Anti-Catholic Rumination Disorder?

[Mr. Soliman’s words are in RED]

C. Pio is losing focus...

...and he probably never get it will due to his biases (read here).

Mr. Soliman once wrote: One of the articles of C.Pio that the anonymous reader wishes me to respond, is about the Greek word “Kecharitomene”

But a closer look to anonymous’ request to Mr. Soliman, article kecharitomene is not included. Upon exposing this, all he can say was […] I got the wrong article to respond to. Mr. Soliman is losing focus from the beginning!

He even tried to gain his integrity and most importantly, his FOCUS: [W]e shall deal first to one of his articles that an anonymous poster has requested me to respond to. But instead of gaining, a worst thing happened to him, he found himself trap in his own labyrinth of alibis against Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant #2.

In my counter Argument I expose his baseless accusation of MISAPPLICATION OF TERM against the Catholic Church and I quote:

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 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).

If the words used are different, then obviously it stands to reason that the sense of the phrase is probably different also, it is simple right? So it’s common sense that there probably some kind of difference or else different words wouldn't have been used in inspired Scripture.

His response was:

My response: What in the world is he talking about?  Please don't change the subject.  I am merely responding and criticizing his use of Greek terms and exposing his biases. 

We call it Rumination disorder. Let me remind him of what he says before: 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.

What was his accusation against the Catholic Church? INCONSISTENCIES OF USE.

How many TERM he was talking to? ONE

What is this TERM that he was referring to and according to him, Catholic Church is INCONSITENT IN USED [that the rules changed on Stephen since he isn't Mary, 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]? FULL OF GRACE

Now he wanted to REPHRASE his refuted baseless accusation:

So what's with the accusation of me claiming they are the same word? 

Mr. Soliman is losing focus AGAIN.

I challenged Mr. Soliman that unless he could provide proof that pleres caritos and kecharitomene is the same word, meaning and application (grammatical usage) in Greek I will concede!

His response:

Let's indulge his immature games for a moment, you said this in pleres caritos of John 1:14:

Therefore Christ at the moment of his conception; He was already full of grace.

And no doubt you rendered a meaning of protected from original sin at the time of conception for Mary in kecharitomene in Luke 1:28.  So therefore, you proved it yourself that they are the same English word, same meaning, and same application.  Will you now concede?

Mr. Soliman’s focus is getting worse; my challenge to him is easy to recognize. I will give here first the definition of Greek term Kecharitomene:

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.]

Our challenge for Mr. Soliman is to prove to us that Pleres Charitos has the same spelling, meaning, and application (grammatical usage) like the above given definition?

But let me remind him once again on what he states before:

Of course pleres caritos is not in the perfect passive participle because it isn't a verb like kecharitomene; […] C. Pio is comparing apples with oranges! Rumination disorder?

C. Pio's answer to Stephen being full of grace in Acts 6 of the Douay-Rheims version is that pleres caritos isn't in the perfect tense like kecharitomene in Luke 1:28.  One of the ways I countered that is by arguing that pleres charitos by presenting John 1:14 where Christ is said to be pleres caritos. So would that mean Christ only became full of grace when He came to Earth? To paraphrase his response: "Well Christ is God and man so we can't separate his holy and divine nature from his human nature.  He is even the source of grace.  Therefore, pleres caritos really means sinless from the start in John 1:14."

Wow!  He did not even utilize Greek vocabulary on John 1:14 like he did to Luke 1:28.  So he simply saw Christ and applied all the systematic theology he can think of.  But when it came to Stephen: "Well Stephen's full of grace only started at that moment and not from his conception."  Baloney!  That's why I asserted that his so-called analysis has nothing to do with Greek terms.  So when he compared the full of grace assigned to Stephen with the full of grace assigned Christ the focus turned the persons and no longer on the Greek. Is that how it works? 

BOOM! Mr. Soliman is EISEGETIC; he was pushing us in his eisegesis conclusion, he was telling us that it is bias to analyze a biblical text (term) while simultaneously checking the nature of the "subject" that the text going to modify according to its context:

Exegesis is a critical analysis of a text, usually used to describe the task of objectively interpreting the Bible. Its opposite is eisegesis, which is the practice of interpreting text according to one’s preconceived ideas rather than according to the context of the text in question.

In John 1:14 and Acts 6:8 used the same term – Pleres charitos BUT as per EXEGESIS rule, CONTEXT REALLY MATTERS. Our questions for Mr. Soliman are these:

(1) According to Scriptures’ entirety Christ is GOD-MAN, is St. Stephen had the same nature with Christ?

(2) Assuming Christ is not God (and let’s takes the heretical position of Arianism)  and check if this will support his case:

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Became flesh When was that he started to become flesh? It starts from CONCEPTION (because life begins at conception) and came from the Father full of grace and truth.  Verse 14 says Christ is immaculately conceived!

Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.

Does Acts 6:8 speaks about the beginning of St. Stephen’s existence like John 1:14 for Christ?

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

Here is a question that we should ask C. Pio and his advocates: Given that both John 1:14 and Acts 6:8 have pleres caritos, what Greek grammar rule made Christ full of grace before coming to Earth but made Stephen full of grace at the point of near death?  Please note that were asking for a Greek grammar rule or principle. 

LOL! This statement is either a False Dichotomy - restricting the opponent to a few alternatives when there are more alternatives. Ex. "Show me a verse that exactly says God is a Trinity." (taking from his blog itself) or a plain non-sense question.

Another way of countering your "exegesis" of kecharitomene is presenting another verb that is in the perfect tense.  I presented egapemenoi of 1st Thessalonians 1:4 which is in the perfect tense.  At first C. Pio argued that it is a strawman counterargument. 

As usual, Mr. Soliman did not get what I said before.

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.

While the term Kecharitomene speaks of God’s Grace (and it would be strange for Mr. Soliman to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. LOL)

Here’s a deductive, biblical argument for kecharitomene:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace.
2. To be "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with God’s grace " then, is to be saved.
3. Therefore, Mary (kecharitomene) is saved (Luke 1:28.).

1. To be " completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with God’s grace (kecharitomene) is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

2. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

1. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

2. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

Mr. Soliman’s only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises,

and hold either that grace does not save or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy.

Obviously he doesn't know what to answer at that time.

He did it again, he describe who he is to other person. I raised a counterargument to him dated September 26, 2012 instead of posting his rebuttal he opt to divert the issue. This is what he says and I will quote:

September 29, 2012: Before we respond to the second counterargument of C. Pio on kecharitomene, we shall deal first to one of his articles that an anonymous poster has requested me to respond to.

October 3, 2012 (One week after my Sept. 26 Counterargument) He posted an article BUT I repeat BUT it’s not related to my counterargument, he wrote against Mr. Isahel Alfonso’s article. After 9 days of non-response, at last October 5, 2012 he made it.

He cannot use the alibi of being busy wherein September 29 and October 3 he has the opportunity (time) to rebut my September 26 counterargument, he cannot use the alibi of saying he is unaware that I post a counterargument because in his Sept. 29 article he wrote that he is aware of it. What is the main reason? Obviously he doesn't know what to answer at that time! And maybe he made some research LOL: But I made my research […]

What?  Who said anything about egapemenoi being sinless? 

Straight from the horse mouth, Yes Mr. Soliman we are talking of God’s Grace [Kecharitomene and Pleres Charitos with the same root word Charis-grace] that made someone to be holy and sinless Romans 6:14. Then with regards to your questions What?  Who said anything about egapemenoi being sinless?  Ask yourself why you put this term which is irrelevant to the topic? Is it because they are similar form? You construct a straw man. LOL

1. God’s Grace saves us.
2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be kecharitomene is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy.

Can you still say God permanently loved the sinners He sent to Hell? 

We need to understand first the difference between a soul existing and the will of the soul.
God loves the souls in hell, but hates their corrupted will, which rejected His love.

God's nature is both perfect justice and perfect love [1John 4:8]

Ez. 18.23, 32; 33.11'Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?,' says the Lord God, 'And not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone,' says the Lord God. 'So turn and live! Say to them, "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways. For why will you die?"'"

But

Psalms chapter 89:14 says this, "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face."

Gal.6:7-8 "Do not be deceived; God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction. The one who sows to please God's Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life"

Even though we are guilty and deserve to die, God still loves us but justice must prevail for those who did not reject his love.

C. Pio obviously lost focus and dodged the issue.  What is being argued is egapemenoi is also in the perfect tense like kecharitomeneand yet no theological signifance was made or no doctrine was formed out of it that would appear in their catechism. 

We do. God loves all of us, permanently - for he is Love. His sacrifice has changed all of us - even those who reject the love of God. This passage is simply talking about God's love for us. The term is theologically interpreted!

Oh thank you for mentioning Dr. James White.  But I made my research not only from him.  I suggest complementing Dr. White with the works of Dr. Eric Svendsen and William Webster, you'll see how tougher their writings combined.  And we were arguing about permanency, not just perfection.  So his quotations from the Greek Grammar books he used does not really address the issue.

Eric Svendsen?

In his book he argued that:

It also occurs in Eph. 1:6 where it is applied to all believers . . . Are we to conclude on this basis that all believers are without original sin? (Svendsen, 129)

Mr. Svendsen thinks this defeat the Catholic exegesis at Luke 1:28. Here's what some scholars tell us "Kecharitomene", based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166).

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

He even argued that:

[T]his does not help their case since the perfect tense speaks only of the current state of the subject without reference to how long the subject has been in that state, or will be in that state. (Svendsen, 129) [sounds familiar right?]

But the perfect stem of a Greek verb, denotes, according to Friedrich Blass and Albert DeBrunner as "continuance of a completed action”:

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

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

Eric Svendsen's attempt to lump in Luke 1:28 with other "similar" passages has failed, because reputable linguists demonstrate that there are enough differences to cast doubt on his argument. 

Another attempt made by Mr. Svendsen is his cross-reference to Sirach 18:17, where the word is in the same form (kecharitomene),

Sirach 18:17 "Indeed, does not a word surpass a good gift? Both are to be found in a gracious man."

The word "gracious" = "kecharitomeno" in Greek, which is the same as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" in Luke 1:28) except in masculine form. (mene attribute to woman while meno is a masculine form)

Three points to note:

(1) Old Testament was not written in Greek, it is in Hebrew.

and assuming the original language used was Greek not Hebrew

(2) Most Protestant bible translations carry this word as "gracious" kecharitomeno [Sirach 18:17]; but when it is applied to Mary kecharitomene, they switch to "highly favored." Or “full of favored” instead of “full of grace”

Bias against Catholicism?

(3) Lastly, the term is not used as a title, as it is in Luke 1:28, so it does not carry the same import;

For argument (#3) here’s what Dave Armstrong says [a former Protestant, Anti-Catholic but not Bigot and in 1991 converted into Catholic Church]:

Moreover, this is proverbial, or wisdom literature. According to standard hermeneutical principles, this is not the sort of biblical literature on which to build doctrines or systematic theology (or even precise meanings of words). The reason is that proverbial expression admits of many exceptions. If one says, for example, "Happy people smile" [it] may be true much of the time, but it is not always true. Proverbial language is, therefore, too imprecise to use in determining exact theological propositions. Meaning depends on context, as any lexicon will quickly prove.

Even apart from the important factor of the proverbial style of writing found in Sirach, linguists attribute different meanings to kecharitomene in the two verses. As Joseph Thayer, another great biblical Greek scholar, writes:

Luke 1:28: "to pursue with grace, compass with favor; to honor with blessings."
Sirach 18:17: "to make graceful i.e., charming, lovely, agreeable."
(Thayer, 667; Strong's word no. 5487)

In short, context, grammar, and hermeneutical principles alike sink Mr. Svendsen's case. (which is parroted by Mr. Soliman)

The finale: Soliman’s Trademark. His undying division style

Let's also quote from Catholic Answers on interpretation:

Exegesis is a critical analysis of a text, usually used to describe the task of objectively interpreting the Bible. Its opposite is eisegesis, which is the practice of interpreting text according to one’s preconceived ideas rather than according to the context of the text in question.

According to the explanation of Catholic Answers, we can conclude that C. Pio is practising eisegesis by ignoring the context.

We don’t have to go further, let us check:

Mr. Soliman’s once wrote: One of the articles of C.Pio that the anonymous reader wishes me to respond, is about the Greek word “Kecharitomene”

Upon verification: Two article were mention article kecharitomene is not included.

[To deceive or not to deceive?]

Mr. Soliman says: C. Pio is losing focus...

But this is what he says: […] I got the wrong article to respond to.

[To Loss or not to loss?]

Mr. Soliman says:

So what's with the accusation of me claiming they are the same word? 

But this is what he says before:

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.

[To deceive or not to deceive?]

Mr. Soliman says: Obviously he doesn't know what to answer at that time.

September 29, 2012:

Before we respond to the second counterargument of C. Pio on kecharitomene, we shall deal first to one of his articles that an anonymous poster has requested me to respond to.

October 3, 2012 He posted new article BUT to my counterargument

[To know or not to know?]