Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[Radical]

They allude to her being the New Eve. Would you give Mary that title since they do mention her as the New Eve?

no, I wouldn’t. I also wouldn’t object if I heard a sermon that said Mary could be considered as a type of New Eve (or Ark)…b/c here are some inexact parallels that can be observed. It is when one declares Mary is the New Ark based on subjective connections and then goes on to use that “connection” to justify attributing certain extraordinary qualities to Mary.

Do they mention a 27 book New Testament canon? Do they mention that Christ has Two Wills? There is a lot that they don’t mention but just because they didn’t write it down, doesn’t mean it wasn’t an apostolic teaching.

a 27 book NT canon was not an apostolic teaching and I very much doubt that the other was either.

Hippolytus seems to associate Christ with the IMPERISHABLE WOOD of the Ark. Whenever he speaks about the imperishable wood or imperishable ark, he connects it with Christ. What you seem to forget is that the Ark was covered with pure gold. And when he talks about the pure gold that covers the ark, he associates it with Mary. So to Hippolytus, he breaks the ark into two categories and gives one title to Christ and another to Mary. Unless you want to tell me what else he means by:
At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the "ark overlaid with pure gold,"
OK…here are the three “ark” passages (that I know of) from Hippolytus:
And an ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle (of His body), which engendered no corruption of sin. For the man who has sinned also has this confession to make: “My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.” But the Lord was without sin, being of imperishable wood in respect of His humanity, – that is to say, being of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit, covered, as it were, within and without with the purest gold of the Word of God. ( FRAGMENTS OF DISCOURSES OR HOMILIES VI)

And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: “My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.” But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold. (ON PSALM XXII OR XXIII)

At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated and the “ark” made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be. And that the Saviour appeared in the world,** bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, **at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: “Now it was the sixth hour,” he says intimating by that, one-half of the day.( Dan.vi.)
The first two are very similar…and here is what Hippolytus is saying:

1. Jesus is the Ark

1. Jesus’s humanity is the imperishable wood

1. His humanity was obtained from Mary and the Holy Spirit

1. The Word of God (which I take to equate to Jesus’s divinity) is the purest gold that overlays the wood.

The “sloppy” sentence states:

At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, he was born of the Virgin and he was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated and the “ark” made manifest.

All three passages say that Christ is the ark. All three have Jesus made from the Word and the Holy Spirit….and Mary contributing to his humanity.

Again, we have two themes of the ark. We have the wooden part and the pure gold that covers the wooden part. This makes clear the “sloppiness” of the first quote which I don’t see as sloppy at all. Perhaps you can tell me what else he means by that first sentence from the first quote? Why is it that every time he writes about the wood, he relates it to Christ and every time he writes about the pure gold, he relates it to Mary/Holy Spirit.

I trust you can now see that the wood relates to Christ’s humanity (that came from the virgin and the Holy Spirit) and the gold relates to the Word. The Ark (as presented by Hippolytus) had two aspects to it and so did Christ.

Oh? Where would you say the doctrine of Christ having two wills came from?

man’s reasoning applied to what was written.

Christ having two natures is easy to prove from the Scriptures and therefore, we can see it coming from the Apostles. But Christ having two wills was never addressed by anyone for over 600 years of Christianity. It is a development of doctrine. Unless you can provide some Scripture/Church Fathers to prove otherwise.

I agree…it is a development. Please note that I didn’t categorize it as an infallible development…it is only as good as the human reasoning that produced it.

Would you be willing to admit that Mary is the tabernacle and a temple?

what purpose would be served by viewing her in that fashion?

 

[Good_Fella]

St. Hippolytus may have regarded Jesus as a type of ark by referring to our Lord’s sinlessness, being bodily pure and undefiled, but none of the NT authors draw any connection between the two either explicity or implicitly as Luke does implicitly with regard to Mary. The apostles understood that the body of Jesus was an attribute of his in his divine Person - God made man. So they couldn’t reasonably consider Jesus to be a sacred vessel who held the Divine Presence. True, the Father and the Son are one in substance and essence, and although Jesus had a human nature like his mother, he was God in the flesh by his substantial grace of union with the Father. But two natures united formed his single person as the God-Man. God could not overshadow and fill Jesus, for Jesus was God himself in spirit and body. So the idea that he was his own vessel is absurd. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, but he was not a human creature like his mother was by having an earthly father. Any reasonable association between Jesus and the ark can only be made by considering the contents of it: the symbols and referents that point towards him.
PAX*

 

[SteveVH]

St. Hippolytus may have regarded Jesus as a type of ark by referring to our Lord’s sinlessness, being bodily pure and undefiled, but none of the NT authors draw any connection between the two either explicity or implicitly as Luke does implicitly with regard to Mary. The apostles understood that the body of Jesus was an attribute of his in his divine Person - God made man. So they couldn’t reasonably consider Jesus to be a sacred vessel who held the Divine Presence. True, the Father and the Son are one in substance and essence, and although Jesus had a human nature like his mother, he was God in the flesh by his substantial grace of union with the Father. But two natures united formed his single person as the God-Man. God could not overshadow and fill Jesus, for Jesus was God himself in spirit and body. So the idea that he was his own vessel is absurd. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, but he was not a human creature like his mother was by having an earthly father.
PAX*

Exactly. The Ark contained things touched by God. Jesus is God and was contained within Mary.

 

[Catholicism_2]

Heresy

 

[Good_Fella]

Exactly. The Ark contained things touched by God. Jesus is God and was contained within Mary.

I searched for other writings of Hippolytus about Mary and came across this:

“At that time, the Saviour 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 Saviour came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is too say his own body.”
[In Dan. 6 Patr.Gr.]

Hippolytus is saying that Jesus’ body was like the body that had brought him forth, that he was gilded with pure gold without by having assumed the untainted flesh of his mother whose body had been gilded by the Holy Spirit. So what Hippolytus means by saying that Jesus was the ark formed of incorruptible wood is that he was bodily undefiled as his mother was, the Ark who carried him. In other words, Jesus carried in his own flesh and blood the new Ark of the Covenant, having been conceived and borne by his mother Mary. Another work of his confirms this motif:

“For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon Himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which he wove for Himself.”
*Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ, 4 (A.D. 200) *

We also have these writings from the 3rd century, which imply a universal belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception - her preservation from original sin and freedom from all personal sin - and Assumption into heaven.

“As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God was that tabernacle protected, to be held in everlasting remembrance (sacred Tradition), Mary, God’s Virgin Mother.”
Dionysius, Respons. ad Quoest 5 (c.A.D. 250)

“The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification. Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired heart 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 treasure of the sanctuary.”
*Gregory Thaumaturgus, Orat. in Deip. Annunciat (ante A.D. 270) *

PAX

 

[Radical]

I searched for other writings of Hippolytus about Mary and came across this:
“At that time, the Saviour 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 Saviour came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is too say his own body.”
[In Dan. 6 Patr.Gr.]

well done! You have found the passage that Lyrikal posted back at post #533…though this one is a little more slanted…who was the interpreter?

I can’t help but note that the passages from Hippolytus bear a striking similarity to these two passages from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus:

As therefore seventy tongues are indicated by number, and from dispersion the tongues are gathered into one by means of their interpretation; so is** that ark declared a type of the body of Christ,** which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together. #XLVIII

For as the ark [of the covenant] was gilded within and without with pure gold, so was also the body of Christ pure and resplendent; for it was adorned within by the Word, and shielded without by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be clearly shown forth. #VIII

…but again, it is Christ that is the Ark…and not Mary…which only casts more doubt on your presentation of this passage from Hippolytus…and of course, we have yet another ECF identifying Christ as the Ark.

 

[Good_Fella]

well done! You have found the passage that Lyrikal posted back at post #533…though this one is a little more slanted…who was the interpreter?

I can’t help but note that the passages from Hippolytus bear a striking similarity to these two passages from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus:

As therefore seventy tongues are indicated by number, and from dispersion the tongues are gathered into one by means of their interpretation; so is** that ark declared a type of the body **of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together. #XLVIII

For as the ark [of the covenant] was gilded within and without with pure gold, so was also the body of Christ pure and resplendent; for it was adorned within by the Word, and shielded without by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be clearly shown forth. #VIII

…but again, it is Christ that is the Ark…and not Mary…which only casts more doubt on your presentation of this passage from Hippolytus…and of course, we have yet another ECF identifying Christ as the Ark.

Irenaeus isn’t saying that Jesus is the Ark, but that our Lord’s body is like the ark in its purity and resplendence. He writes that “the ark is a type of the body of Christ both pure and immaculate”. He refers to an attribute of Jesus, not his person, unlike Hippolytus, Dionysius, and Gregory Thaumaturgus with regard to Mary. The translation I provided is more in keeping with what Hippolytus has in mind, which is suggested by what he wrote in his Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ.

PAX

 

[Porknpie]

I searched for other writings of Hippolytus about Mary and came across this:

*“At that time, the Saviour *coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth his own body into the worldfrom 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 Saviour came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is too say his own body.”

Ark = Mary.

Maybe color coding helps.

 

[Good_Fella]

*“At that time, the Saviour *coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth his own body into the worldfrom 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 Saviour came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is too say his own body.”

Ark = Mary.

Maybe color coding helps.

J.P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca-Latina is an indisputable source.

PAX

 

[Radical]

Irenaeus isn’t saying that Jesus is the Ark, but that our Lord’s body is like the ark in its purity and resplendence. He writes that “the ark is a type of the body of Christ both pure and immaculate”.

note the use of the word “type”….you do realize that this discussion (Ark/Mary/Jesus connections) is about TYPOLOGY and the finding of types, right?

He refers to an attribute of Jesus, not his person, unlike Hippolytus,…

you do realize that every passage that has been produced from Hippolytus states that Jesus is the Ark, right?..that is all three…even the questionable version that you produced.

The translation I provided is more in keeping with what Hippolytus has in mind, which is suggested by what he wrote in his Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ.

the one you produced, isn’t even internally consistent as it has Mary as the Ark first and then Jesus as the Ark.

J.P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca-Latina is an indisputable source.

You do realize that it is more than a century and a half old and has been superseded to a large degree, right?

You do realize that you produced an English translation? ….so is it a translation from the Greek and/or Latin from J.P. Migne’s work?..where did you get it?

In any event, from what we have so far it looks like Jesus was identified through typology with the Ark in Irenaeus’ day….and that understanding was passed onto Hippolytus and sometime after that the typology of the Mary/Ark connection arose

 

[Good_Fella]

note the use of the word “type”….you do realize that this discussion (Ark/Mary/Jesus connections) is about TYPOLOGY and the finding of types, right?

You do realize that Irenaeus doesn’t call Jesus “the Ark”, don’t you?

you do realize that every passage that has been produced from Hippolytus states that Jesus is the Ark, right?..that is all three…even the questionable version that you produced.
the one you produced, isn’t even internally consistent as it has Mary as the Ark first and then Jesus as the Ark.

You do realize that Hippolytus speaks of Jesus as the ark insofar he bears the physical quality of the ark in his own body acquired through his mother Mary, “the Ark”, don’t you? “He took upon himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which he wove for Himself” [Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ, 4: Robets-Donaldson English translation]. Nothing internally inconsistent here, since Mary did conceive and bear Jesus. You do realize that Mary held Jesus in her womb before he was born, don’t you? God took physical form and manifested Himself by Mary. The only thing questionable about my “version” is what you would like to make it out to be.

"And an ark of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle (of his body), which engendered no corruption of sin … the Lord was without sin, being of imperishable wood in respect of His humanity, – that is to say, being of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit, covered, as it were, within and without with the purest gold of the Word of God."
[From the Discourse of Hippolytus, Fragment 6 (cf. on Psalm XXll or XXlll): Robets-Donaldson]

“At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was 'the ark overlaid with pure gold,’ with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the ‘ark’ made manifest.”
[Of the Visions of Daniel, 6: Robets-Donaldson]

You do realize that it is more than a century and a half old and has been superseded to a large degree, right?

If the Patrologia Greaeca-Latina were an unreliable source of reference, the Vatican wouldn’t have referred to it in the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nor would leading Catholic theologians and scholars like H.J.D. Denzinger have, despite any noted inaccuracies in the Greek to Latin pre-Renaissance translations Migne edits. However, the Scriptural writings of Hippolytus were used in discourses or homilies of his, so the original language of the texts would have been Latin addressed to the Church at Rome.

You do realize that you produced an English translation? ….so is it a translation from the Greek and/or Latin from J.P. Migne’s work?..where did you get it?

Most likely from Latin. It’s a publication which I’m sure can be ordered online.

In any event, from what we have so far it looks like Jesus was identified through typology with the Ark in Irenaeus’ day….and that understanding was passed onto Hippolytus and sometime after that the typology of the Mary/Ark connection arose

Luke clearly identifies the ark with Mary. But these ECFs do associate Jesus with the ark with respect to his body and the flesh he acquired from his mother.

PAX

 

[adrift]

OK…here are the three “ark” passages (that I know of) from Hippolytus:

And an ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle (of His body), which engendered no corruption of sin. For the man who has sinned also has this confession to make: “My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.” But the Lord was without sin, being of imperishable wood in respect of His humanity, – that is to say, being of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit, covered, as it were, within and without with the purest gold of the Word of God. ( FRAGMENTS OF DISCOURSES OR HOMILIES VI)
​

I thought I was keeping up with this but I might have gotten a little lost.:takeoff: Please clarify someone what ark you are speaking about?
Noah’s Ark?
or
The Ark of the Covenant?

Hippolytus seems to be speaking to Noah’s Ark with all the reference to wood.

I am really confused about this trend in conversation.

What happened to siblings of Jesus?​

 

[lyrikal]

I thought I was keeping up with this but I might have gotten a little lost.:takeoff: Please clarify someone what ark you are speaking about?
Noah’s Ark?
or
The Ark of the Covenant?

Hippolytus seems to be speaking to Noah’s Ark with all the reference to wood.

I am really confused about this trend in conversation. I thought it was about Mary being the Ark of the Covenant

His reference about the ark being covered with pure gold tells us that he is talking about the ark of the covenant.

 

[OLofMtCarmel]

I was raised Disciple of Christ and converted to Catholicism in 1988.

My husband of four years is Church of Christ - a fairly fundamentalist one.

We both received annulments from our first marriages before we were married. He has a 14 year old daughter and I have a 16 year old son.

Each week at dinner we read the gospel for the following Sunday and discuss it. This week is the reading from Luke where Gabriel comes to Mary.

My stepdaughter was talking about how, later on, his siblings didn’t believe him. I said, “Whose siblings?” She said, “Jesus’s siblings.” I was stunned silent for a minute and then managed to say, “Oh … We don’t believe Jesus had siblings.”

I don’t remember ever being taught that Jesus had siblings in the Disciple of Christ church. But my research after this conversation seems to reveal that many or most Protestant churches believe this.

Is this true? Are Protestant churches teaching this as fact? It seems to me the documentation of the various interpretations of the references to Jesus’s “brothers” in the New Testament would mean that, at the most, the churches would be teaching the various theories and not asserting that Jesus had brothers as a fact.

I apologize for not reading through this long thread. But I believe I can firmly tell you that without a doubt not all Churches of Christ teach that Jesus certainly had siblings. The honest preachers that were well education clarified they did not know for sure and that it wasn’t a matter of faith and left it up to personal opinion.

Trying to convince someone from another faith to believe what you believe is a waste of time, it prophets nobody. There was an archeological fine not to long ago that revealed a place for the altar, painting (icons or en graven images, and more) on the walls indicating the ancient believes that were no doubt exercised as we do today. The find was in Israel, not too far from Nazareth. I forget the name of the prison. There are all sorts of real live solid proof that the ancient church taught and practiced Catholic teachings. They do not believe because they have been brought up to believe holy mother church is the whore of Babylon. They have to figure it out on there own. They put up a very good fight, even if its misguided. Its better than most other fundamentalists I’ve learned about. I’m happy to be back in the fold, the true Church of Christ, the one founded on Pentacost, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[jrtrent]

Trying to convince someone from another faith to believe what you believe is a waste of time, it prophets nobody.

You may be right. What I think is a good use of time, and may even be profitable, is for people to share what their faith teaches. And that, if I understand it correctly, is the purpose of this forum, “Non-Catholic Religions - explore the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths, dialogue with their adherents.”

The OP had asked, “I don’t remember ever being taught that Jesus had siblings in the Disciple of Christ church. But my research after this conversation seems to reveal that many or most Protestant churches believe this. Is this true? Are Protestant churches teaching this as fact?”

As even the beginning page of this thread shows, the answer is that some do and some don’t. There can be some nice discussion on the reasons for believing one way or the other. For me, the discussion degenerates into something less helpful and far less pleasant when, instead of sharing information, it becomes a “this is why you’re wrong” debate.

 

[rinnie]

I was raised Disciple of Christ and converted to Catholicism in 1988.

My husband of four years is Church of Christ - a fairly fundamentalist one.

We both received annulments from our first marriages before we were married. He has a 14 year old daughter and I have a 16 year old son.

Each week at dinner we read the gospel for the following Sunday and discuss it. This week is the reading from Luke where Gabriel comes to Mary.

My stepdaughter was talking about how, later on, his siblings didn’t believe him. I said, “Whose siblings?” She said, “Jesus’s siblings.” I was stunned silent for a minute and then managed to say, “Oh … We don’t believe Jesus had siblings.”

I don’t remember ever being taught that Jesus had siblings in the Disciple of Christ church. But my research after this conversation seems to reveal that many or most Protestant churches believe this.

Is this true? Are Protestant churches teaching this as fact? It seems to me the documentation of the various interpretations of the references to Jesus’s “brothers” in the New Testament would mean that, at the most, the churches would be teaching the various theories and not asserting that Jesus had brothers as a fact.

Here is something that amazes me. Apart from them misinterpretating the scripture, then if they claim Jesus has brothers and sisters, why is it in the bible it never states they are indeed the true Daughters or Sons of God.

Why is it Jesus and Jesus only holds the claim the ONE true SON of God? Do they teach that there these brothers and sisters are also God the true Son as in the Trinity?

If not why not then? If they feel the teaching is correct?

 

[JonNC]

Here is something that amazes me. Apart from them misinterpretating the scripture, then if they claim Jesus has brothers and sisters, why is it in the bible it never states they are indeed the true Daughters or Sons of God.

Why is it Jesus and Jesus only holds the claim the ONE true SON of God? Do they teach that there these brothers and sisters are also God the true Son as in the Trinity?

If not why not then? If they feel the teaching is correct?

Well, rinnie, they would say that thefather would be Joseph, and not the Holy Spirit. So they would be sons and daughters of God in that sense.

Jon

 

[cheezey]

Here is something that amazes me. Apart from them misinterpretating the scripture, then if they claim Jesus has brothers and sisters, why is it in the bible it never states they are indeed the true Daughters or Sons of God.

Why is it Jesus and Jesus only holds the claim the ONE true SON of God? Do they teach that there these brothers and sisters are also God the true Son as in the Trinity?

If not why not then? If they feel the teaching is correct?

Perhaps they do not teach that these ‘siblings’ are not true Daughters or Sons of God because they do not believe this to be the case. Perhaps they think, that as half siblings, they would indeed be Jesus’ family, but that Jesus only holds the claim as the ONE true SON of God. Half siblings, as important to Jesus as they would be, does not imply Daughters or Sons of God. God’s step children?? Just offering…

 

[Radical]

You do realize that Irenaeus doesn’t call Jesus “the Ark”, don’t you?………Luke clearly identifies the ark with Mary.

I doubt that you could be more inconsistent if you tried. If you don’t want to acknowledge the connection you will dismiss a phrase such as “that ark declared a type of the body of Christ”, but when you want to find a connection there is no need for the ark to even be mentioned. Anything will do. If you want to see how it is really done, then look at how Luke identifies the Baptist with Elijah. In contrast, Luke doesn’t identify Mary with the Ark… notwithstanding your belief that you and yours have deciphered some masterful code implanted by Luke in the passage.

You do realize that Hippolytus speaks of Jesus as the ark insofar he bears the physical quality of the ark in his own body acquired through his mother Mary, “the Ark”, don’t you?

no I don’t because you have got it wrong. Here are the passages (first from Irenaeus and then from Hippolytus):
For as the ark [of the covenant] was gilded within and without with pure gold, so was also the body of Christ pure and resplendent; for it was adorned within by the Word, and shielded without by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be clearly shown forth. #VIII
Note it is Christ’s body that is like the Ark…gilded within by the Word and w/o by the Spirit
As therefore seventy tongues are indicated by number, and from dispersion the tongues are gathered into one by means of their interpretation; so is** that ark declared a type of the body of Christ,** which is both pure and immaculate. For as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together. #XLVIII
Note it is Christ’s body that is like the Ark…adorned within by the Word and w/o by the Spirit
And an ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle (of His body), which engendered no corruption of sin. For the man who has sinned also has this confession to make: “My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.” But the Lord was without sin, being of imperishable wood in respect of His humanity, – that is to say, being of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit, covered, as it were,** within and without with the purest gold of the Word of God.** ( FRAGMENTS OF DISCOURSES OR HOMILIES VI)
Note it is Christ’s that is the Ark…his body/humanity is like the imperishable wood and he is covered within and without by the Word.
And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: “My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.” But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost** inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.** (ON PSALM XXII OR XXIII)
Note it is Christ’s that is the Ark…his body/humanity is like the imperishable wood and he is overlaid within and without by the Word.
Hippolytus has it that the imperishable wood represents Christ’s humanity. The flesh comes from both Mary and the Spirit. The gold of the Ark represents the Word of God that covers the wood within and without. Mary does not contribute to the gold, only to the wood. Now let’s turn to your passage with the questionable interpretation (I’ll use the form that Lyrikal provided and not your extremely questionable version):
At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the** “ark overlaid with pure gold,”** with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated and the “ark” made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be. And that the Saviour appeared in the world,** bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, **at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: “Now it was the sixth hour,” he says intimating by that, one-half of the day.( Dan.vi.)
Understanding that the “who” (in red) refers to Mary (as opposed to back to Christ), puts the passage at odds with the previous four passages b/c:

a) The word w/i and the HS w/o is exactly how Irenaeus described Christ…not Mary. The within and without is applied to Jesus (and not Mary) in all of the other 4 passages.

b) The gold overlay is about Christ in all of the other four passages….not Mary

c) That the “who” should refer to Christ and not Mary is clear b/c this from Hippolytus: “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; (which is about the “who”) is such a good match with this from Irenaeus: * that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit*(which is about Christ).

d) In addition, the passage talks about the ark being made manifest and about Christ’s birth…it is Christ that was made manifest at his birth.

 

[Radical]

If the Patrologia Greaeca-Latina were an unreliable source of reference, the Vatican wouldn’t have referred to it in the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

it is undeniably old…and can be improved….but you never provided anything from Patrologia Greaeca-Latina….you provided something in English….again, where did you get your extremely questionable translation…was it some Venerator’s site perhaps?

You do realize that Mary held Jesus in her womb before he was born, don’t you? God took physical form and manifested Himself by Mary.

ohh, I see that you realize that it was Christ that was made manifest….and so even your extremely questionable translation twice designates Christ to be the Ark.