bible-alone Christian who keeps asking for verse, to all Iglesia Ni Cristo-1914 who doesn’t believe in Christ Divine nature, and to your next-door non- theologian neighbor, I am sure they will not understand you. Now, consider the example of the Apostle Paul. When he spoke with Jews and Christians, he did quote Scripture, because they knew and believed it already. But when he discussed Christian topics with pagans, he didn't pull Bible verses from his pocket. Why appeal to things the pagans didn't know and didn't believe? Instead he appealed to things they did know and believed already.

Apologetics is a language for all! Not a CHEAP thing as you said]

But folks, while knowing the Greek terms is beneficial for a proper understanding of a verse,

Yes, it is true. Knowing Greek original terms is beneficial and necessary, like today, lot of DUBIOUS MODERN TRANSLATION OF ANCIENT TERM who based their translation to the so-called Dynamic equivalence principle!

This is a subjective translation because the translator based his translation on his personal belief or translating the term in light of his own theological beliefs rather than those of the authors!

[To be precise, it is transliteration and not translation at all, this is but a modern interpretation or paraphrasing wherein the translator imagines what the writer would have written if he’d written in modern word rather than the actual word.] Good example, the Jehova’s Witnesses’ Bible, they don’t believe in Christ Divinity, so they transliterated John 1:1 and the word was a god; they don’t agree with sacrificial meal so they insert the word symbol  in Matthew 26:26 This is the symbol of my body and so on.

Mr. Soliman who once said that: [I]n Acts 6:8 of the Douay Rheims version, Stephen was full of grace. So was Stephen immaculately conceived? [Isahel Alfonso versus Marwil Llasos on the Immaculate Conception January 3, 2012] after I presented to him the Greek original terms, here he is: Of course pleres caritos is not in the perfect passive participle because it isn't a verb like kecharitomene; pleres is an adjective while caritos is a noun. C. Pio is comparing apples with oranges! [C.Pio's Absurd Defense of Kecharitomene]

[Is it that amazing, Mr. Soliman? By checking the original Greek terms, you will know that the author used two different terms compare to your wrong presumption that the author used only ONE term – the full of grace]

context has always been considered ever since. C. Pio ignores this principle which lead to his poor defense of his beliefs.

When does kecharitomene a perfect passive participle that shows completeness with a permanent results and denotes continuance of a completed action used by Angel Gabriel to address Mary became out-of-context in entire scriptures? Are you questioning God why for so many Greek terms to choose from, He chose kecharitomene for Mary while when He inspired Luke while writing the book of Acts, He chose pleres charitos for Stephen?

Is it impossible to God to create Mary conceived without sin? like a virgin conceived a child? And this woman became the MOTHER OF MY GOD?

Mary – the New Eve

Mary: The New Ark of Covenant

What C. Pio failed to realize is his inconsistency of application.  He argued that kecharitomene is in the perfect passive particle while pleres caritos is not.  

Rumination disorder? May I remind you of this: Of course pleres caritos is not in the perfect passive participle because it isn't a verb like kecharitomene; pleres is an adjective while caritos is a noun. Now you are denying it? As I stated above and as I’ve already pointed out, they are NOT the same word. So I suggest, unless you could provide proof that pleres caritos and kecharitomene are the same word, meaning and application in Greek I will concede!

So his conclusion is that Stephen in Acts 6:8 (DRB) became full of grace only at the point of near death. 

Yes it is true! This is according to its proper meaning, application and most importantly, this is what the author’s intention and wants to imply to his readers.

Since we also find pleres caritos in John 1:14, can we apply the same "exegesis" to it? 

Of course YES!

C. Pio didn't

Split-tongue at work. He accused me of failing to apply same “exegesis” to John 1:14 the way I treat Acts 6:8; well excuse me here what I said on my article and I quote:

[I]n John 1:14 the author state that he (Christ) was full of grace; the question now is, when is that moment when Christ is full of grace?

A simple answer: First we have to consider the hypostatic Union of  Christ: Christ is (a) Truly God and Truly Human [John 1:1] and (b) God is the only source and the giver of Grace; Therefore Christ at the moment of his conception; He was already full of grace. We cannot separate Christ’s Human Nature in his Divine Nature (or the Hypostatic Union). Second, context really matters: you don't have to take verse 14 without considering the other verses (preceding verses) by reading it in a proper context, John 1:1-14 Christ who became flesh and dwelt among us, truly God, that in the beginning was with the Father is Full of Grace! [or prior to his incarnation in the beginning he was already full of grace]. That's why he is the same YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW!

In short, according to its entirety [John 1:1-14] that Christ exists in the beginning with God, he was God, he was full of grace and dwelt among us.

                                     

he focused on the nature of Christ. 

Why? simply because you are leading us to your own personal view that falls to ancient heretical teaching, plus you are performing eisegesis on the text. I will quote what you post: in John 1:14 (pleres charitos) we can conclude that Christ only became full of grace when he came to Earth and that he wasn't full of grace before that. [Kecharitomene: C. Pio's Broken Record]

Therefore, the Greek participles has nothing to do with it! 

Who says?

He ends with a lie:

to enlarge image: right-click and choose "open link in new tab" 

Upon verification:

What he can say was:

Obviously there are people who cannot compromise their split-tongue.