Old Graybeard

INTJ. 😎 A Coffee a day, keeps the grumpy away. Menos es Paz! ✝️

[Jenny Wakefield @JennyWakefiel12]

Yes, Catholics worship Mary. Not all of the realize it or admit it, but they worship her.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

@DrPronoun You are free to keep believing your own lies.

Have a good day.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

The academic reality completely tanks this meme.

The angel in Luke 1:28 didn’t say "full of grace," he said Kecharitomene (κεχαριτωμένη).

In secular Koine Greek of that era, the root simply meant to make someone "charming, attractive, or socially acceptable"—it denotes a status of favor, not a physical substance filling a vessel.

Luke didn't even invent the word. The exact same perfect passive construction appears in the Septuagint (Sirach 18:17) referring to a regular, "agreeable/favored man" (kecharitōmenō). Grammatically, it just means "one who has been and remains favored."

❌ The "full of grace" rendering is a 4th-century Latin Vulgate paraphrase (gratia plena), not the actual mechanics of the original Greek text the angel "literally" spoke.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

Please be honest: everyone, including the scholarly consensus and even Catholic scholars, acknowledges that 'full of grace' is a mistranslation.

Fr. Raymond E. Brown, S.S. (leading 20th-century Catholic New Testament scholar; member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission) In The Birth of the Messiah (his major commentary on the infancy narratives), Brown translates the term as “O favored one” and states that “full of grace” is too strong a translation.

He notes that Luke knew the literal phrase plērēs charitos (“full of grace,” used of Stephen in Acts 6:8 and of Jesus in John 1:14) but deliberately chose kecharitōménē instead, so a rendering emphasizing divine favor is more accurate to the Greek.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

Try again; you are projecting your own behavior. The correct and objective translation conflicts with your religious commitments, which is why you are clinging so tightly to this translation error and refuse to let it go.

I adhere to the objective Greek word, whether it opposes or supports any given doctrine

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

Translations shouldn't be interpretations. You have correctly identified the mistake. Jerome's fallible interpretation got in the way when there should have only been a correct translation.

Jerome wasn't called to write his own interpretations; he was called to make a translation.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

@deusimpera Catholics are desperate. They need to loudly spread this false propaganda because they are declining faster than any other Christian institution. They want to recover so badly that they are resorting to false propaganda

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

🤦🏻‍♂️ That is not valid. It is not a natural evolution of the language, but rather a translation error. It needs to be corrected to "favoured one."

Many Bible versions have adopted the correct translation instead of perpetuating a mistranslation.

If you choose to believe a falsehood, go ahead.

[Punchbag Studios @punchbagstudios]

The first leaders of feminism would turn into the most insane misogynists if they could see what their actions would lead to😂

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

No, that is not the issue. The fact is that nowhere did that word ever mean 'full of grace' in any context. If there were an option to choose that meaning, you would have a good point. However, that was never an option. It was a plain mistake by Jerome when translating Greek to Latin in the late 4th century

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

Las unicas personas que se comportan como tu lo estas haciendo son las mismas personas que están comprometidas.

Tanto la lista como el cheque validan la transferencias, las compras de interses y voluntades. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️.

Mira, algo similar paso en mi pais cuando bukele ya no siguio los lineamientos de los financistas en el tema de Maras, aborto, ideologia de genero. Todas las ONG de derechos humanos nacionales e internacionales y medios como CNN, BBC, NYTimes, Univisiony otras se les fueron en contra, en una campaña agresiva de desinformacion. Resulta que todas esas ONG estaban financiadas por Soros. No hace falta ver los cheques para sacar conclusiones.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

@Easy_Biblia @Ekklectico 🤣🤣🤣

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

@Easy_Biblia @Ekklectico 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️ Que terrible.

Si te dan la lista, vas a pedir los cheques, si te dan los cheques vas a pedir los originales, si te dan los originales, vas a pedir que sean certificados por notario.

Existen listas de las iglesias que reciben estas donaciones. Es informacion publica. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

The academic reality completely tanks this meme.

The angel in Luke 1:28 didn’t say "full of grace," he said Kecharitomene (κεχαριτωμένη).

In secular Koine Greek of that era, the root simply meant to make someone "charming, attractive, or socially acceptable"—it denotes a status of favor, not a physical substance filling a vessel.

Luke didn't even invent the word. The exact same perfect passive construction appears in the Septuagint (Sirach 18:17) referring to a regular, "agreeable/favored man" (kecharitōmenō). Grammatically, it just means "one who has been and remains favored."

❌ The "full of grace" rendering is a 4th-century Latin Vulgate paraphrase (gratia plena), not the actual mechanics of the original Greek text the angel "literally" spoke.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

@Easy_Biblia @Ekklectico Me impresiona la arrogancia y la soberbia que se manejan, pero no saben de lo que hablan.

👇

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

@Easy_Biblia @Ekklectico Que triste y pobre razonamiento.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

Me sorprende el enorme sesgo que estás mostrando.

Las evidencias ya se presentaron. Existen pruebas de que hay financiamiento de por medio hacia estas iglesias, lo que las compromete a seguir ciertos lineamientos. Nunca vas a encontrar un documento oficial donde las partes hagan constar la compra de intereses; sin embargo, sería muy ingenuo negarlo. Ya existen antecedentes de estas prácticas en la política, y la influencia del poder político en las iglesias para manipular la opinión pública es un fenómeno histórico. La relación de las iglesias con quienes financian a estos grupos es algo que se puede medir y comprobar claramente a través del discurso político.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

Sí, totalmente de acuerdo.

Si combates al feminismo, debe ser con la María bíblica, sumisa y humilde, no con la reina entronada y empoderada en el cielo; esa figura todopoderosa capaz de proteger al mundo entero, tal como lo evidencia la idiosincrasia del católico promedio que deposita su esperanza de protección en ella (ver captura).

En este caso, esta fabricación empoderada de María no combate al feminismo, sino que lo promueve.

En la Iglesia católica, ninguna mujer puede ser elevada a los rangos jerárquicos más altos, ni siquiera al grado clerical más bajo del sacerdocio. Mucho menos en el reino de los cielos se observa jamás a una mujer real (no simbólica) ostentar un trono en posición de autoridad suprema sobre el universo, encargada de proteger con un "manto sagrado" a toda la humanidad.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

The Roman Catholic Church remains fundamentally wrong on this doctrine. It creates an artificial necessity for never-ending ritual offerings, directly defying the absolute finality of Jesus Christ's work on the cross.

This is where the Roman Catholic Church commits its greatest theological blunder:

presenting Christ as presently "offering" Himself.

This false dogma fabricates an absurd "perpetual motion" loop that strips the biblical text of its ultimate climax—absolute, seated rest.

By insisting on an ongoing offering, Catholic theology locks Christ in a state of never-ending ritual labor. It functionally pulls Him off His throne of finished victory and drags Him back to an active altar.

This is not high theology; it is a direct assault on the sufficiency of the cross, replacing Christ's triumphant posture of completion with a relentless, manufactured cycle of priesthood.

❌ The Catholic Claim (Catechism 1367): Christ "now offers (offerens) through the ministry of priests." [Present tense, ongoing action].

✅ The Biblical Verdict (Hebrews 10:14, 18): "By a single offering he has perfected for all time...

This is a flagrant contradiction between catechism and Scripture.

The syntax of Hebrews 10 leaves no room for compromise:

zero offering equals total victory.

The moment Catholicism claims an offering is still happening—even under the guise of an "eternal present"—it declares Christ's past work insufficient.

Catholicism claims the Mass introduces "nothing new" and is identical to Calvary. This is a linguistic and logical impossibility based on their own practices.

If the offering were truly single and finished, you would not need:

❌ A new human mediator (the ministerial priest).

❌ A new physical location (the parish altar).

❌ A new ritual action (the transubstantiation and consecration).

By any definition of human language, performing a distinct ritual action, via a distinct human agent, on a distinct physical altar, thousands of times a day worldwide, constitutes many offerings. This undeniable reality exposes the total contradiction at the heart of Roman Catholic dogma.

It stands as a direct assault against the true gospel, the true scriptures, and the ultimate sufficiency of the single sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

[Old Graybeard @Old_Graybeard_]

The Roman Catholic Church remains fundamentally wrong on this doctrine. It creates an artificial necessity for never-ending ritual offerings, directly defying the absolute finality of Jesus Christ's work on the cross.

This is where the Roman Catholic Church commits its greatest theological blunder:

presenting Christ as presently "offering" Himself.

This false dogma fabricates an absurd "perpetual motion" loop that strips the biblical text of its ultimate climax—absolute, seated rest.

By insisting on an ongoing offering, Catholic theology locks Christ in a state of never-ending ritual labor. It functionally pulls Him off His throne of finished victory and drags Him back to an active altar.

This is not high theology; it is a direct assault on the sufficiency of the cross, replacing Christ's triumphant posture of completion with a relentless, manufactured cycle of priesthood.

❌ The Catholic Claim (Catechism 1367): Christ "now offers (offerens) through the ministry of priests." [Present tense, ongoing action].

✅ The Biblical Verdict (Hebrews 10:14, 18): "By a single offering he has perfected for all time...

This is a flagrant contradiction between catechism and Scripture.

The syntax of Hebrews 10 leaves no room for compromise:

zero offering equals total victory.

The moment Catholicism claims an offering is still happening—even under the guise of an "eternal present"—it declares Christ's past work insufficient.

Catholicism claims the Mass introduces "nothing new" and is identical to Calvary. This is a linguistic and logical impossibility based on their own practices.

If the offering were truly single and finished, you would not need:

❌ A new human mediator (the ministerial priest).

❌ A new physical location (the parish altar).

❌ A new ritual action (the transubstantiation and consecration).

By any definition of human language, performing a distinct ritual action, via a distinct human agent, on a distinct physical altar, thousands of times a day worldwide, constitutes many offerings. This undeniable reality exposes the total contradiction at the heart of Roman Catholic dogma.

It stands as a direct assault against the true gospel, the true scriptures, and the ultimate sufficiency of the single sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

[Bree Solstad @BreeSolstad]

The problem for Protestants is they don’t believe there is any sacrifice in their religion. The highest form of worship they offer to God is praise.
So when they see Catholics venerating relics or honoring Saints, all they can see is worship.
They need their eyes & hearts opened.