Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[Good_Fella]

In one case the Word is carried for but a short time (9 months) and in the other case the few words of God are to be carried permanently. …

Two temples have been built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The first one was built about 3,000 years ago by King Solomon and was destroyed by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C… The second temple was built by Zerubbabel in the years 520-516 B.C., and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D… The Ark of the Covenant was God’s sacred dwelling place and the physical point where God visibly manifested himself to his people. The temple on the mount was also God’s sacred dwelling place, although it hadn’t permanently been. The point where God first became visible in the world in the flesh - not a physical cloud - was Mary’s womb the moment she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Her womb was no less a holy and personal dwelling place for God than the temple was. So it really makes no difference how long God dwelled in the temple or Mary’s womb with respect to the ark. Both places held God’s presence just as the ark had. But unlike the temple, Mary held the presence of God in the flesh: the divine Word, High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, and the true manna and bread of life come down from heaven, so that physically God could manifest himself to his people.

Why not observe that the ark of the Old Covenant contained some words of God written in stone and Christ was the Word of God?..so as to make the Ark/Jesus connection.

Exodus 24:1-4 relates how before Moses had ascended Mount Sinai a second time he went up a first time where he was enlightened by God. After he descended he taught the people what he had learned and instructed them (the oral Torah). It was afterwards that he received the Ten Commandments from God which were written by Him (Exodus 24:12-13). Moses then wrote the first Torah scroll in parts during the 40 years the Jews had wandered in the desert. Here we mean Torah in its broadest sense as the entire body of Jewish law and teachings. What is known as the Book of the Law was placed by the side of the ark as a testimony against the people (Deut 31:26). While the original 10 commandments were kept inside the ark, what was written on the stone tablets was also written and placed beside the ark to accompany the 613 laws of the Torah which the priest needed access to for instructing the people. God commanded Moses to write everything down - laws, statutes, ordinances, and commands - together with what He himself would write in the form of the 10 commands to be given to Israel as divine commandments in a single body as a covenant between God and his chosen people. They were all kept in the Holy of Holies in the temple. And even today all the Torah scrolls are kept in the Holy Ark (Aron Kodesh) with the Ten Commandments - the holiest place in the synagogue, situated at the front and facing Jerusalem.

In one case actual manna/bread was contained (permanently) and in the other case only metaphorical bread was involved (temporarily) …Why not observe that the ark of the Old Covenant contained manna and Christ was the bread of life so as to make the Ark/Jesus connection.

Jesus is not speaking metaphorically when he says:

“I am the bread of life,” “I am the living bread that came down from heaven,” “Whoever eats of this bread will live forever,” “The Bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh,” “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life,” “For my flesh is true food, and my blood true drink.”

in one case a wood rod was contained and in the other case a future priest was contained…if we are going with this type of forced connection, then why not use: The ark was carried on two wood poles and Jesus was hung on two wood poles …which would make Christ the ark.

If we are going with this type of forced connection, why not use: Jesus was like us in all things but sin as David was.

The ark also had a gold cover and between the angels on that cover is where God would meet with Moses. Jesus, the Word made flesh is how God met with people to establish his new covenant. If anything, these connections IMHO make a better case for Jesus being the new ark rather than Mary.

Jesus and the Father are one. The same can’t be said for the ark. Paul of Samosata might agree with you, because he taught an advanced form of Dynamic Monarchianism. He believed Jesus was a mere man born of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit; the Logos or wisdom of God was an impersonal quality of God that formed and dwelled within Jesus, but remained distinct in essence.

PAX

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m honored that my posts are being singled out for scrutiny. Obviously, I have gotten someone’s attention.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good job! You caught me holding that point back.

You know this, but I ask the following for those lurking. What happened to those that touched the Ark of the Old Covenant? Since Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, what would have happened if someone had sexually touched this ark?

There are two accounts of people being struck dead on the spot by God, and one account of God laying a heavy hand on the inhabitants of cities. Uzzah, as I mentioned, tried to keep the ark from toppling. But instead of grabbing on to the poles that were used for carrying the ark, he touched and grappled with the ark itself (2 Sam 6:2-7). On the other occasion, there were far more human casualities. God struck down 70 men (possibly 57,000) at Beth Shemesh for having looked into the ark after someone apparently opened it. (1 Sam 6:19). It fared much worse for the Philistines after they captured the ark and carried it to Ashdod. It was brought to the house of their god Dagon and placed next to his idol. The following morning some people found Dagon lying prostrate on the floor before the ark :bowdown:, put him back in his proper place, and left. The next day they found his torso on the floor with his head and hands cut off. The people of Ashdod cried: " ‘The ark of the God of Israel must not remain with us; for his hand is heavy on us and on our god Dagon.’ " The inhabitants of Gath took the load off their hands by requesting that the ark be sent to them. “But after they had brought it to Gath, the hand of the Lord was against the city, causing a very great panic; he struck the inhabitants of the city, both young and old, so that tumors broke out on them.” So the inhabitants there sent the ark to Ekron. When the ark arrived, the people cried out: " ‘Why have they brought around to us the ark of the God of Israel to kill us and our people?’ " When countless people began to die or contract tumors, all the lords of the Philistines decided to return the ark to Israel (1 Sam 5). uch: The ark disappeared just before the Babylonian captivity in the 6th century and reappeared when John envisioned it in heaven immediately before he beheld the Woman clothed with the Sun (Rev 11,19;12:1).

The Jews were even forbidden to approach the ark or else they would die from their sins, because God was present right above it, a holy God who does not tolerate evil. And while the Levites transported the ark, it was covered by three layers of cloth and the people had to stay 1,000 yards away from it. So the ark was kept in a holy place - the tent of meeting or the temple - concealed by a curtain. Only the high priest was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once he had undergone ceremonial cleansing, performed the prescribed sacrifice for the atonement of his sins and those of the people, and burned incense, so that the smoke would hide the mercy seat on top of the ark from view. The ark was not to be taken for granted, for it was God’s personal sacred tabernacle fashioned according to his own specifications as his personal holy point of appearance. And it held the two tablets of stone on which were inscribed the Ten Commandments by God himself. The first Torah scroll was handwritten by Moses and left outside the ark, but right beside it for the high priest’s practical use, since the ark mustn’t be opened and closed. Anyway, Moses had to remove his sandals when God appeared to him on Mount Horeb, because the ground he stood on was made holy by God’s visible presence (the burning bush). The sand on the soles of his sandals would have desecrated the ground where he stood. I can’t imagine what would have happened to Joseph if he had had conjugal relations with Mary after she conceived and bore God’s only-Begotten Son, but I believe he woiuld have gravely offended God. His seed would have defiled Mary’s womb no less than the sand on the soles of Moses’ sandals would have profaned the ground where God physically manifested himself in the burning bush.

PAX

 

[Good_Fella]

…if we are going with this type of forced connection, then why not use: The ark was carried on two wood poles and Jesus was hung on two wood poles…

The connection lies with the fact that Aaron’s rod symbolizes the priesthood favoured by God. Recall Jesus identified himself with the bronze serpent in the desert, that when gazed upon kept the infected Israelites from dying after they were bitten by venemous snakes. The snakes that bit them represent the serpent in the garden of Eden, whose bite could only be remedied by the death and resurrection of our Lord. There is no forced connection here even though Jesus wasn’t made out of bronze.

… the things about Jesus that are used in … connection with Mary (the Word, bread of life, high priest) are all things that are said about Christ long after Jesus exited Mary’s womb.

What we say about Jesus in allusion to Jonah is said about Christ, though he did not spend three days and three nights in the tomb as Jonah had spent in the belly of a sea monster. What matters is that our Lord had spent three days in the tomb regardless of whether he had been in the tomb for the entire third day. With Mary what is significant is that God physically dwelled in her for a substantial length of time in the person of the Son whom the contents of the ark represent. So the precision of time is not necessarily an important factor in typology, which essentially is a metaphorical device. We musn’t look for any literal connection or exact resemblance in an allusion to determine whether an allusion should exist. When we draw allusions to begin with, we do not intend to make absolute comparisons, and we understand that we are referring a subject to something other than what he or she is in reality. Thus we speak of Mary as being a type of ark though she did not carry the objects that symbolized her Son. Nor was she made of acacia wood. Consequently, in light of the associations made between the subjects and the objects they represent, however literally imprecise, we can call Mary the Ark of the New Covenant just as resonably as we can call Jesus the Rod of Jesse (Isa 11:1). I think Bronze Serpent of the New Covenant would be an inappropriate title for our Lord, for the snake is closely associated with the devil. The object Moses fashioned symbolizes the remedy Jesus provided against our foe and not him. It was because of what the serpent had wrought that Jesus was crucified (lifted up on the cross for the entire world) and rose from the dead.

… a cloud covered the Tent of Meeting which housed the ark and in the other case Mary was overshadowed by the power of God. The ark doesn’t even get mentioned in the first instance… the correspondence strikes me as being more manufactured…

When the ark was completed according to God’s specifications,** the glory cloud of the Lord “covered” the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle** (Ex 40: 34-35; Num 9:18,22). The Greek word for “cover” in the Septuagint - the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (The Jews don’t have an OT Bible), is episkiasei, which Luke himself uses in his gospel (1:35), indicating the early Christians perceived Mary as a type of ark. The Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary - the temple of her body - just as the glory cloud of the Lord had covered or overshadowed the tent of meeting. And the glory of the Lord - the Divine Presence - filled the tabernacle of her womb just as it had filled the ark.

“Hill country of Judea” isn’t even mentioned in 2 Sam. Judea is a small area and the hill country makes up a good chunk of it…

Both Mary and the ark went on a journey to the same hill country in Judea. Elizabeth lived in Ein Kerem, which is only a short walk away from Abu Ghosh where the ark resided.

Luke 1:43* And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?* 2 Sam 6:9 reads:* And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me? And he would not have the ark of the Lord brought in to himself into the city of David*… David and Elizabeth really ask two totally different things. Elizabeth’s question is an expression about an honour… David’s question is one of dread. He is afraid and wonders how he can possibly transport the ark…and ends up not wanting the ark brought to him in Jerusalem…

David certainly feared God that day when the ark was brought to him because of what happened earlier with the ark, which he felt morally responsible for. But fear of God does not necessarily mean dreading him. On this occasion David’s conscience was still bothering him from the last time he took care of the ark and transported it in violation of the divine prescriptions given through Moses, and so he felt unworthy out of respect for the ark to bring it to his city and suggested that it reside in Obededom’s house. He also feared that it might topple again because of his respect for God and his sacred tabernacle. Elizabeth did not raise her question only out of respect for Mary, but also because she felt unworthy of having Mary’s divine offspring in her home: “The mother of my Lord”. We should note that David and Elizabeth practically use the same words, and their questions are virtually similar.

PAX

 

[Radical]

If editing is supposed to make the connection between two subjects stronger, then how do you explain this discrepancy in the typology between Jonah and Jesus?

So to make the connection between Jonah and Christ, both are actually (EXPRESSLY) mentioned by scripture. That simply reinforces my point that when a gospel writer (Luke) wanted to make the connection between the OT prophet and the NT Baptist, he just said it plainly by expressly naming the two individuals. In contrast, however, I am supposed to believe that when he wanted to make a connection between the Ark and Mary he resorted to dropping hints?

Further, your whole effort to describe the number of days involved misses the point entirely. Typology, by its very nature does not use exact matches….that is what makes it such a subjective thing. The source you defend, however, misrepresented what was said in scripture in order to make the “matches” more exact. You had posted:
The ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months. (2 Sam. 6:11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).
…it would have been nice if the “about” was included so that an honest comparison (of the two passages) was presented…but that isn’t the worst example (by far). Here, I think, is the worst example (I have emboldened the misrepresentation of what scripture says):
A man touched the ark of the Old Covenant to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
–Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)
…and here is how the two passages actually read (I have emboldened the words deleted by the effort of misrepresentation):
And David was afraid of the Lord that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”(RSV)
And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (RSV)
Obviously, the actual words contained in scripture were removed so that words could be falsely attributed to David so as to cause a remarkable word for word match with what Elizabeth said. I don’t know what to call that abuse of scripture other than shameful and dishonest.

What Luke means is that John the Baptist shall serve as a forerunner of the coming of Christ in the same capacity as the prophet. But he doesn’t use words as plainly as you make him out to.

sure he did…he actually named the two individuals

John is presented as representing Elijah who foreshadows the Baptist, only the two aren’t related as implicitly as Mary and the Ark are.

”as implicitly”? ….they are EXPRESSLY related. The “implicit connection” between the Ark and Mary is merely a very questionable assertion

By your reasoning, I’m surprised you find Jesus to be a type of ark, since the Ark of the Covenant contained objects which signified Jesus and held the presence of God. How could Jesus be represented as something which contains himself, his own sacred vessel or dwelling place?

the Ark did not hold the presence of God…the presence of God appeared between the angels on the lid of the Ark. In any event, I find it odd that you will tolerate considerable differences to make the Ark/Mary connection, but then demand that everything must be exact for a Ark/Jesus connection. This is exactly the subjective inconsistency that I find objectionable.

Further, the divine Word was uncreated, but born in the flesh, while the ark was just a created thing.

Adam was created, but that didn’t prevent Christ from being a second Adam.

I’m afraid there is nothing in the Scriptures that reasonably implies Jesus is a type of ark. Nor is Jesus the Ark of the New Covenant, as some Protestants assert. Romans 3:25, for instance, simply states that Jesus is a propitiatory sacrifce, not the propitiatory (mercy seat) itself.

…the word for word translation reads: whom set forth – God a mercy seat through the faith in the of him blood…. so despite, what you claim it is in fact “mercy seat” that is mentioned. I can’t help but note how you will first make an inaccurate claim and then nit-pick about it…but then to make the “overshadowing” claim wrt to the connection to Mary that you want to draw with:
Mary, on the otherhand, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit just as the ark was by the glory cloud (shekinah). Luke uses the same Greek word (episkiasei) for overshadow which is used for “covered” in the Book of Exodus when the glory cloud descends on the ark in the tent of meeting.
….you have absolutely no problem with the Ark not being mentioned in the OT in relation to the overshadowing.

 

[Radical]

Two temples have been built on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. …… The point where God first became visible in the world in the flesh - not a physical cloud - was Mary’s womb the moment she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Her womb was no less a holy and personal dwelling place for God than the temple was.

Oh, so now Mary is the New Temple too?

…. While the original 10 commandments were kept inside the ark, what was written on the stone tablets was also written and placed beside the ark to accompany the 613 laws of the Torah which the priest needed access to for instructing the people. God commanded Moses to write everything down - laws, statutes, ordinances, and commands - together with what He himself would write in the form of the 10 commands to be given to Israel as divine commandments in a single body as a covenant between God and his chosen people. They were all kept in the Holy of Holies in the temple….

yep…kept where Mary couldn’t even go.

Jesus is not speaking metaphorically when he says:
“I am the bread of life,” “I am the living bread that came down from heaven,” “Whoever eats of this bread will live forever,” “The Bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh,” “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life,” “For my flesh is true food, and my blood true drink.”

Of course he was speaking metaphorically…or do you actually think that Jesus walked around earth as a batch of baked dough, complete with a crust and shedding crumbs each step of the way?

The connection lies with the fact that Aaron’s rod symbolizes the priesthood favoured by God. Recall Jesus identified himself with the bronze serpent in the desert, that when gazed upon kept the infected Israelites from dying after they were bitten by venemous snakes. The snakes that bit them represent the serpent in the garden of Eden, whose bite could only be remedied by the death and resurrection of our Lord. There is no forced connection here even though Jesus wasn’t made out of bronze.

oh, so here it is acceptable for there to be obvious differences when a connection to Jesus is made, but for the Ark/Jesus connection you won’t tolerate anything but exact matches?.. b/c otherwise your Mary/Ark connection looks so second rate.

When the ark was completed according to God’s specifications,** the glory cloud of the Lord “covered” the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle** (Ex 40: 34-35; Num 9:18,22). The Greek word for “cover” in the Septuagint - the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (The Jews don’t have an OT Bible), is episkiasei, which Luke himself uses in his gospel (1:35), indicating the early Christians perceived Mary as a type of ark.

no, it indicates that the HS overshadowed Mary…it merely described what happened.

The Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary - the temple of her body - just as the glory cloud of the Lord had covered or overshadowed the tent of meeting.

well, at least you have stopped claiming that the Ark was named as the thing that was overshadowed.

Both Mary and the ark went on a journey to the same hill country in Judea. Elizabeth lived in Ein Kerem, which is only a short walk away from Abu Ghosh where the ark resided.

the Ark travelled all over the place…not just the hill country of Judea. “Hill country” isn’t mentioned wrt the Ark so Luke’s use of “hill country” isn’t an attempt to make a connection, he merely described what actually happened….and then centuries later, pious imagination produced a false connection.

]David certainly feared God that day when the ark was brought to him because of what happened earlier with the ark, which he felt morally responsible for. But fear of God does not necessarily mean dreading him.

oh please, he didn’t know how he would manage to bring the Ark back to Jerusalem b/c of the danger involved….that was the meaning of his words.

Elizabeth did not raise her question only out of respect for Mary, but also because she felt unworthy of having Mary’s divine offspring in her home: “The mother of my Lord”. We should note that David and Elizabeth practically use the same words, and their questions are virtually similar.

we should rather note that the source (that you defend) deceptively distorted scripture

 

[PRmerger]

kept where Mary couldn’t even go/

What a peculiar argument you are presenting!

What do you make of Jesus not even going into the Holy of Holies?

Or are you going to argue that it’s just a “logical conclusion” that he entered the Holy of Holies and the Jews just pretended they didn’t know he did this?

 

[Radical]

What a peculiar argument you are presenting!

just showing how discrepancies are ignored when the Mary connection is desired

What do you make of Jesus not even going into the Holy of Holies?

what do you make of Hebrews 9:11-12:

But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

Or are you going to argue that it’s just a “logical conclusion” that he entered the Holy of Holies and the Jews just pretended they didn’t know he did this?

remember, I am the one saying that we should stick what is stated and not distort what is stated…

 

[PRmerger]

just showing how discrepancies are ignored when the Mary connection is desired

What you mean is: I forgot that Jesus wasn’t ever allowed in the Holy of Holies either.

 

[PRmerger]

what do you make of Hebrews 9:11-12:

But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here,[a] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

Interesting.

And you believe that Jesus literally walked into the Temple, the Holy of Holies…what do you think the Jews did when Jesus did this?

How did they respond?

remember, I am the one saying that we should stick what is stated and not distort what is stated…

Except for that part about James, the brother of the Lord, not being a disciple and then having a conversion.

For some reason you are able to dismiss your paradigm above and proffer some “logical conclusions” about James’ conversion.

 

[Good_Fella]

So to make the connection between Jonah and Christ, both are actually (EXPRESSLY) mentioned by scripture… plainly by expressly naming the two individuals.

When Luke writes, “And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah,” he is alluding to the latter’s role as a prophet. A connection doesn’t have to be as precise as you think it should be in order to be made. If so, the evangelist would have written “in the spirit and power of the prophet Elijah”. The connection is there in Scripture, but not as plain as it could be in words. The word “prophet” may have been used orally in the preaching of the Gospel, just as the word “ark” may have been said with reference to Mary.The written word does proceed from oral tradition. And so we musn’t expect all the terms or names used by the apostles as they preached to be explicitly put down in writing. True, the names Adam , Abel, and Jonah are written in the NT when alluding to Jesus as a type of these characters, but even though Jesus is also a type of Isaac and David, their names aren’t written down. The typologies between Jesus and these two men are more implicit and less “plain” and are formed strictly by focussing on the events in Jesus’ life and his principal role in the economy of salvation. The connection between Jesus and David, for instance, is implied or, as you put it, hinted at: The battle with Goliath on Israel’s behalf (1 Samuel 17:1) foreshadows the battle Jesus won on our behalf (Rom 5:19). Yet Paul doesn’t mention the names of David or Goliath. David is presented as Israel’s only representative against her enemy (1 Sam 17:8-11) as Jesus is against ours (Rom 5:18-19), but David’s name isn’t mentioned. Nor is his name mentioned in connection with Jesus as one who had to learn from the things he suffered (Heb 5:8; cf. 1 Sam 17:33-37). David’s name appears in the NT only as a title of Jesus: “son of David”. But Joseph was also a son of David his ancestor, not a type of David. You would have to reject the idea of Jesus being a type of David to be consistent in your denial that Mary is a type of ark.

Further… Typology, by its very nature does not use exact matches…. The source you defend, however, misrepresented what was said in scripture in order to make the “matches” more exact. You had posted:
The ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months. (2 Sam. 6:11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).
…it would have been nice if the “about” was included so that an honest comparison (of the two passages) was presented.

I didn’t post that. Reread what I wrote.

Correct! Typology is not meant to make exact matches, so there’s room for less precise verbalizations when comparing a subject to another object which isn’t absolutely identical in reality. Needless to say, there is no need to include the word “about” in the second Book of Samuel, because in the ancient Jewish mind a month did not necessarily have to include all 29 or 30 days to be chronologically referred to as a month. The ark may in fact have resided in Obededom’s house for 88 or 89 days depending on the year (Elul = 29, Tishri = 30, Cheshvan = 29/30), but the OT text does not provide an exact count of days. If it did, then you would have more of a case against us by your standards. The best you can do is assume the obvious as you have, which is subjective to say the least, and is a fallacy in reasoning.

Here… is the worst example:
…and here is how the two passages actually read:
“How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”(RSV)
And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (RSV)[/indent]
Obviously, the actual words contained in scripture were removed so that words could be falsely attributed to David so as to cause a remarkable word for word match with what Elizabeth said.

The RSV tanslation relies on copies of copies of the original manuscripts, and we have no way of certainly knowing that these copies are true to the original copies of the original manuscripts. So we shouldn’t appeal to the RSV or any version of the Bible to determine what the sacred authors had actually written. But although the words aren’t exactly identical in print, they mean the same thing. What we have in Luke in our current versions are paraphrases of what is written in the second Book of Samuel. In the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, for instance, the words of David and Elizabeth aren’t identical but mean the same thing.

"How can the ark of the Lord come to me?"
“And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

sure he did…he actually named the two individuals

Luke doesn’t use the word “prophet” although it is implied. Nor does he use the word “ark” with reference to Mary though it is implied.

”as implicitly”? ….they are EXPRESSLY related. The “implicit connection” between the Ark and Mary is merely a very questionable assertion

That John was a prophet like Elijah is less implied than Mary is like the ark. John was like the prophet by serving as a forerunner of Christ. Mary is like the ark in that she held the person whom the objects in the ark symbolize. Neither assertions are questionable, but rather obvious though they are not equally explicit in the written word.

 

[Good_Fella]

the Ark did not hold the presence of God…the presence of God appeared between the angels on the lid of the Ark.

The Jews believe that the ark manifested God’s physical presence on earth, and that when God spoke with Moses in the tent of meeting, he did so from between the two cherubs: a point of communication. It was because God manifested himself through the ark that it was dangerous for any man to come in contact with it. It was not just any sacramental relic. And so it was kept concealed behind a curtain in the Holy of Holies. When it was taken out to be transported, it had to be covered entirely. Once it rested in the temple, it was accessible just once a year, and then only by the High Priest who had to be ritualistically purified first. This occasion was on Yom Kippur when the High Priest entered the presence of the ark under the cover of a cloud of incense to symbolically obscure the sight of the Shekinah in all its glory (Lev 16:13). When God spoke from between the two cherubs, there was a glowing cloud visible there (Ex 40:35). The cloud itself did not simply indicate the presence of God but also masked the full glory of God in his presence from the people. There was no need for the cloud when the glory of God filled the ark as there was when God covered the tent of meeting before onlookers or spoke with Moses. I suggest you study Judaism.

Adam was created, but that didn’t prevent Christ from being a second Adam.

Christ can be a second Adam by beng born of a woman in his assumed humanity, being like us in all things but sin. In his divinity he is uncreated, one divine Person who became man and acquired a human nature. But Jesus isn’t a human being like we are, having earthly fathers. His tie with Adam (mankind) is by being the offspring of Mary.

…the word for word translation reads: whom set forth – God a mercy seat through the faith in the of him blood…. so despite, what you claim it is in fact “mercy seat” that is mentioned.

*Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation *through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the forgiveness of sins that are past, through the forebearance of God.
Romans 3, 25 [KJV]

Mercy seat isn’t mentioned in the KJV and perhaps only in the translation you subscribe to, which appears to be a faulty one. Anyway, what Paul means is that God put Jesus forward as a sacrifice of atonement for the remission of our sins. The sacrifice of atonement may refer back to the mercy seat, but the mercy seat isn’t a propitiation (the means of satisfaction). The word for mercy seat is “propitiatory”. So we don’t read in the KJV “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiatory through faith in his blood.” Each year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur ) the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies and sprinkled the blood of the sacrificial lambs on the mercy seat. The meaning was that it is only through the sprinkling of blood that the condemnation of the law could be lifted and the violations of God’s commandments covered. We can typify Jesus as the paschal lamb (1 Cor 5:7), but not the mercy seat, which by the way was the covering above the ark - not the ark itself. The mercy seat was fashioned separately and placed upon the ark to serve as a cover (Ex 25:17-22). It served as a point where God met man in his mercy.

….you have absolutely no problem with the Ark not being mentioned in the OT in relation to the overshadowing.

Nope, unless God didn’t fill the ark with the glory of his presence.

*And have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them.
Exodus 25, 8 *

PAX

 

[Good_Fella]

yep…kept where Mary couldn’t even go.

Who said Mary was the ark of the old Covenant?

Jesus could have entered the Holy of Holies without offending the Father by his substantial grace of union with him, but even though he is a type of David, his ancestor couldn’t have. Jesus wasn’t David.

Of course he was speaking metaphorically…or do you actually think that Jesus walked around earth as a batch of baked dough, complete with a crust and shedding crumbs each step of the way?
oh, so here it is acceptable for there to be obvious differences when a connection to Jesus is made, but for the Ark/Jesus connection you won’t tolerate anything but exact matches?

Many of Jesus’ followers left him because of what he said, but he didn’t shout, “Hey, come back here!” When Jesus spoke metaphorically on other occasions, he clarified in plain words what he meant to say to make sure his listeners understood him. Anyway, the Eucharist is another topic altogether, so lets leave it at that.

There can’t be any reasonable connection between Jesus and the ark at all, because our Lord’s human body was not his sanctuary. It was an attribute of his. He was God in the flesh, not God’s sacred vessel. We can speak of our Lord’s body as being a temple of the Holy Spirit, but this includes our bodies as well (1 Cor 6:19-20). .

no, it indicates that the HS overshadowed Mary…it merely described what happened.

We have to consider Mary as an entire person which would include her womb. The Holy Spirit covered her as it had the tent of meeting in which the ark resided and, as a result, the presence of God filled her womb just as it had filled the ark without the obscurity provided by the cloud. The ark was God’s sanctuary (Ex 25:8). You do believe that Mary’s womb held God incarnate, don’t you?

Well, at least you have stopped claiming that the Ark was named as the thing that was overshadowed.

I never asserted that it is written in Scripture that the ark was “overshadowed”.

the Ark travelled all over the place…not just the hill country of Judea. “Hill country” isn’t mentioned with the Ark, so Luke’s use of “hill country” isn’t an attempt to make a connection, he merely described what actually happened.

As often, you ignore what people post and begin the same argument. By “hill country” Luke means the same region where both Obededom and Elizabeth lived in Judea. The former lived in Abu Ghosh, while the latter lived in Ein Kerem, which are a short walk away from each other.

oh please, he didn’t know how he would manage to bring the Ark back to Jerusalem b/c of the danger involved….that was the meaning of his words.
we should rather note that the source (that you defend) deceptively distorted scripture

What do we mean in the Scriptures by fearing God? Nothing but sheer dread of being struck down by him? I don’t think so. David had already learned his lesson and would not have repeated his mistake, so there was no reason for being afraid of God in a negative sense. It’s more likely, as a man of faith, he felt shame and remorse for his over zealous behaviour and eagerness to return the ark home from captivity by ignoring the prescriptions of the Mosaic law. Because of what he did in light of his fear of God (reverence), he felt unworthy to continue the journey. Moreover, what happened to Uzzah may still have weighed heavily in the back of his mind. My source is my own examination of the text and my understanding of the story of David. So it’s a matter of interpretation between you and me. Don’t tell me that Scripture says otherwise because you think it does.

PAX

 

[joe370]

Good Fella - We have to consider Mary as an entire person which would include her womb. The Holy Spirit covered her as it had the tent of meeting in which the ark resided and, as a result, the presence of God filled her womb just as it had filled the ark without the obscurity provided by the cloud. The ark was God’s sanctuary (Ex 25:8). You do believe that Mary’s womb held God incarnate, don’t you?

 

[Radical]

The word “prophet” may have been used orally in the preaching of the Gospel, just as the word “ark” may have been said with reference to Mary.

I guess we differ dramatically…I am not going to recognize the legitimacy of the Mary/Ark connection on the mere possibility that they may have said something.

And so we musn’t expect all the terms or names used by the apostles as they preached to be explicitly put down in writing.

and we absolutely mustn’t utilize that reality (that everything wasn’t recorded) as a licence to claim or to justify any addition that you want to make.

You would have to reject the idea of Jesus being a type of David to be consistent in your denial that Mary is a type of ark.

I am concerned with the greater, not the lesser. I don’t need to see Jesus through David…I’ll simply look to Jesus.

I didn’t post that. Reread what I wrote.

thanks for the correction, I note that you merely defended it…. I am glad that you have a desire for accuracy when it comes to people attributing words to you….now if you would only have that same desire with respect to people attributing words to David…given that the latter involves scripture, I believe accuracy in that regard is much more important, don’t you?

Needless to say, there is no need to include the word “about” in the second Book of Samuel, because in the ancient Jewish mind a month did not necessarily have to include all 29 or 30 days to be chronologically referred to as a month. The ark may in fact have resided in Obededom’s house for 88 or 89 days depending on the year (Elul = 29, Tishri = 30, Cheshvan = 29/30), but the OT text does not provide an exact count of days. If it did, then you would have more of a case against us by your standards. The best you can do is assume the obvious as you have, which is subjective to say the least, and is a fallacy in reasoning.

I guess we understand the reasoning behind the author’s (of the source that you defend) effort. I thought it was something like this:

a) Luke wanted his readers to understand that Mary was the New Ark…(this is all part of the Mary had to be pure like the OT Ark, and since sex with Joseph would have somehow defiled her [even though sex w/i a marriage was a good thing], she could not have had sex with Joseph or anyone else)

b) Rather than say that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, rather than say that a miraculous birth was involved, rather than say that Mary avoided the impurities of marital sex, rather than say that she had only one child, rather than making an express connection like he did with John the Baptist and Elijah….we are to understand that Luke decided to implant a code within his gospel whereby the readers would make that Mary/Ark connection for themselves

c) For those that object that the Mary/Ark connection is just pious imagination gone wild, it is claimed that the number of the parallels between the OT Ark and Mary are just too many and they are just too strong to be brushed aside. …and the list that you defend is presented as proof of this claim

d) As one goes through the list, one his supposed to note how the words that Luke used echo what was said in the OT…this is supposed to be proof that Luke was making a conscious effort to make the Ark/Mary connection using the code

e) We then come to the alleged use of “three months” in Luke’s code…the OT reads ”three months”, but Luke it would seem, in his conscious effort to embed a code, confused the matter by using “about”; and

f) The source conveniently didn’t bother to mention Luke’s use of “about” and instead presents it as: the Ark stayed 3 months and Mary stayed 3 months

The RSV tanslation relies on copies of copies of the original manuscripts, and we have no way of certainly knowing that these copies are true to the original copies of the original manuscripts. So we shouldn’t appeal to the RSV or any version of the Bible to determine what the sacred authors had actually written.

so then you are saying that Luke might not have written these things that are now being used to try and make the Ark/Mary connection?..that the Ark/Mary connection isn’t necessarily the product of pious imagination applied to Luke’s words, but could be the product of pious imagination applied to some copyist’s changes. With scripture there was least a hard copy and a desire to strictly preserve what was written…so changes wouldn’t have been so easy….think how very bad the situation would be for flowing oral tradition.

What we have in Luke in our current versions are paraphrases of what is written in the second Book of Samuel. In the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, for instance, the words of David and Elizabeth aren’t identical but mean the same thing.

they don’t mean the same thing at all…that is such an obvious fact, it is beyond me how you think you can make that claim.

John was like the prophet by serving as a forerunner of Christ. Mary is like the ark in that she held the person whom the objects in the ark symbolize. Neither assertions are questionable, but rather obvious though they are not equally explicit in the written word.

yep, so terribly obvious that the scholars who contributed to “Mary in the New Testament” concluded that “there is no convincing evidence that Luke specifically identified Mary with…the Ark of the Covenant” (p134).

 

[Radical]

Mercy seat isn’t mentioned in the KJV and perhaps only in the translation you subscribe to, which appears to be a faulty one.

I had referenced an Interlinear translation…trying to get back to the actual Greek and not some later translation. In another one it is mentioned as “the propitiation place”….again a better connection than you can offer wrt Mary.

Who said Mary was the ark of the old Covenant?

don’t look at me…I don’t think she is an Ark at all

There can’t be any reasonable connection between Jesus and the ark at all, because our Lord’s human body was not his sanctuary. It was an attribute of his. He was God in the flesh, not God’s sacred vessel.

see there you go again….when you want to deny a Ark/Jesus connection you nit-pick the details, but when you want to make the Ark/Mary connection you brush aside the details…such as the failure to mention the Ark in relation to any overshadowing

As often, you ignore what people post and begin the same argument. By “hill country” Luke means the same region where both Obededom and Elizabeth lived in Judea. The former lived in Abu Ghosh, while the latter lived in Ein Kerem, which are a short walk away from each other.

You should have added that the tradition which places Elizabeth’s home at Ein Kerem is not exactly rock solid given that it doesn’t appear until after 500 AD… In any event, Ein Kerem is about 6 km from Kiriath Jearim (the name in 1 Chron) as the crow flies and probably more than 10 km by road. Ein Kerem is actually closer to Jerusalem. It isn’t really any more remarkable than saying that both houses were near Jerusalem…and given that Judea wasn’t exactly large, that two houses are both near Jerusalem isn’t that remarkable.

My source is my own examination of the text and my understanding of the story of David. So it’s a matter of interpretation between you and me. Don’t tell me that Scripture says otherwise because you think it does.

why not…if I have to listen to you….then do unto others …and in this regard, the Ark wasn’t the sanctuary…you are misreading Exodus 25:8

 

[panevino]

…a) Luke wanted his readers to understand that Mary was the New Ark…(this is all part of the Mary had to be pure like the OT Ark, and since sex with Joseph would have somehow defiled her [even though sex w/i a marriage was a good thing], she could not have had sex with Joseph or anyone else).…

The bolded part is what I think is identified as a strawman.
PV is not taught because of some kind of doctrine that sex is bad/evil.
PV is due Mary’s motherhood of God the Son by God the… Father.

 

[Radical]

The bolded part is what I think is identified as a strawman.
PV is not taught because of some kind of doctrine that sex is bad/evil.
PV is due Mary’s motherhood of God the Son by God the… Father.

then you tell your Catholic cohorts to stop making claims about what would defile Mary:

If you were in Joseph’s shoes, after an angel tells you this…and you realize that Mary is holy and favoured of God…and she is carrying a child of the Holy Spirit…a special child…from God…would you be thinking of sex after the birth of the Child? Would you even dare to defile the woman and have carnal relations with her?

…it seems that carnal relations between the husband Joseph and the wife Mary would defile her according to pablope…and I doubt that he is the only Catholic here with that mindset.

 

[joe370]

then you tell your Catholic cohorts to stop making claims about what would defile Mary:

…it seems that carnal relations between the husband Joseph and the wife Mary would defile her according to pablope…and I doubt that he is the only Catholic here with that mindset.

I know the CC claims to know things (e.g. the topic of this thread) infallibly. and you claim that that is not true…that God is not guiding and preserving doctrinal truth within the CC. You would also deny the same thing, if any one Protestant church made the same bold claim - correct? If you are correct, then what’s the point of debating the unknowable? There would simply be know way to know if what you are proposing is in fact the truth. In view of that, why are you so sure, and I am not attempting to be a smart aleck; far from it!

 

[panevino]

then you tell your Catholic cohorts to stop making claims about what would defile Mary:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope
If you were in Joseph’s shoes, after an angel tells you this…and you realize that Mary is holy and favoured of God…and she is carrying a child of the Holy Spirit…a special child…from God…would you be thinking of sex after the birth of the Child? Would you even dare to defile the woman and have carnal relations with her?

…it seems that carnal relations between the husband Joseph and the wife Mary would defile her according to pablope…and I doubt that he is the only Catholic here with that mindset.

The “defilement” is not considered such simply due to sex, but rather due to the handmaid relationship of Mary and divinity of the Father.
In other words, the defilement would be the action against that higher relationship.