G
Good_Fella
Guest
Not weak by being sarcastic in an argument. Grace does not provide the virtue of wit.are you referring to the Apostle Paul’s use of sarcasm in his epistles?..he does indeed say that he is weak…not bad company
PAX
- Status
PAX
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Perhaps someone would like to start a new thread on the question of Tertullian’s status in the Church.
PAX
P
Porknpie
Guest
Go for it GF…IMHO…the thread topic should be what makes a Church Father, a Church Father…and not just on Tertullian.Perhaps someone would like to start a new thread on the question of Tertullian’s status in the Church.
PAX
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Church Fathers - Who Are These Guys?
The Church Fathers is a title bestowed on men (and some women such as Egeria of Spain fl AD 448) in the ancient Church that are united by four trademarks: (1) a rigid orthodoxy in doctrine, (2) an exemplary holy life, (3) approval in the Church, and (4) antiquity. Today, some ecclesiastical writers are bestowed this title who have partially fulfilled these marks (e.g. Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea). These writers are included due to their invaluable service to the Church. The majority of the Church Fathers were bishops, a few held a lower clerical rank such as St. Jerome, and fewer yet, were laymen such as Clement of Alexandria and perhaps Tertullian of Carthage. In the Catholic Church the period of antiquity ends with St. John Damascene (d AD 749) in the East and with St. Gregory the Great (d AD 604) or St. Isidore of Seville (d AD 636) in the West, hence the patristic age spans seven centuries.
St. Epiphanius provides us with this classic understanding of Church Father, he writes:
“Now of these which is wiser? This deceived man who has just now obtained notoriety, and who is still living; or they who were witnesses before us, who held before us the tradition in the Church, and who themselves had received it from their fathers, whose fathers again had learnt it from their forefathers, even as the Church, having received the true faith from its fathers, retains it, together with the traditions, even unto this day.”
Epiphanius, Panarion, 75(A.D. 374-377),in FOC,I:433-434
The Church Fathers is a title bestowed on men (and some women such as Egeria of Spain fl AD 448) in the ancient Church that are united by four trademarks: (1) a rigid orthodoxy in doctrine, (2) an exemplary holy life, (3) approval in the Church, and (4) antiquity. Today, some ecclesiastical writers are bestowed this title who have partially fulfilled these marks (e.g. Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea). These writers are included due to their invaluable service to the Church. The majority of the Church Fathers were bishops, a few held a lower clerical rank such as St. Jerome, and fewer yet, were laymen such as Clement of Alexandria and perhaps Tertullian of Carthage. In the Catholic Church the period of antiquity ends with St. John Damascene (d AD 749) in the East and with St. Gregory the Great (d AD 604) or St. Isidore of Seville (d AD 636) in the West, hence the patristic age spans seven centuries.
St. Epiphanius provides us with this classic understanding of Church Father, he writes:
“Now of these which is wiser? This deceived man who has just now obtained notoriety, and who is still living; or they who were witnesses before us, who held before us the tradition in the Church, and who themselves had received it from their fathers, whose fathers again had learnt it from their forefathers, even as the Church, having received the true faith from its fathers, retains it, together with the traditions, even unto this day.”
Epiphanius, Panarion, 75(A.D. 374-377),in FOC,I:433-434
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Okay, but don’t expect me to lead the discussion. I’m doing it for Eric who has been much too patient with us.
PAX
C
Candescent
Guest
Very interesting point!
Is it Catholic doctrine that she is the Ark? I had thought it was metaphorical.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It is a way to think of Mary.
As our Catechism proclaims:
2676 This twofold movement of prayer to Mary has found a privileged expression in the Ave Maria:
Hail Mary [or Rejoice, Mary]: the greeting of the angel Gabriel opens this prayer. It is God himself who, through his angel as intermediary, greets Mary. Our prayer dares to take up this greeting to Mary with the regard God had for the lowliness of his humble servant and to exult in the joy he finds in her. (Lk 1:48; Zeph 3:17b)
Full of grace, the Lord is with thee: These two phrases of the angel’s greeting shed light on one another. Mary is full of grace because the Lord is with her. The grace with which she is filled is the presence of him who is the source of all grace. “Rejoice . . . O Daughter of Jerusalem . . . the Lord your God is in your midst.” (Zeph 3:14,17a.) Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person,** the ark of the covenant,** the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is “the dwelling of God . . . with men.” ( Rev 21:3.) Full of grace, Mary is wholly given over to him who has come to dwell in her and whom she is about to give to the world.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The Church metaphorically describes Mary as the Ark of the Covenant in her teaching that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.
PAX
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant Proved from Scripture
The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)
The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. Those who ate of this bread still died. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, the bread of life which came down from heaven. Those who eat of this bread will live forever. (John 6:31-41)
The ark of the Old Covenant contained the staff of Aaron which had budded as proof as his priesthood. (Number 17:1-9)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, our high priest, Himself. (Hebrews 4:14)
The ark of the Old Covenant was overshadowed by the glory cloud. (Exodus 40:34-35)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35)
The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea. (2 Sam. 6:1–11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea. (Luke 1:39)
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)
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).
The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:11)
–In the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, the word blessed is used three times; surely Elizabeth’s house was blessed by God. (Luke 1:39–45)
The ark of the Old Covenant returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11)
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple. (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22)
Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:14)
–John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. (Luke 1:41)
David shouts in the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:15)
–Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant. (Luke 1:42)
The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth.
–Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was assumed bodily into heaven by God at the end of her earthly life, and no trace of her can be found anywhere on earth.
R
Radical
Guest
the “proof” using typology is about as subjective and manufactured as a proof could possibly be. Further, when Luke wanted to make a connection between Elijah and John the Baptist (in Luke 1 exactly) he just said it plainly. In contrast, however, I am supposed to believe that when he wanted to make a connection between the Ark and Mary (in that very same chapter) he resorted to dropping hints? If one is to travel that highly suspect highway, then the Ark serving as a type for Christ is the much better fit.
in one case there are some of the words of God in stone and in the other case it is The Word himself in the flesh. 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. …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.
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.
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
With regard to the above three attempted connections the stronger connection belongs to Jesus. Mary carried Jesus for only nine months…but the ark (and its heavenly counterpart) were designed to permanently carry the tablets, the manna and the rod. Christ permanently embodies the Word of God, the Bread of Life and the Highest Priesthood. 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. One must also note that the things about Jesus that are used in this attempt at a 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
the problem with that example is that it is fudged. In the one case 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. When the correspondence is cloud <=> Holy Spirit and unmentioned Ark (as opposed to the mentioned Tent) <=> Mary the correspondence strikes me as being more manufactured than unique or strong.
This one is a stretch. “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. That two things each happen in the vicinity of a different hill is not remarkable. This does not differ much from: The ark travelled along a road…Mary travelled along a road
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. She wonders why she should be blessed with the presence of the mother of her Lord. 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. These near opposites do not make a connection.
R
Radical
Guest
…continuing
a) celebrated with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals
b) sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf every 6 steps
c) danced and brought the ark with shouts and the sound of trumpets
Elizabeth, on the other hand made a declaration with a loud voice. When viewed in their contexts, the shouts of the Israelites and the loud declaration of Elizabeth are not similar acts at all.
editing is used to make the connection appear stronger. In Luke it is “about three months” vs “three months” in 2 Sam.
Regarding those three uses, “blessed” is applied to Mary and to Jesus in (that part of) Luke and not the house of Elizabeth. The effort to establish a connection gets a little strained. One wonders why this isn’t proposed: When in the house of Obed-Edom the ark took up space and Mary would have certainly taken up space at Elizabeth’s house.
The ark’s “home” was at Jerusalem whereas Mary’s home was elsewhere. The ark was to sit permanently in the Most Holy Place (with its contents) whereas Mary wasn’t allowed to come near (let alone enter) the Most Holy Place. Mary visits the outer area of the temple for but a short time and she only carried the Word for a mere nine months. On the other hand, Jesus as the high priest and like the ark entered the Most Holy Place (Heb 9:12) and he permanently carries the Word of God. So again, if a connection is to be made, the better connection with the ark is made with Jesus and not Mary
First David wore a linen ephod which is something Samuel wore as a boy. The ephod worn by a priest was ornate and the priest wore considerably more than just a ephod. (see Exodus 28) As such, David was not dressed as a priest. David danced and leaped as the ark was moved to Jerusalem. John, leaped inside Elizabeth’s womb. These are considerably different movements and the mere use of “leaped” in both cases does not make a connection. Further, if any connection is to be made it would be the Jesus-Ark connection for 2 Sam twice specifies that David danced in front of the LORD.
“Editing” is employed with this one to make the connection look better. Here is what David did:
a) celebrated with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals
b) sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf every 6 steps
c) danced and brought the ark with shouts and the sound of trumpets
Elizabeth, on the other hand made a declaration with a loud voice. When viewed in their contexts, the shouts of the Israelites and the loud declaration of Elizabeth are not similar acts at all.
the “no trace can be found” applies to most things and people from the 1st century and earlier…it is the norm, not something exceptional
K
kwortham
Guest
Thanks for posting this. It is much more concise than my posts in other forums on the subject. Therefore, I will be keeping a copy of this. I just wished that you had added to the great bulk of verses that speak to the bud of Aaron’s staff and the righteous shoot from the house of Jesse. Then again, that is the reason that my response would be long and overkill.
E
empantarhei
Guest
??
J
joe370
Guest
E
empantarhei
Guest
Just read your post again
and understood differently. And Correctly!! Sorry!!
J
joe370
Guest
Just read your post again
I went back and read it too; thought perhaps I had blundered…
G
Good_Fella
Guest
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth."
Matthew 12:40
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
Luke 24, 1-3
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo much suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Matthew 16, 21 (cf. Lk 9:22)
Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mark 8, 31
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? Certainly there is no contradiction here between the OT and the NT as it appears, nor between the Gospels. In ancient Jewish thought a part of a day was considered as full as the day it belonged to. So even though Jesus did not spend Sunday (the first day of the week) afternoon, evening, and night in the tomb, he could still have been regarded as having spent three days in it - Sunday being the third day of being buried. Moreover, Mark relates that Jesus said he would rise after three days. But he doesn’t literally mean that Jesus would rise on the fourth or fifth day of the week. What he means is that Jesus would rise once the span of three days (not necessarily 72 hours) has transpired (“on the third day”). Matthew is addressing a Hebrew audience in their language, so they could appreciate in light of Tradition that Jesus wasn’t making a literal connection with Jonah. Luke, on the otherhand, is writing in Greek, but when he writes “Mary stayed with her kinswoman Elizabeth for about three months,” he is drectly addressing a Gentile, Theophilus, as narrator to show that he doesn’t necessarily mean three months exactly in a number of days. The author of the second Book of Samuel may not have meant three months exactly, according to the number of days, just as the authors of the Gospels hadn’t meant exactly three days, according to the number of hours. Thus if Luke had addressed a Hebrew audience as Matthew had, he could have written that Mary had stayed with Elizabeth until “after three months” (a form of expression Mark records Jesus used) as well, although we don’t read this in the OT book. And the evangelist would have meant that Mary stayed with her kinswoman in the months of Elul, Tishri, and Cheshvan inclusively. Meanwhile, she could be spoken of as being with her relative for three months, although she may have left in the first week of the third month just as Jesus had left the tomb in the morning of the first day of the week - the part of the month or day belonging to the whole. The same can be said of the Ark of the Covenant in the home of Obed-Edom. To be consistent in your reasoning, you would have to reject the typology between Jesus and Jonah by denying that between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. I shall address your further comments later.
PAX
G
Good_Fella
Guest
“and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah,”
Luke 1, 17
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. John is presented as representing Elijah who foreshadows the Baptist, only the two aren’t related as implicitly as Mary and the Ark are. Indeed, Scripture identifies several OT objects and characters as types of Christ, and events as relating to the work of Christ in the economy of salvation. Some of them are more implied or “hinted” at than others. For instance, Jesus is presented as a type of Abel, bronze serpent, Isaac, and David. In the latter two examples below, the typology is more implicit with less or no direct reference by name to the people who are supposed to foreshadow our Lord and the events surrounding his life in the history of salvation.
*Cain said to Abel his brother, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.”
Genesis 4, 8,10
,and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.
Hebrews 12, 24
And Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
Numbers 21, 9
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.”
John 3, 14
And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not witheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you,”
Genesis 22, 15-16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should* not perish but have eternal life.
John 3, 16
Let not those who hope in thee be put to shame through me,
O Lord God of hosts;
let not those who seek thee be brought to dishonour through me,
O God of Israel.
For it is for thy sake that I have borne reproach,
that shame has covered my face.
I have become a stranger to my brethren,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
For zeal for thy house has consumed me
and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me.
Psalm 69, 6-9;
He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.
John 1, 11
Then the chief priests and elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Ca’ iaphas, and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him.
Matthew 26, 3-4
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? Further, the divine Word was uncreated, but born in the flesh, while the ark was just a created thing. 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. You might argue that it was not Mary, but the body of Jesus which was the true tabernacle of God because it carried the divine presence in the world. The Greek word for “dwelt” (skeinoo) in John 1:14 may in fact come from the Hebrew word shekinah (" the visible manifestation of God’s presence"), but Jesus did not carry or hold God in the flesh. He was God making himself visible in the flesh which he assumed. The Ark of the Covenant was not a physical attribute of God in his theophany as the body of Christ was in the incarnation. Further, unlike the ark, Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, for he was one with the Father in substance and essence. 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. I’ll leave the Protestant objections to Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant here with these two examples from among a few others.
*PAX *
G
Good_Fella
Guest
“and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah,”
Luke 1, 17
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. John is presented as representing Elijah who foreshadows the Baptist, only the two aren’t related as implicitly as Mary and the Ark are.Indeed, Scripture identifies several OT objects and characters as types of Christ, and events as relating to the work of Christ in the economy of salvation. Some of them are more implied or “hinted” at than others. For instance, Jesus is presented as a type of Abel, bronze serpent, Isaac, and David. In the latter two examples below, the typology is more implicit with less or no direct reference by name to the people who are supposed to foreshadow our Lord and the events surrounding his life in the history of salvation.
*Cain said to Abel his brother, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.”
Genesis 4, 8,10
,and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.
Hebrews 12, 24
And Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
Numbers 21, 9
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.
John 3, 14
And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this, and have not witheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you,”
Genesis 22, 15-16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3, 16
Let not those who hope in thee be put to shame through me,
O Lord God of hosts;
let not those who seek thee be brought to dishonour through me,
O God of Israel.
For it is for thy sake that I have borne reproach,
that shame has covered my face.
I have become a stranger to my brethren,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
For zeal for thy house has consumed me
and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me.
Psalm 69, 6-9;
He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.
John 1, 11
Then the chief priests and elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, who was called Ca’ iaphas, and took counsel together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him.
Matthew 26, 3-4*
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? Further, the divine Word was uncreated, but born in the flesh, while the ark was just a created thing. 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. You might argue that it was not Mary, but the body of Jesus which was the true tabernacle of God because it carried the divine presence in the world. The Greek word for “dwelt” (skeinoo) in John 1:14 may in fact come from the Hebrew word shekinah. the visible manifestation of God’s presence"#, but Jesus did not carry or hold God in the flesh. He was God making himself visible in the flesh which he assumed. The Ark of the Covenant was not a physical attribute of God in his theophany as the body of Christ was in the incarnation. Further, unlike the ark, Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, for he was one with the Father in substance and essence. 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 " to cover" in the Book of Exodus when the glory cloud descends on the ark in the tent of meeting. I’ll leave the Protestant objections to Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant here with these two examples from among a few others.
*PAX *
J
joe370
Guest
- Status