Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[lyrikal]

St. Proclus (died 446 or 447)
“Let the woman haste hither, for the woman shows not the tree of death, but brings forth the tree of life: the virgins…the mothers also, for the Virgin Mother has amended the tree of disobedience by the tree of life. The female sex is no longer in execration, for it has obtained whereby it shall surpass even the angels in glory. Eve has been healed…and Mary is venerated (adored), because she has become mother and handmaid, cloud and chamber, and ark of the Lord…For this cause let us say to her: Blessed art thou amongst women, who alone hast healed the grief of Eve; who alone hast borne the world’s price” (Orat.iv.and v. In Natal. Dom. P.G. Tom. 65, p.710) (Blessed Virgin, p. 58).

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
“With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib *, a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon. For in that ark [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror. There was then a mystery revealed, in that Dagon was brought low in his own place of refuge. The accomplishment came after the type, in that the wicked one was brought low wherein he trusted…Fulfilled was the mystery. Blessed is He who by the true Lamb redeemed us, and destroyed our destroyer as He did Dagon” (S. Ephrem, Rhythm iii, On the Nativity, Morris, p.20) ((Blessed Virgin, p. 66).

Chrysippus
“An ark truly royal, an ark most precious is the ever-Virgin Mother of God, an ark which received the treasure of entire sanctification. Not that ark wherein were all kinds of animals, as in the ark of Noe, which escaped the shipwreck of the whole drowning world. Not that ark in which were the tables of stone, as in the ark that journeyed in company with Israel throughout the desert; but an ark whose architect and inhabitant, pilot and merchant, companion of the way, and leader, was the Creator of all creatures, all which He bears in Himself, but by all is not contained” (Chrysippus, Orat. de laudib. Deip. (Blessed Virgin, p. 74).

St. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236)
“At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested…And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body” (S. Hippolytus, In Dan.vi., Patr. Gr., Tom. 10, p. 648) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).

St. Ambrose (c. 339-397)
“The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly” (Serm. xlii. 6, Int. Opp., S. Ambrosii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).

St. Cyril (315-387?)
“The Ark would be the type and image of Christ : for if we look back to the way of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, we shall see that it is in the temple of the Virgin, as in an ark that the Word of God took up His abode. For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as the Scripture saith. But the testimonies in the ark were the word of God, and the wood of it was imperishable, and with pure and choicest gold was it beautified within and without” (St. Cyril, De ador. In Spir. Et Verit, p. 293, St. Maximus of Turin and other Fathers apply the Ark of the Covenant to the Blessed Virgin Mary) (Blessed Virgin, p. 76).

Breviarium in Psalterium
“Christ in Mary as though the Bridegroom in the bride chamber, and the body of Mary as though the tabernacle” (Breviarium in Psalterium) (Blessed Virgin, p. 78).

St. Athanasius (c. 296-373)
“Be mindful of us, most holy virgin, who after childbirth didst remain virgin; and grant to us for these small words great gifts from the riches of they graces, O thou full of grace. Accept them as though they were true and adequate praises in they honor; and if there is in them any virtue and any praise, we offer them as a hymn from ourselves and from all creatures to thee, full of grace, Lady, Queen, Mistress, Mother of God, and Ark of sanctification” (Orat. In Deip. Annuntiat, nn. 13, 14. Int. Opp. S. Athanasii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 80).

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373; the main defender of the Trinity and the deity of Christ against the 2nd century Arian heretics.)
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

Continued…*

 

[lyrikal]

St. Dionysius (died 264)
“As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother” (S. Dionysius of Alexandria, Respons. ad Quoest. v. Pauli Samos) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

St Dionysius (died 264)
“Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God” (Ib. ad Quoest. vii. In calling Mary σκηνλχειροποιη ο, the Saint implies that she was of an election and origin altogether singular and exceptional. The word occurs three times in the New Testament (Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1, Col. Ii. 11), and in each case denotes what is of singular and divine origin. See also Heb. ix. 11, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)
“The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification. Arise, O Lord, from the Father’s bosom, to raise up again the ruined race of our first parent” (Orat. in Deip. Annunciat. Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaumaturg) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).

Another translation renders this: “Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary.” For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.[1]

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus
“The tenor of his message was as follows. I am moved by My compassion to descend to earth in order to recover the lost Adam. Sin made him to decay who was made to My image, and hath corrupted the work of My hands, and obscured the beauty which I formed…Go therefore to the Virgin Mary. Pass thou on to the animate city whereof the prophet spake these words: Glorious things are said of thee, O city of God. Go, then, to My rational paradise, to the Gate of the East, to the place of sojourn that is worthy of My Word, that hath appeared as a heaven upon earth ; go to the light cloud, and announce to it the shower of My coming ; go to the sanctuary prepared for Me, to the hall of the Incarnation, to the pure chamber of My generation according to the flesh. Speak in the ears of My rational ark, so as to prepare for Me the accesses of hearing. But disturb not nor vex the soul of Mary. Manifest thyself in such wise as becomes that sanctuary, and salute her first with the voice of gladness” (Homilies, il, ii., iii. On the Annunciation, Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaum., 5th century) (Blessed Virgin, p. 123).

Hesychius (lived c. 300)
“The ark is without doubt the Virgin Mother of God. For if Thou art the gem, with reason is she the ark; and because Thou art the sun, the Virgin will necessarily be called heaven: since Thou art the unfading flower, the Virgin must assuredly be the plant of incorruption and paradise of immortality. Which things Isaias, seeing from afar, exclaimed later on: Behold a Virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel. Behold a Virgin. Who is she? The most noble of women, the elect from among virgins, the splendid ornament of our nature, the glory of our mould, who freed Eve from her shame and Adam from the curse, who cut off the bold insolence of the dragon, she whom the smoke of concupiscence touched not, nor the worm of pleasure harmed” (Is.vii. 14). (Hesychius, Orat. De Virginis laudib. Biblioth. PP. Græco-Lat. Tom. ii. p. 423) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).

Hesychius
“Arise, Lord, into Thy rest, Thou and the Ark of Thy sanctification, which is very evidently the Virgin Mother of God. For if thou are the pearl, with good reason is she the Ark” (Serm. V. De S. Maria Deip. Patr. Gr. Tom. 93, pp. 460-4) (Blessed Virgin, p. 227).

St. Zeno (c. 450-491)
“God, the Son of God, at the time appointed, concealing for the while His majesty, comes forth from His ethereal throne, and prepares for Himself a tabernacle in the temple of the predestined Virgin; wherein He hides Himself, about to become man; and there whilst preserving what He was, He meditates to be what He was not. Mingles thus with human flesh He forms Himself an infant. The womb of Mary swells forth with pride, not by conjugal gift, but by faith; by the Word, not by seed. She knows not the tediousness of the ten months” (Lib. Ii., Tractatus viii. Et ix. Pat. Lat. Tom. 11, pp. 413-417) (Blessed Virgin, p. 126).

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

St. Methodius (815-8885)
“Hence it was that the Ark of God removed from the stable at Bethlehem . . . and rested upon the mountains of Zion; and receiving into her pure bosom as upon a lofty throne-such as transcends the nature of man-the Monarch of all, she presented Him there to God the Father-the Son joint-partner of His throne, and inseparable from Him-together with that pure and undefiled flesh which He had from her assumed… She goes up therefore to the temple, she who was more exalted than the temple, clothed with a double glory—the glory, I mean, of undefiled virginity, and that of ineffable child-bearing, the benediction of the Law, and the sanctification of grace…
“Tremendous, verily, is the mystery connected with thee, O Mother Virgin, thou spiritual throne, glorified and made worthy of God. . . . And the lintels of the doors, says the prophet, were raised at the voice of them that cried. By which is signified the veil of the temple overshadowing before the ark of the Covenant which typified thee… For if to the ark, which was the image and type of thy sanctity, such honor was paid by God, that to no one but to the priestly order was the access to it open, or ingress allowed to behold it-the veil separating it off, and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen—how great, and what sort of veneration is due to thee from us, who are of all the least, to thee who art indeed a Queen ; to thee who art in truth the living Ark of God, the Law-giver; to thee who hast verily become the heaven that contains Him who can be contained of none?” (St. Methodius, Orat. de Simeone et Anna ii. Patr. Graec. Tom. 18, p. 332. (Blessed Virgin, p. 153).

St. Theodotus of Ancyra (died c. 445)
“But what part had the divine Virgin Mother, worthy of all praise, in these things that were taking place? She wondered indeed and with reason at the things that were being said, and kept them, together with those said before, in her heart. To her now Simeon of set purpose speaks: O fair and innocent dove! O sacred tabernacle of our hope, wherein all sanctity and magnificence dwell, He to whom thou hast given birth-thou knowest it not –is set for the ruin and resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed” (Hom. Iv. In Deip. Et Simeon. N. 13, Patr. Gr. Tom. 74, p. 1410) (Blessed Virgin, p. 161).

St. Theodotus of Ancyra
“O Dove, all-white and innocent! O holy temple of our hopes, wherein dwells all sanctity and magnificence” (Hom. iv. In S. Deip. et Simeon. Ib., p. 1395) (Blessed Virgin, p. 223).

St. Ambrose (c. 339-397)
“For this cause did the prophet David dance before the Ark. And what shall we say is the Ark, but holy Mary? For as the Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, so Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament: it preserved within it the Law, she the Gospel; it had the voice, she the word, of God. The Ark, moreover, was radiant within and without with the shining of gold, whilst holy Mary gleamed within and without with the splendor of virginity; it was adorned with earthly gold, she with heavenly” (Serm. xlii., Int. Opp. S. Ambros. The author is uncertain, but there is nothing to show that he is not S. Ambrose. Ed. Maurin,. vol. iv. p. 551) (Blessed Virgin, p. 201).

St. Jerome (c. 345-420)
“Behold one in truth, the handmaid of the Lord. Holy she is, in whom is no guile, all simplicity…The spouse of Christ is the ark of the covenant, within and without overlaid with gold, a keeper of the law of the Lord. As in the ark there was nothing but the tables of the Testament, so too in thee no one from outside should be thought of. Over this propitiatory, as though upon the Cherubim, the Lord is pleased to sit…The Apostle thus defines a virgin, that she should be holy in body and in spirit… (Epist. Xxii., Ad Eustoch. Nn. 18, 19, 21, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 216).

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
“O Virgin Mother of God, Gate of heaven, and Ark, in thee I have a secure salvation. Save me out of the pure mercy (δωρεάυ, gratis), O Lady” (Precat. ix. Opp. Gr. et Lat. Tom. iii. P. 522) (Blessed Virgin, p. 294).

St. Ephrem
“Concentration of the hierarchies, crown of all saints and virgins, approached for thy exceeding brightness and splendor, censer of God, lamp most bright, urn must beautiful containing the heavenly manna; table bearing the written law for men, true ark, book of writing most divine, princess, of all most prudent and wise, light-giving Virgin, most holy consoler and directress of all, most sacred Maid. . . (Is. Xxv. 9, vii. 16) (Blessed Virgin, p. 297)

St. Ephrem
“Hail, most tranquil haven, and most ardently longed for rescuer of the tempest-tossed from billows and storms. Hail, succor of those in danger. Hail, resurrection of our first father Adam. Hail, sweet liberty. Hail, parent of all. Hail, fountain of grace, and of all the solace. Hail, refuge and hospice of sinners. Hail, mercy-seat of the afflicted. Hail, place of sanctuary in Jerusalem. Hail, most glorious throne of our Creator. Hail, most illustrious splendor of the age. Hail, hope of all the good who suffer under affliction. Hail, sweet solace and protection of the converted. Hail, of men and women alike Queen and Patroness. Hail, best mediatress between God and man. (Threni B. V. M. Opp. Gr. et Lat. Tom. iii. p.575 sq) (Blessed Virgin, p. 298)

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

St. Ephrem
“The woman ministered before the man, because he is her head. Joseph rose to minister before His Lord, who was in Mary. The priest ministered before Thy Ark by reason of Thy holiness. Moses carried the tables of stone which the Lord wrote, and Joseph bare about the pure Tablet in whom the Son of the Creator was dwelling. The tables had ceased, because the world was filled with Thy doctrine” (Serm. xi., Natali Domini, Opp. Syr. Tom. ii. p. 429. Morris, pp. 51, 52.) (Blessed Virgin, p. 383).

St. Venantius Fortunatus (c. 530-c. 610)
“How blest that Mother in whose shrine, The great Artificer Divine, Whose hand contains the earth and sky, Vouchsafed, as in His ark, to lie! Blest, in the message Gabriel brought, Blest, by the work the Spirit wrought; From whom the great Desire of earth, Took human Flesh and human birth. All honor, laud, and glory be, O Jesu, Virgin-born to Thee! All glory, as is ever meet, To Father and to Paraclete. Amen” (Blessed Virgin, p. 458).

Source: catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/

 

[lyrikal]

It really comes down to the Church Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture vs. Radical’s interpretation of Scripture. It’s an easy choice.

Consensus of the Fathers vs. Radical’s opinion.

OldArk: 3 items…Iron Rod, Manna, Ten Commandments…

New Ark (Mary)…Jesus…High Priest, Bread of Life, Word of God…

You’d have to be biased to miss it. We have evidence from the Fathers so our stance is historical. The consensus of the Fathers agree. People from different parts of the world believed in this without ever communicating with each other. What a coincidence, eh?

Let’s take a look at a passage from Scripture. I remind you, that when John was writing Revelations, there were no chapters and verses to separate the passages. The last verse of Revelations 11 continues nicely with the first verse of Revelations 12.

Revelations 11:19-12:1-6

[19]Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

Rev.12
[1]
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
[2] she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.
[3] And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads.
[4] His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth;
[5] she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,
[6] and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Last verse of Revelations 11, John sees the Ark of the Covenant. First verse of Revelation 12, John sees a woman who gave birth to the Messiah…

What a coincidence, eh?

 

[Good_Fella]

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

I’m sure the apostles said David’s name when speaking of Jesus in connection with him as much as they had mentioned the names of Adam, Abel, and Jonah, which are written in the NT. We can discover the parallel between Jesus and David just by gleaning both Testaments of the Bible. If nothing short of an explicit statement such as “Mary carried Jesus in her womb in the manner of the ark” will satisfy you, it’s because you fail to understand the nature of Scripture and examine it too literally. I’m curious. Do you believe Jesus is a type of David?

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.

License? But we don’t believe Mary is a type of ark because the word isn’t used in reference to her. Symbols and vivid representations are enough to warrant our beliefs. Arguing from silence (the absence of a definitive term) is fallacious and no reasonable cause to justify your objection.

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

The OT persons who prefigured Jesus - no less than many ancient events - helped the apostles better understand who Jesus was with the guidance of the Paraclete. They would have had to refer to them especially in their attempt to convert the Jews. Reference to the OT helped the sacred authors write the NT so as to bring Christ out in the fullest light. Paul alludes to the OT countless times to clarify what he means in his Christian teachings.

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…

Accuracy is the least of my concern. Most Protestant Bibles attribute different words to David in 2 Samuel 6:9, providing a variety of nuances without even having to cross-reference this verse with Luke 1:43. Observe:

***“How can the ark of the Lord Come to me?” [RSV]; ***“How will I ever bring the Lord’s chest to me?” [CEB]; “Should I really take the sacred chest to my city?” [CEV]; “How can the ark of the Lord come to me now?” [EB]; “How can the ark of the Lord come to my city?” [GWT]; “How can I take the Covenant Box with me now?” [GNT]; “How can the ark of the Lord ever come to me?” [HCSB]; “How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?” [KJV]; “How shall I give shelter to the Lord’s ark?” [KB]; “How will the ark of the Lord ever come to me?” [NET]; “How can the special box of the Lord come to me?” [NLV]; “How can I ever bring the ark of the Lord back into my care?” [NLT]; “How can I bring the ark of the Lord back with me?” [WB]. “How doth the ark of Jehovah come in unto me?” [YLT}. *

In all these translations that differ in wording, what stands out is the question of how it is possible for David that he should receive the ark. This same question underlies Elizabeth’s surprised reaction to Mary’s visit and essentially connects the two passages despite the different circumstances.

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… she could not have had sex with Joseph or anyone else.

An adulterous marriage is a bad thing. It doesn’t matter whose child Mary conceived, but Joseph was forbidden to consummate his marriage by Mosaic law because Mary had already conceived and borne the child of another Person. God chose a virgin for his Son’s mother, so as not to pervert and dismiss his own divine precepts in contradiction to himself. I can’t imagine a holy and righteous God being capable of being so vulgar as to use the body of a married woman to conceive and bear a child for him, or coerce a married woman to submit to his vain pleasure. Ontologically it’s impossible. Anyway, Mary did not choose a chaste life because she thought having marital relations was bad. On the contrary, she chose it for something better. She made a sacrifice to God by giving back to him what was good for His sake alone and to draw spiritually closer to Him - or else it couldn’t have been a pleasing sacrifice or sweet offering. So Catholics don’t reason as you suppose.

… rather than say that Mary avoided the impurities of marital sex …

The High Priests were forbidden to have conjugal relations with their wives for a period of time when they served in the Holy of Holies. Moses abstained for the rest of his life after his encounter with YHWH on Mount Horeb and Sinai. I wonder why?

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.

God has ensured the faithful transmission of his written word, or else we wouldn’t have the canon of Scripture.

PAX

 

[dancingrain91]

I am confused. Nobody ever told me for a fact that she did, but I see no reason why her state of virginity after the Holy Birth is important. If she did have relations with her husband then I don’t see why it would harm her purity, and if she didn’t then I was wrong but it doesn’t make a difference to me.

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

Transliterated into English the Greek word for propitiatory is hilasterion. The word can be defined two ways. So Jesus could be described as either being a sin offering by which the justice of God is placated or as the place of propitiation where his blood was shed for the antonement of sins. The latter description is absurd, so it’s unfeasible to refer to Jesus as a type of mercy seat. The mercy seat covered the ark, not the sins of the people. That was achieved by the blood of the slaughtered animals that was sprinkled on the cover of the mercy seat. Some Protestants regard Jesus as the New Ark of the Covenant because of the word “cover” which they stretch beyond unimaginable proportion. Jesus served as a means to cover our sins in the sight of God’s justice, but as a sin offering - and not in the sense that his righteousness was imputed to us once he offered himself in sacrifice. He was a means of propitiation and not the propitiation himself. One false belief leads to another. Ask a pious Jew if the ancient High Priest offered the atonement cover to God, and see how he reacts. And to think you find the idea of Mary’s womb serving as a type of sacred vessel for the Divine Presence a pious fantasy. Ask a pious Jew whether the sacred vessel of the ark held the Divine Presence, and you’ll get a different reaction.

He shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did the bull’s blood. He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it.
Leviticus 15, 16

and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Ephesians 5, 2

Anyway, like I pointed out, but you chose to ignore, the mercy seat was not the ark but its cover fashioned separately and then placed on top of the vessel. So there’s not even a remote connection between the ark itself and Jesus, notwithstanding the ingenuous idea that Jesus is the mercy seat. On the contrary, the typology between Mary and the ark is irrefutable.

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

You suggetsed that Catholics think so, or else you wouldn’t have pointed out that she never entered or even resided in the Holy of Holies. But then Jesus never sinned, although he is a type of David. Your wise crack tells me you have no sound argument.

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

First of all, the ark was overshadowed by being in the tent of meeting which the cloud pervaded until the glory of the Divine Presence filled the ark. The Divine Presence was veiled by the cloud until the ark was filled with it. I already explained this to you. Go back and check. Second, how can Jesus typify what had held him symbolically? The ark was God’s dwelling place. Both the ark and the mercy seat can be described as places. Jesus is not a place. Mary, on the otherhand, can bodily typify God’s sanctuary as his temple and her womb as God’s sacred vessel or dwelling place situated there. Nothing fantastic about that. I’ll brush aside anything nonsensical.

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.

You mean the first recorded mention of it by a pilgrim who went there before he mentioned it. I can assure you the tradition did not originate in the 6th century but dates back much earlier from the time of Theodosius. And the Jews could walk for more than 10 miles, though Mary must have ridden on a mule in her condition.

the Ark wasn’t the sanctuary…you are misreading Exodus 25:8

So I did. I meant to write dwelling place. The sanctuary was the temple or tent of meeting and the holiest sanctuary was the most inner chamber: the Holy of Holies. The ark was the center point of God’s presence there who dwelled in the ark. The sanctuary was built for the ark so that God could dwell there. Mental fatigue, I guess. Replying to you can be exhausting.

PAX

 

[PRmerger]

I am confused. Nobody ever told me for a fact that she did, but I see no reason why her state of virginity after the Holy Birth is important. If she did have relations with her husband then I don’t see why it would harm her purity, and if she didn’t then I was wrong but it doesn’t make a difference to me.

It speaks to the divinity of Him who was contained in her womb.

If you were trying to evangelize someone who says, “Jesus could not have been divine!” which position supports the fact that Jesus was indeed divine:

-the womb which held the Numinous was reserved for that alone

OR

-the womb which held the Numinous also held some dirty, defiled beings?

 

[Snowball7]

I am currently reading a book called* “The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles after Calvary” *, which speaks of this subject, along with many others, I recommend it.
The familial relationships between the apostles and first bishops is complex
and the book does a good job in many areas.

 

[Miriam1947]

I am confused. Nobody ever told me for a fact that she did, but I see no reason why her state of virginity after the Holy Birth is important. If she did have relations with her husband then I don’t see why it would harm her purity, and if she didn’t then I was wrong but it doesn’t make a difference to me.

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

Watch this video.

 

[Radical]

I know the CC claims to know things (e.g. the topic of this thread) infallibly….

to be precise, fallible men, who are part of the CC, have declared their belief that certain decisions (accepted by the CC) of other men (who are otherwise quite fallible) were made infallibly (let’s call this the CC Belief)

…and you claim that that is not true…that God is not guiding and preserving doctrinal truth within the CC.

correct…but I would phrase the last bit as: God is not guiding and preserving doctrinal truth within the CC to an extent that its “Sacred Tradition” is w/o error.

You would also deny the same thing, if any one Protestant church made the same bold claim - correct?

correct

If you are correct, then what’s the point of debating the unknowable?

it enables one to meet the most delightful of people ….that and I suspect you are using a very restricted meaning for “knowable”. For example, would you argue that we shouldn’t have lawyers debate over the guilt or innocence of the accused b/c nobody involved claims to be able to act infallibly? In every other aspect of our lives we operate (including debating the issues) w/o an infallible magisterium to render the final decision…

There would simply be know way to know if what you are proposing is in fact the truth.

and the CC Belief could not be known to a greater degree…does that paralyze you?

In view of that, why are you so sure, and I am not attempting to be a smart aleck; far from it!

based on the evidence, it is my conclusion.

 

[Radical]

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.

thanks for the clarification…that makes a little more sense.

 

[Porknpie]

correct…but I would phrase the last bit as: God is not guiding and preserving doctrinal truth within the CC to an extent that its “Sacred Tradition” is w/o error.

Radical, why do you believe God can guide the Church to have a sacred text without error…but not the oral Tradition from which it comes?

 

[Radical]

.

well hello and welcome to the party…long time no see

It really comes down to the Church Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture vs. Radical’s interpretation of Scripture. It’s an easy choice.

if that were truly the choice, you’d have a point, but that is a false dichotomy…I am hardly alone. Ambrose is one of the fathers that you quoted. Tell me, why should I accept Ambrose’s opinion over the opinion of a modern theologian/scholar when both are working off scripture? I note that the modern scholar probably has better scripture to work from (I believe that I may have pointed out to you a couple Augustine’s poor ramblings based on a bad interpretation). I note that the modern scholar probably has better linguistic skills and his work is open to interaction with and criticism from other able scholars.

Consensus of the Fathers vs. Radical’s opinion.

really it is the consensus found in the surviving works of the ECFs vs. the opinion of scholars favored by Radical

those that accept the “consensus” seem to believe that the ECFs possessed some grand spiritual charisma that prevented them from collectively straying into grave error and those that don’t recognize the ECFs as great spiritual leaders who unfortunately made mistakes and collectively fell into error occasionally…IMHO you and yours see the ECFs through very rose-coloured glasses

OldArk: 3 items…Iron Rod, Manna, Ten Commandments…

New Ark (Mary)…Jesus…High Priest, Bread of Life, Word of God…
You’d have to be biased to miss it.

Iron rod?..or you could just note that scripture and the things in it point to Jesus…and have no need to try and force it to point to Mary too.

We have evidence from the Fathers so our stance is historical. The consensus of the Fathers agree.

yes it is historical, but that hardly makes it apostolic.

People from different parts of the world believed in this without ever communicating with each other. What a coincidence, eh?

and you know about this lack of communication how?

Let’s take a look at a passage from Scripture. I remind you, that when John was writing Revelations, there were no chapters and verses to separate the passages. The last verse of Revelations 11 continues nicely with the first verse of Revelations 12.

Revelations 11:19-12:1-6

[19]Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.

Rev.12
[1]
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
[2] she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

hmmm…that sure sounds like a natural childbirth to me…but for the PVof M to exist a supernatural birth process is required that leaves the hymen intact (virginity in partu)…so what is it? Is the woman Mary and did she endure a normal birth process…if so, great, the PVof M is eliminated…or is it that the woman isn’t Mary and you are just grasping at straws?

Last verse of Revelations 11, John sees the Ark of the Covenant. First verse of Revelation 12, John sees a woman who gave birth to the Messiah…

What a coincidence, eh?

again, the scholarly opinion in the book Mary in the New Testament has the primary meaning of the woman as being the people of God…and it was unclear as to whether a secondary reference to Mary could also be found. That is why I quite like modern scholarship…when a position has to be defended against qualified peers…then the over-reaching and subjective claims tend to get shelved (so as to avoid unnecessary embarrassment)…alas that safeguard wasn’t in place with the ECFs.

 

[Good_Fella]

It speaks to the divinity of Him who was contained in her womb.

If you were trying to evangelize someone who says, “Jesus could not have been divine!” which position supports the fact that Jesus was indeed divine:

-the womb which held the Numinous was reserved for that alone

OR

-the womb which held the Numinous also held some dirty, defiled beings?

If I may add, Sarah prefigures Mary as the free woman of promise. Isaac was her only son, and he was born as free heir to his inheritance, unlike Ishmael who was born of her Egyptian maidservant Hagar in slavery. As the fulfillment of the free woman of promise, Mary couldn’t have conceived and borne children under the slavery of sin unworthy of an eternal inheritance by birth and a claim to it. And since Isaac prefigures Jesus as the son of promise, our Lord must have been Mary’s only child as Isaac was Sarah’s. I believe God closed Sarah’s womb on account of Isaac who should, like Jesus, be the rightful heir to an inheritance by birth with no challenge to this claim. His being Sarah’s only son foreshadows that same unchallenged right which belonged to Jesus once he was born. Issac symbolizes Christ as rightful heir to an inheritance which could only be attained by being placed on the sacrificial altar. Mary, the mother of our Lord, is an integral part of this symbol without whom it could never be complete in the economy of salvation. If she had borne children in the slavery of sin by Joseph’s seed, she could not be. But the divine maternity is essential for Mary’s role in God’s redemptive plan. Mary is who she is by virtue of her only Son who is divine and absolutely free from sin.

God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. Him also will I bless; he shall give rise to nations, and rulers of people shall issue from him."
Genesis 17, 15-16

When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice, and said," Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
Luke 1, 41-42

And coming to her he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."
Luke 1, 28

Transliterated into English the expression “Hail, favored one” is *Chaire kecharitomene *in the original Greek. In ancient time, the acclamation preceding the female vocative in the angel’s greeting was reserved strictly for persons of royalty. On only one other occasion is this form of expression used in the NT, and that is when the Roman soldiers deride Jesus by placing a crown of thorns on his head and a reed in his hand: “Hail, king of the Jews!” Chaire basileus ton ioudaion] (Jn 19:3). In Judaic tradition Sarah is perceived as the prefigurement of the Davidic Queen Mother (Gebirah). God commanded Abraham to no longer call his wife Sarai, but from then on to call her by the name of Sarah. In ancient Hebrew the name Sarai means “princess” whereas Sarah means “exalted princess”. A princess is exalted by becoming queen. God looked upon the lowliness of both Sarah and Mary when he blessed them. Since David’s kingship finds its secondary fullfillment in the kingship of Christ (Lk 1:31-33) and Mary is his mother (Mt 2:10-11), Luke is obviously making a connection between Sarah and Mary as the free woman of promise (and Queen of Heaven) who is first mentioned by God himself in the Protoevangelium (Gen 3:15). Incidentally, the Bible does not record the name of David’s mother, but in ancient Judaic tradition the Talmud does (Baba Bathra, 91.a). Her name was Nitzevet (Nisbeth), and she was the daughter of Adael. Her name derives from the Hebrew word nitzav, which means “to stand”. We find the source in the Hebrew Scriptures: "For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf rose (nitzbat) upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood roundabout and made obeisance to my sheaf " (Gen 37:7). Though Nitzevet was not institutionally a queen mother, she was nonetheless the mother of King David who stood by him, and so she stands as a living symbol of the office of the Gebirah who gave birth to David’s descendants to the throne.

And Mary said, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;
behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.
He who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name."
Luke 1, 46-49

Mary’s first message to humankind!

PAX

 

[joe370]

OK.

correct…but I would phrase the last bit as: God is not guiding and preserving doctrinal truth within the CC to an extent that its “Sacred Tradition” is w/o error.

OK.

correct it enables one to meet the most delightful of people …

That’s true. If nothing else I do get to converse with wonderful people like yourself and others here at CAF.

.

that and I suspect you are using a very restricted meaning for “knowable”. For example, would you argue that we shouldn’t have lawyers debate over the guilt or innocence of the accused b/c nobody involved claims to be able to act infallibly?

Good point.

In every other aspect of our lives we operate (including debating the issues) w/o an infallible magisterium to render the final decision…

So, for example, it’s possible via exhausted debate, (minus any fallible teaching office being infallibly guided by God) to render the correct decision about the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist i.e. knowable?

and the CC Belief could not be known to a greater degree…does that paralyze you?
based on the evidence, it is my conclusion.

I just believe that God does in fact, in some ineffable way, continue to guide the church He founded, in terms of His teachings. No biggie… I should add: if you are right then it simply wouldn’t matter which church one belonged to for the simple fact that God, in this particular scenario, does not infallibly guide fallible people.

 

[cheezey]

OK.

I just believe that God does in fact, in some ineffable way, continue to guide the church He founded, in terms of His teachings. No biggie… I should add: if you are right then it simply wouldn’t matter which church one belonged to for the simple fact that God, in this particular scenario, does not infallibly guide fallible people.

I like your thinking…

 

[Good_Fella]

So, for example, it’s possible via exhausted debate, (minus any fallible teaching office being infallibly guided by God) to render the correct decision about the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist i.e. knowable? I just believe that God does in fact, in some ineffable way, continue to guide the church He founded, in terms of His teachings. No biggie…:

Scripture does in fact reveal how God ineffably and infallibly guides his Church in all truth until the end of this age.

***“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever.”

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whaatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are coming.”***
John 14, 16, 26; 16, 12-13

By looking at these verses in conjunction, we can get a comprehensive grasp at what Jesus meant about his sending the Holy Spirit to be the Church’s ultimate teaching authority and guaranty against doctrinal error. Jesus alludes to himself as being the final revelation of God in his own person, but the Holy Spirit will act to complete his revelation to the entire world until our Lord returns in glory. The Holy Spirit was not sent to act for only a short period of time for the purpose of helping establish the primary fundamental doctrines of the Church on the foundation of the apostles as some Protestants contend. And there would have been no reason for Jesus to send the Paraclete if the Church could resolve her internal debates without his help by relying on human reasoning and scholarship alone. Apart from the Spirit of truth we could never possibly learn all the things Jesus desires we should know, including those truths which have no direct bearing on our salvation. The apostles themselves needed the Spirit to discern the meanings of all that Jesus said while he was still with them. And Jesus never told them everything he could have said by then, but chose not to because the time wasn’t ripe. He spoke of more things that were to come and would continue to come until he returns and his revelation is completed. These things include truths about his blessed mother Mary which belong to the deposit of faith. Sacred Tradition has been described as the Church’s living memory of what has been said - not written - reminding her of what the faithful have constantly believed from the beginning while growing in and gaining further understanding of the truth. What has been said and is still being said is what the Holy Spirit “declares” in our Lord’s name through the authentic teaching and ruling authority of the Church: the Magisterium.

"Our gospel came to you not only in word but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction."
1 Thessalonians 1, 5

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith.
1 Timothy 6, 20-21

I commend you in everything because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
***1 Corinthians 11, 2 ***

PAX

 

[joe370]

Scripture does in fact reveal how God ineffably and infallibly guides his Church in all truth until the end of this age.

***“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever.”

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whaatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are coming.”***
John 14, 16, 26; 16, 12-13

By looking at these verses in conjunction, we can get a comprehensive grasp at what Jesus meant about his sending the Holy Spirit to be the Church’s ultimate teaching authority and guaranty against doctrinal error. Jesus alludes to himself as being the final revelation of God in his own person, but the Holy Spirit will act to complete his revelation to the entire world until our Lord returns in glory. The Holy Spirit was not sent to act for only a short period of time for the purpose of helping establish the primary fundamental doctrines of the Church on the foundation of the apostles as some Protestants contend. And there would have been no reason for Jesus to send the Paraclete if the Church could resolve her internal debates without his help by relying on human reasoning and scholarship alone. Apart from the Spirit of truth we could never possibly learn all the things Jesus desires we should know, including those truths which have no direct bearing on our salvation. The apostles themselves needed the Spirit to discern the meanings of all that Jesus said while he was still with them. And Jesus never told them everything he could have said by then, but chose not to because the time wasn’t ripe. He spoke of more things that were to come and would continue to come until he returns and his revelation is completed. These things include truths about his blessed mother Mary which belong to the deposit of faith. Sacred Tradition has been described as the Church’s living memory of what has been said - not written - reminding her of what the faithful have constantly believed from the beginning while growing in and gaining further understanding of the truth. What has been said and is still being said is what the Holy Spirit “declares” in our Lord’s name through the authentic teaching and ruling authority of the Church: the Magisterium.

"Our gospel came to you not only in word but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction."
1 Thessalonians 1, 5

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith.
1 Timothy 6, 20-21

I commend you in everything because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
***1 Corinthians 11, 2 ***

PAX

Awesome post my friend.