Baptists and Mary

[MariaG]

(I’m not sure of John the Baptist? I read somewhere that in the womb he leapt for Joy and that was a kind of acceptance–dunno)

Yes, I read that too. It basically said that John the Baptist had his original sin removed when he leapt for Joy in the womb. He was not conceived without original sin like Mary, but he did get baptized in the womb and have it removed. So he was born without original sin, but not conceived without it.

 

[MariaG]

posted by YAQUBOS
It is very dangerous to conclude things without having a strong biblical support.

I would agree. It is very dangerous to conclude things without strong biblical support. **It is also dangerous to ignore things in the Bible. ** This was from a post over on Why we need Mary. While the references are not listed, they still are in the Bible. The emphasis was added by me.

Luke shows very clearly how the ark is a shadow of Mary as its fulfillment.

The ark goes to the hill country.
Mary goes to the hill country.

David asks, “who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?”
Elizabeth asks “who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

The ark stays in the house for three months.
Mary stays in Elizabeth’s house for three months.

David lept for joy at the presnece of the ark.
John the Baptists leaps for joy at the sound of Mary’s voice.

The ark was housed in a tabernacle overshadowed by the glory cloud.
The angel tells Mary that the power of the Most High will overshadow her.

The ark contained the written Word of God.
Mary contained the Word made flesh.

The ark contained bread from Heaven.
Mary contained true bread from Heaven.

The ark contained the rod of the true priesthood.
Mary contained the true Priest.

**Add to that, the ark was built with an emphasis on purity because of what it would hold. What it held - SYMBOLS of Jesus.

Mary held the fulfillment of these symbols - Jesus - so why would there be less emphasis on her purity being that she had the fulfillment of the symbols the ark carried?

Hence, the Immaculate Conception. The Purity of the Ark which contained not a symbol of Jesus but Jesus himself in fulfillment.
**
Also, the ark could not be touched by man, which points to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Now, whether or not Mary should be honored, and whether her fulfillment of these shadows is worthy of recognition. If God deemed the ark of the OT worthy of honor and deemed the shadows it represented worthy of recogonition, what kind of reasoning concludes that this should not be the case for the fulfillment and perfection of the ark?

There was more Scripture, but this is plenty to show that Catholics do have strong Biblical support for Doctrine of Mary.

You may read it and say “inconclusive”, but unless you can show me how this is wrong, I’ll stick with Scripture and the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[rarndt01]

Actually the ark of the covenant never carried the bread from heaven or the manna that was given to the children of Israel. The manna that was not gathered and eaten by the Israelites dissolved. What was actually inside the ark was the ten commandments. The “book of the law” was kept in a separate compartment on the outside the ark itself.

Mary is never called a new testament ark at all in scripture or a type of the OT ark of the covenant. Also, as far as I remember, no church father addressed her as that either. This teaching came about from the liberal teaching of Mr Scott Hahn, a self professed Catholic teacher from Stubenville, Ohio. Who speaks without the express authority of the church of Rome.

Furthur, if Mary would have been conceived “sinless”, then would not her Mother also have had to be sinless as well? For the transmission of original sin is passed on through parent-child procreation. We all inherit our sin nature from our parents. Thus if Mary was born sinless, then to her Mother would also have had to been sinless as well. And also her grandmother, great grandmother and so on. The shoe doesn’t fit.

It would be more likely, that God removed the sinful nature of Mary while she was within the womb of her Mother, if indeed Mary was born sinless. That would be more sensible.

But there is no BIBLICAL support for the teaching Mary was BORN sinless at all. Only that she was declared “full of grace”, which is a different definition altogether. The immaculate conception doctrine comes not from the bible, but from progressive church tradition throughout the CENTURIES. This is simply the whole truth of the matter.

Ron from Ohio

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

rarndt01:

This is simply the whole truth of the matter.

Ron from Ohio

You gotta watch it when stuff like that slips out. We humans can’t comprehend the whole Truth. If you think you have it nailed down, that’s prolly a good sign to start back up and think on it some more. Because there are many ways to read a sentence. That’s why Jesus left us a Church.

Here’s some exegesis I found on the web and I post it here for the sake of illumination…

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

And there are more scripture passages relating Mary to the Ark.
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

My point is don’t be so sure that your interpretation of holy scripture is the “whole” truth of a divinely inspired work. That seems like we’re not giving Scripture and the Wisdom within it’s proper respect because we are limited in our understanding but God is not.

Peace be with you

 

[rarndt01]

MichaelTDoyle

No church father ever taught that the “woman” of Revelation 12 was and is Mary, the Mother of our Lord. NOT ONE. As a matter of fact there were some who taught that the CHURCH was the woman described in Rev 12.(Irenaeus, being one) Even the Catholic NAB, in it’s footnotes says that the “woman” consists of the church, of both Old and New Testament saints. If you are going to make such outlandish statements then please supply quotes from the apostles themselves or the church fathers.

As for the tabernacle in heaven-- this is referring to the ORIGINAL or heavenly one that ALWAYS has been there. This is the type that Moses saw and was instructed to make a COPY of, while he was on earth. The earthly old covenant has never been found to this day.

Ron from Ohio

 

[mayra_hart]

an i quoted: " evangelicals try to avoid giving mary the title of mother of god, while at the same time they affirm that jesus was god from his conception. they attempt to say that mary was the mother only of the human nature of jesus. but my mother was not the mother of my human nature. she was the mother of me, the person. in avoiding the use of this title for mary, evangelicals have inadvertently opened the door to those who question the union of the divine and the human natures in the god-man." thank you mr d. currie santa maria MADRE DE DIOS ruega por nosotros…amen

 

[mrS4ntA]

mayra hart:

an i quoted: " evangelicals try to avoid giving mary the title of mother of god, while at the same time they affirm that jesus was god from his conception. they attempt to say that mary was the mother only of the human nature of jesus. but my mother was not the mother of my human nature. she was the mother of me, the person. in avoiding the use of this title for mary, evangelicals have inadvertently opened the door to those who question the union of the divine and the human natures in the god-man." thank you mr d. currie santa maria MADRE DE DIOS ruega por nosotros…amen

That’s exactly what Nestorius teaches – giving birth to nestorian heresy during the early Church. A Council had to be called to infallibly declare the dogma, “Mary, Theotokos” to refute the heresy.

Seriously, I’m quite frightened at how SS has such power to revive such ancient heresy.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

MariaG:

Luke shows very clearly how the ark is a shadow of Mary as its fulfillment.

The ark goes to the hill country.
Mary goes to the hill country.

David asks, “who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?”
Elizabeth asks “who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

The ark stays in the house for three months.
Mary stays in Elizabeth’s house for three months.

David lept for joy at the presnece of the ark.
John the Baptists leaps for joy at the sound of Mary’s voice.

The ark was housed in a tabernacle overshadowed by the glory cloud.
The angel tells Mary that the power of the Most High will overshadow her.

The ark contained the written Word of God.
Mary contained the Word made flesh.

The ark contained bread from Heaven.
Mary contained true bread from Heaven.

The ark contained the rod of the true priesthood.
Mary contained the true Priest.

**Add to that, the ark was built with an emphasis on purity because of what it would hold. What it held - SYMBOLS of Jesus.

Mary held the fulfillment of these symbols - Jesus - so why would there be less emphasis on her purity being that she had the fulfillment of the symbols the ark carried?

Hence, the Immaculate Conception. The Purity of the Ark which contained not a symbol of Jesus but Jesus himself in fulfillment.
**

Also, the ark could not be touched by man, which points to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Now, whether or not Mary should be honored, and whether her fulfillment of these shadows is worthy of recognition. If God deemed the ark of the OT worthy of honor and deemed the shadows it represented worthy of recogonition, what kind of reasoning concludes that this should not be the case for the fulfillment and perfection of the ark?
There was more Scripture, but this is plenty to show that Catholics do have strong Biblical support for Doctrine of Mary.

You may read it and say “inconclusive”, but unless you can show me how this is wrong, I’ll stick with Scripture and the interpretation of the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
Maria

What about adding:
The Ark was in the Temple.
Jesus says His body is the Temple.

Or:

The New Testament says Jesus is the Lamb of God,so He is not the Priest who offered the Lamb…

You see how these conclusions are dangerous?

You gave me human conclusions,and you say it is Scripture…Did you ever read in 1 Samuel 15 how Saul made the same mistake as you did here by interpreting the Word of God according to his own conclusions?Did you read what happened to him then?

As for the symbolism you talk about,we know that Jesus is the Person who fulfilled all what was symbolized in the Old Temple.Jesus’s body is the Temple. And everything in the Temple or the Tabernacle is built according to the pattern given to Moses. The Lord God said to Moses:
“According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it.” ( Exodus 25:9 )
Jesus said that His body is the real Temple.
And the Scripture says about the Christ:
“a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.” ( Hebrews 8:2 )
And:
“Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;
who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.”” ( Hebrews 8:4-5 )
So everything in the Temple was a copy and shadow of HEAVENLY things, not an earthly human like Mary.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[mrS4ntA]

YAQUBOS:

…
You gave me human conclusions,and you say it is Scripture…Did you ever read in 1 Samuel 15 how Saul made the same mistake as you did here by interpreting the Word of God according to his own conclusions?Did you read what happened to him then?
…

Never occured that could be applied to you too?

 

[YAQUBOS]

Peace be with you!

mrS4ntA:

Never occured that could be applied to you too?

If I believe in any doctrine out of Scripture, please show me that and I will tell you: yes, this applies to me, too. And I’ll ask God for forgiveness.

In Love,
Yaqubos†

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

2003.12.05 Christianity Today:

The following article is from Christianity Today magazine, and is located at:
christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/012/1.34.html

**The Blessed Evangelical Mary

Why we shouldn’t ignore her any longer.**

by Timothy George | posted 12/05/2003

In his History of the Reformation in Scotland, John Knox described an incident from his early life as a Protestant. Having been delivered from “the puddle of papistry,” as he called it, he was taken as a prisoner and forced to row in a French galley ship for 19 months. Soon after the arrival [of the galley ship] at Nantes, S a glorious painted Lady was brought in to be kissed and, amongst others, was presented to one of the Scottishmen then chained. He gently said, “Trouble me not; such an idol is a curse; and therefore I will not touch it.” The Patron and the Arguesyn, with two officers, having the chief charge of all such matters, said, “Thou shalt handle it”; and so they violently thrust it in his face and put in betwixt his hands; who seeing the extremity, took the idol, and advisedly looking about, he cast it in the river, and said, “Let our Lady now save herself: she is light enough; let her learn to swim!”

Some scholars believe the “Scottishman” involved in this incident was none other than Knox himself. Most evangelical Protestants can relate to this story, for we belong to a tradition of piety decisively shaped by the likes of Knox. We have an almost instinctive distrust of Mary. Why?

-----------That’s a rough beginning but the article does not continue like that and it is well worth reading, especially by Evangelical Christians struggling with Mary’s place in the Christian community.

The whole article is here
christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/012/1.34.html

 

[bbas_64]

Fr Ambrose:

2003.12.05 Christianity Today:

The following article is from Christianity Today magazine, and is located at:
christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/012/1.34.html

The Blessed Evangelical Mary

Why we shouldn’t ignore her any longer.

by Timothy George | posted 12/05/2003

In his History of the Reformation in Scotland, John Knox described an incident from his early life as a Protestant. Having been delivered from “the puddle of papistry,” as he called it, he was taken as a prisoner and forced to row in a French galley ship for 19 months. Soon after the arrival [of the galley ship] at Nantes, S a glorious painted Lady was brought in to be kissed and, amongst others, was presented to one of the Scottishmen then chained. He gently said, “Trouble me not; such an idol is a curse; and therefore I will not touch it.” The Patron and the Arguesyn, with two officers, having the chief charge of all such matters, said, “Thou shalt handle it”; and so they violently thrust it in his face and put in betwixt his hands; who seeing the extremity, took the idol, and advisedly looking about, he cast it in the river, and said, “Let our Lady now save herself: she is light enough; let her learn to swim!”

Some scholars believe the “Scottishman” involved in this incident was none other than Knox himself. Most evangelical Protestants can relate to this story, for we belong to a tradition of piety decisively shaped by the likes of Knox. We have an almost instinctive distrust of Mary. Why?

-----------That’s a rough beginning but the article does not continue like that and it is well worth reading, especially by Evangelical Christians struggling with Mary’s place in the Christian community.

The whole article is here
christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/012/1.34.html

Good Day,

I have read this article and I think the writer here over steps the bounds of what Mary means to most Christians and to posit she is ignored is just crazy.

She is not disreguarded, she was the elect of God chossen by him to play a role in the plan of the salvation of his children to bring fourth the savior.

She is a great example of a Jewish woman, who must of had a hard life. Who sought to do the will of the Father as a hand maid, as she tried to understand all that was going on around her.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[mlchance]

rarndt01:

No church father ever taught that the “woman” of Revelation 12 was and is Mary, the Mother of our Lord. NOT ONE.

You seem overfond of making untrue claims. Epiphanius, for one, linked the woman of Revelation 12 to Mary. Mary’s sinlessness was held by luminaries such as Jerome and Augustine. Sixth century Christian liturgies refer to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, which certainly predates Mr. Hahn, whom you falsely credit with the origin of the typology between the Blessed Virgin and the Ark.

Feel free to admit that you were wrong.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mercygate]

rarndt01:

Mary is never called a new testament ark at all in scripture or a type of the OT ark of the covenant. Also, as far as I remember, no church father addressed her as that either. This teaching came about from the liberal teaching of Mr Scott Hahn . . .

St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church (d. 373 A.D.) refers to Mary as

the “Ark of the New Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold.” In an ode to her, he wrote: “You are the Ark in which is found . . . the Flesh in which Divinity resides.”

 

[rarndt01]

Well, Jesus Christ is my ark and my salvation, not Mary. How does that grab you? You may glorify Mary a million times and she will never fill the role of Jesus Christ as mediator and King of heaven. You may recite the rosary and pray the Marian prayers til the cows come home, but she cannot save you. Only Jesus can.

                                           If the real Mary could come down from heaven she would tear down the graven images made of her, in the churches that are used to bow before her,  and given worship to her, rather than to her beloeved son. She would tell you, why are you praying to me? Pray to my son, for he died for you and instructed you to come to him when your soul is burdened, not I. 

                                              Yes, that's what the real Mary would say if she were able to come back down to earth.

                                        Ron from Ohio

 

[mercygate]

rarndt01:

Well, Jesus Christ is my ark and my salvation, not Mary. How does that grab you? You may glorify Mary a million times and she will never fill the role of Jesus Christ as mediator and King of heaven. You may recite the rosary and pray the Marian prayers til the cows come home, but she cannot save you. Only Jesus can.

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

rarndt01:

If the real Mary could come down from heaven she would tear down the graven images made of her, in the churches that are used to bow before her, and given worship to her, rather than to her beloeved son. She would tell you, why are you praying to me? Pray to my son, for he died for you and instructed you to come to him when your soul is burdened, not I.

Ron, this is an extraordinarily inaccurate view of how the Catholic Church relates to Mary. Unfortunately, it is a common one. Many threads on these forums address the subject and others address the Scriptural underpinnings for using sacred images in prayer. I do hope you will explore them, as your accusations here do a great injustice to the Catholic position.

 

[rarndt01]

No, you are wrong. The first century church never advocated Mary as a co-redeemer, mediator or Queen of heaven. This is BLASPHEMY, plain and simple. The 1st century church upheld Jesus as their ONLY redeemer, mediator and King.

Mary was greatly loved and adored as the mother of God, ever virgin and without stain of sin. But she was never attributed salvic roles and heavenly positions that God the father gave to his son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Christ does not share his rulership, nor does he share his salvic position. Why? Because it was Christ ALONE who died for our sins. It is he ALONE who is our high priest and advocate. Of course the saints in heaven pray for us, but they IN THEMSELVES have no power to grant forgiveness of sins or grant us eternal life. Only God can and he has shown this grace through Christ alone.

Ron from Ohio

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

You are trying to understand things in a territorial way. God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, loves us all. You cooperate in your own salvation when you accept Jesus and repent your sins. Mary points to Jesus she never has and never could and never would take anything from Him.

No one ever said Mary forgives sins. More study of what the Church actually teaches about Mary might be better for us than wrangling misconceptions on a forum.

Believe me you are not far from the truth. You just mistake co-redeemer as implying something it does not.

peace

from the CCC
. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)510 of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."511

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

970 "Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

 

[rarndt01]

Michael

You better read par.#969 again. Here is a partial quote with emphasis:

“Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this SAVING office but by her manifold intercession continues TO BRING US the gifts of ETERNAL SALVATION . . . .”

REPLY- That IS blasphemy. Only God through Jesus Christ can give us the gift of eternal through Jesus Christ and NOT Mary. See Romans 6:23

Ron from Ohio

 

[jpusateri]

rarndt01:

Michael

You better read par.#969 again. Here is a partial quote with emphasis:

“Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this SAVING office but by her manifold intercession continues TO BRING US the gifts of ETERNAL SALVATION . . . .”

REPLY- That IS blasphemy. Only God through Jesus Christ can give us the gift of eternal through Jesus Christ and NOT Mary. See Romans 6:23

Ron from Ohio

Mary does indeed “bring us the gifts of eternal salvation”. However she does not create the gifts. She can be allowed to bring them to us, can’t she? Does Jesus need her to do this because her cannot? Nope. He is SO powerful that he can still be in control and allow humans to participate in the plan.