How do Catholics explain 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 7:26?

[maryj]

Yeah, just like Jesus opposed the Jewish “authorities”, and spoke the truth against their twisted misunderstandings and reliance on the words of men, “… For He taught as someone with authority (not as the scribes, who had no power or understanding of true Scripture).”

Yet no one has answered me on the wise that Peter himself, who you “claim” as your “father” of your church, himself had to be corrected by Paul the Apostle, a man who never walked with Jesus, but to whom Jesus was revealed through the “Sola Scriptures”: “For I did not consult with flesh and blood…”

What do you say about Peter having to be corrected; that he was “to be condemned” ?? What??

I guess that you are IMMUNE to error, right? Yes, ofcourse you are: you are greater than Peter, who himself was able to commit error!
All Praise be to the Catholic Church!

Sounds more like “if we admit that we made a mistake, then how will people listen to anything else we have to say?” rather than putting faith in God, once again you resort to protecting yourself, just like when the Church ordered the murder of Muslims, instead of dying, like Jesus said.

CONDUCT RULES

1. 
   *]Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
   *]Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
   *]Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.
   *]Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.
   *]Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
   *]Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
   *]Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
   You might want to take a look at forum rules. I have found many of your remarks rude and disrespectful. That is not what this forum is for. If one must resort to this type of posting, one might need to take a break for a while.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I also like to add that the authority Clement had in his time was commonly know because in those days. Many of the Patriarchial Churches believe Rome had primacy over all the other Churches. When disputes arises in Corinth, Clement of Rome wrote a letter to Corinths.

and Sola Scriptura,

I read all of Clement’s Letters, and it only affirm my belief and what the Church teaches concerning the Primacy of Peter’s Office.

First – Ignatius and Polycarp also wrote epistles to other churches. How do you contrive Roman primacy and where do find evidence that Roman primacy was an assumption held by early Christians? I can answer the question for you – there is none.

Polycarp and Ignatius also served in a similar role as Clement (because these three men carried huge weight since they all three were disciples of the Apostles). It was for this reason that other churches relied on them to provide leadership and mediate in disputes. However, when we look at these letters the leadership of these men was spiritual. Indeed when they address other churches they do so in a way that makes it obvious they are addressing other wholly separate churches with their own leadership.

Lastly – please provide evidence that supports the “primacy of Peter’s office” from any epistle of Clement (or any other Apostolic Father for that matter)? I’m all ears.

 

[dan1el]

CONDUCT RULES

1. 
   *]Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
   *]Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
   *]Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.
   *]Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.
   *]Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
   *]Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
   *]Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
   You might want to take a look at forum rules. I have found many of your remarks rude and disrespectful. That is not what this forum is for. If one must resort to this type of posting, one might need to take a break for a while.

1. 
   Sorry, still please answer the question, not divert the attention.
   
   Funny how no one mentions anything until they are hit with a question they don’t want to answer. People have said MANY demeaning things about me on this board, insulting me, saying I am stupid, that I am misled, that I lack intelligence, etc., etc., etc. and no one has said anything to them on behalf of me… wonder why?
   I was just showing the ludicrousness of your thought that the Church is incapable of error, which history itself proves to be false.

 

[mercygate]

First – Ignatius and Polycarp also wrote epistles to other churches. How do you contrive Roman primacy and where do find evidence that Roman primacy was an assumption held by early Christians? I can answer the question for you – there is none.

Polycarp and Ignatius also served in a similar role as Clement (because these three men carried huge weight since they all three were disciples of the Apostles). It was for this reason that other churches relied on them to provide leadership and mediate in disputes. However, when we look at these letters the leadership of these men was spiritual. Indeed when they address other churches they do so in a way that makes it obvious they are addressing other wholly separate churches with their own leadership.

Lastly – please provide evidence that supports the “primacy of Peter’s office” from any epistle of Clement (or any other Apostolic Father for that matter)? I’m all ears.

For one thing, Peter wrote his first epistle – the one in the New Testament – to “the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” Such letters would later come to be known as “encyclicals.” They address “spiritual” matters. That’s the whole point.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There’s a reason why this (and other similar documents) aren’t part of canon. The early church recognized the authorship was dubious. Indeed most of these apocryphal works are inconsistent with the New Testament (and hence cannot be viewed as legitimate Apostolic works). There were many rumors and different writings floating around during this early period – but if you would like reliable information look to the writings of Paul and John, look the writings of Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius. Do not look to works that have been unanimously debunked by scholars.

Indeed parts of this was taken from another text that is not part of the Canon of Scripture. However, they may not be inspired certaine truths are contain in them but not all.

You should also take into account that not all Christians in those times could agree which part of Scripture is part of the Canon. Many did not believe that the Book of Revelation was consider canonical.

This is what Irenaeus did when he put the Marian freight train in motion. Slowly, one faulty doctrine after the other, you’ve built Mary up to a role alien to the Gospel writers, Paul, and the Apostolic Fathers. If Mary were the queen of heaven, a co-mediator and co-redeemer, the Ark of the Covenant, etc. you would think Paul would have referred to her as something more than “woman” – you would think the Apostolic Fathers would have mentioned her more than simply to note the virgin birth. You would think John (who was her caretaker and lived far longer than Paul or Peter) might have written a word or two about Mary if she were to occupy such a critical role in the economy of salvation. It is clear to anyone without a vested interest in defending this fallacious doctrine that Mary was none of these things.

Mary’s queenship is due because her son is the King. In the OT, Jewish Kings have mothers as their queens. Jesus continue this Tradition. In fact in Revelation 12:1-5, we see a woman clothed with sun with a crown on her head. She gave birth to male child who will rule all nations. This male child is symbolically Jesus, and we know that Mary is the mother of Jesus. The woman is describe as the Church, Israel, and Mary. Both intrepretation are correct.

The parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is very clear in Scripture.

The Catholic Answer tract states,

*Why? It was a way of emphasizing how crucial it was for the Lord’s exact specifications to be met (Ex. 25:9, 39:42-43). God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.

When the ark was completed, “the cloud covered the meeting tent and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling. Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling” (Ex. 40:34-38). Compare this with the words of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:35.

There’s another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6. The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it. King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says “Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?” (1 Sam. 6:9).

Compare this with Elizabeth’s nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). John’s leap was for precisely the same reason as David’s–not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God.

Another parallel may be found in 2 Samuel 6:10-12 where we read that David ordered the ark diverted up into the hill country of Judea to remain with the household of Obededom for three months. This parallels the three-month visit Mary made at Elizabeth’s home in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39-45, 65). While the ark remained with Obededom it “blessed his household.” This is an Old Testament way of saying the fertility of women, crops, and livestock was increased. Notice that God worked this same miracle for Elizabeth and Zachariah in their old age as a prelude to the greater miracle he would work in Mary.

The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-17, where she is called the mother of all “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament’s description of the ark and the New Testament’s discussion of Mary’s role.

Granted, none of these verses “proves” Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that–he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.*

((more to following))

 

[Believe_85]

Lastly – please provide evidence that supports the “primacy of Peter’s office” from any epistle of Clement (or any other Apostolic Father for that matter)? I’m all ears.

Optatus

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Augustine

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Quick comparison:

The Ark carried the Word of God (Ten Commandments), Manna, and Aaron’s rod (symbolizing priesthood).

Mary when she was pregnant carried in her womb, the Word of God made flesh, Jesus Christ, who is the Bread of Life, and High Priest.

She literally became the LIVING TABERNACLE OF GOD.

She was blessed among women, filled with grace at the annunciation to prepare her – both body and soul for the incarnation, and her glorious name will always be praised in the words of eternal scripture. However, you do her no honor by juxtaposing her in a role reserved solely for her son. There is no co-mediator, there is one mediator, there is no co-redeemer, there is but one redeemer. Only one man died for our sins & that is how we are redeemed. Anything contrary to these truths is purely heretical.

These are not heretical. If you read the verse in 1 Tim 2:1 it reads,

1] First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men.

followed by:

2] for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.
[3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

intercession and supplications as St. Paul states, "good and acceptible in the sight of God. We can ask Mary to pray for us because the prayer of the righteous are more powerful. Besides, she is closer to God than you and me.

She is our spiritual mother. Jesus in fact gave his disciple John to Mary. In the Gospel, it is an un-named disciple. Do you not consider yourself a disciple of Christ? Will you not accept Mary as your mother? since Jesus Christ himself is your brother in baptism.

Second, No Church Council ever declare these doctrines to be heretical. It is you who claim them to be so? So who is correct, you or the Church?

 

[dan1el]

Indeed parts of this was taken from another text that is not part of the Canon of Scripture. However, they may not be inspired certaine truths are contain in them but not all.

You should also take into account that not all Christians in those times could agree which part of Scripture is part of the Canon. Many did not believe that the Book of Revelation was consider canonical.

Mary’s queenship is due because her son is the King. In the OT, Jewish Kings have mothers as their queens. Jesus continue this Tradition. In fact in Revelation 12:1-5, we see a woman clothed with sun with a crown on her head. She gave birth to male child who will rule all nations. This male child is symbolically Jesus, and we know that Mary is the mother of Jesus. The woman is describe as the Church, Israel, and Mary. Both intrepretation are correct.

The parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is very clear in Scripture.

The Catholic Answer tract states,

*Why? It was a way of emphasizing how crucial it was for the Lord’s exact specifications to be met (Ex. 25:9, 39:42-43). God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.

When the ark was completed, “the cloud covered the meeting tent and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling. Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling” (Ex. 40:34-38). Compare this with the words of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:35.

There’s another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6. The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it. King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says “Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?” (1 Sam. 6:9).

Compare this with Elizabeth’s nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). John’s leap was for precisely the same reason as David’s–not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God.

Another parallel may be found in 2 Samuel 6:10-12 where we read that David ordered the ark diverted up into the hill country of Judea to remain with the household of Obededom for three months. This parallels the three-month visit Mary made at Elizabeth’s home in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39-45, 65). While the ark remained with Obededom it “blessed his household.” This is an Old Testament way of saying the fertility of women, crops, and livestock was increased. Notice that God worked this same miracle for Elizabeth and Zachariah in their old age as a prelude to the greater miracle he would work in Mary.

The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-17, where she is called the mother of all “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament’s description of the ark and the New Testament’s discussion of Mary’s role.

Granted, none of these verses “proves” Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that–he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.*

((more to following))

Actually, that woman is Jerusalem that is above, the mother of us all Gal 4:26+Heb 12:22+Romans 8:29; not Mary.

The idea of the “Queen of Heaven” is an old pagan one that carried over from the converts to Catholicism:
Jer 7:8; 44:17, 18, 19, 25.

to which you then mutated the Scriptures, as a horticulturalist would do a plant, upon the any given form.

To this end Scripture spoke in Proverbs 30:18:
There be three things which are too wonderful for me, yea, four which I know not:
The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock…"

 

[sola_scriptura]

St. Ignatius of Antioch

A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, “pre-eminent in works of love”.

Since this is the only writing you post of an actual Apostolic Father; I’ll cite the opening to Ignatius’ letter to the Romans:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, Or, “most holy.” and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.*

This is merely an exhortation & only indicates Roman primacy in the Roman mind? Here’s another exhortation by Ignatius to the church at Philadelphia:

*Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, in Asia, which has obtained mercy, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoiceth unceasingly881881 Or, “inseparably.” in the passion of our Lord, and is filled with all mercy through his resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, which has obtained mercy through love, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoiceth unceasingly,882882 Or, “inseparably.” in the passion of our Lord Jesus, and is filled with all mercy through His resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially to those who are in unity with the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed by the will of God the Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to His own will, has firmly established His Church upon a rock, by a spiritual building, not made with hands, against which the winds and the floods have beaten, yet have not been able to overthrow it:883883 Comp. Matt. vii. 25. yea, and may spiritual wickedness never be able to do so, but be thoroughly weakened by the power of Jesus Christ our Lord.*

I like how Ignatius talks describes the rock that the church is established on – a “spiritual foundation” he calls it, not made with hands. Quite interesting?

 

[dan1el]

Quick comparison:

The Ark carried the Word of God (Ten Commandments), Manna, and Aaron’s rod (symbolizing priesthood).

I am the Tabernacle of God; I guess I could be co-mediator, too!
“Know ye not, that ye are the temple of God?”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Actually, that woman is Jerusalem that is above, the mother of us all Gal 4:26+Heb 12:22+Romans 8:29; not Mary.

The idea of the “Queen of Heaven” is an old pagan one that carried over from the converts to Catholicism:
Jer 7:8; 44:17, 18, 19, 25.

to which you then mutated the Scriptures, as a horticulturalist would do a plant, upon the any given form.

Well, that is your interpretation. Jer 7:8 has nothing to do with Mary and it has nothing to do with pagan origins. Atheist made have made the same claim that Judaism and Christianity is pagan in origin. I saw a Youtube Video done by atheist comparing the Egyptian gods to those of the Jews. He claimed that the ten commandments is borrowed from the Egyptians, etc.

He made a convincing argument but I do not believe him.

I do affirm that Mary is the woman in Revelation 12:1-5 for the mere fact that the male child is Jesus Christ. The male child will rule all nations with an iron rod. He was also taken up into heaven and to his throne. This sounds very similiar to the story of the Lord’s ascension into heaven.

I would only deny the fact that the woman in Revelation 12:1-5 if the male child is not Jesus. I do believe the male child to be Jesus.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am the Tabernacle of God; I guess I could be co-mediator, too!
“Know ye not, that ye are the temple of God?”

What does it mean to be Christians? Did not Paul say, “be imitators of me?” Christians follow Christ.

The only difference between us and Mary is this. She gave birth to Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Indeed parts of this was taken from another text that is not part of the Canon of Scripture. However, they may not be inspired certaine truths are contain in them but not all.

You should also take into account that not all Christians in those times could agree which part of Scripture is part of the Canon. Many did not believe that the Book of Revelation was consider canonical.

Mary’s queenship is due because her son is the King. In the OT, Jewish Kings have mothers as their queens. Jesus continue this Tradition. In fact in Revelation 12:1-5, we see a woman clothed with sun with a crown on her head. She gave birth to male child who will rule all nations. This male child is symbolically Jesus, and we know that Mary is the mother of Jesus. The woman is describe as the Church, Israel, and Mary. Both intrepretation are correct.

The parallels between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is very clear in Scripture.

The Catholic Answer tract states,

*Why? It was a way of emphasizing how crucial it was for the Lord’s exact specifications to be met (Ex. 25:9, 39:42-43). God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.

When the ark was completed, “the cloud covered the meeting tent and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling. Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling” (Ex. 40:34-38). Compare this with the words of Gabriel to Mary in Luke 1:35.

There’s another striking foreshadowing of Mary as the new ark of the covenant in 2 Samuel 6. The Israelites had lost the ark in a battle with their enemies, the Philistines, and had recently recaptured it. King David sees the ark being brought to him and, in his joy and awe, says “Who am I that the ark of the Lord should come to me?” (1 Sam. 6:9).

Compare this with Elizabeth’s nearly identical words in Luke 1:43. Just as David leapt for joy before the ark when it was brought into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14-16), so John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary, the ark of the new covenant, came into her presence (Luke 1:44). John’s leap was for precisely the same reason as David’s–not primarily because of the ark itself, but because of what the ark contained, the Word of God.

Another parallel may be found in 2 Samuel 6:10-12 where we read that David ordered the ark diverted up into the hill country of Judea to remain with the household of Obededom for three months. This parallels the three-month visit Mary made at Elizabeth’s home in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39-45, 65). While the ark remained with Obededom it “blessed his household.” This is an Old Testament way of saying the fertility of women, crops, and livestock was increased. Notice that God worked this same miracle for Elizabeth and Zachariah in their old age as a prelude to the greater miracle he would work in Mary.

The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-17, where she is called the mother of all “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus” (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament’s description of the ark and the New Testament’s discussion of Mary’s role.

Granted, none of these verses “proves” Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.

A last thought. If you could have created your own mother, wouldn’t you have made her the most beautiful, virtuous, perfect woman possible? Jesus, being God, did create his own mother (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and he did just that–he created her immaculate and, in his mercy and generosity, kept her that way.*

((more to following))

All of these parallels to the Ark tell me Jesus is the Ark not Mary. Take for instance the fact that the Ark had on it the mercy seat, made with gold. Each year the Levite priests would conduct an atonement ritual. This was the only time anyone was allowed in the sanctuary containing the Ark. First the priests would purify themselves for seven days (by offering sacrifices for their sins). Then they would offer sacrifices for the congregation. They would sprinkle blood onto the mercy seat (because the Ark was viewed as the throne of God).

Was Mary the recipient of the blood sacrifice of Jesus? Of course not – God was; and Jesus and God are one.

Take another example. The Ark was constructed of acacia wood – but was lined with gold both inside and out. This was foretelling the humanity and divinity of Christ. Gold signified the divinity and wood His humanity. So if you insist on a typology for the Ark of the Covenant you need look no further than our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[dan1el]

Yeah, I heard that person’s argument, as well, but in it, just as with the Marian agument, they trample all over Scripture, which is a disqualifying thing.

Did you even read the Scriptures I posted? The woman is Jerusalem, not Mary. I wasn’t born of Mary; I was born of Zion:

“And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her.” Psalm 87:5

 

[Mannyfit75]

Since this is the only writing you post of an actual Apostolic Father; I’ll cite the opening to Ignatius’ letter to the Romans:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, Or, “most holy.” and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.*

This is merely an exhortation & only indicates Roman primacy in the Roman mind? Here’s another exhortation by Ignatius to the church at Philadelphia:

*Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, in Asia, which has obtained mercy, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoiceth unceasingly881881 Or, “inseparably.” in the passion of our Lord, and is filled with all mercy through his resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit.

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church of God the Father, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is at Philadelphia, which has obtained mercy through love, and is established in the harmony of God, and rejoiceth unceasingly,882882 Or, “inseparably.” in the passion of our Lord Jesus, and is filled with all mercy through His resurrection; which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially to those who are in unity with the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed by the will of God the Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to His own will, has firmly established His Church upon a rock, by a spiritual building, not made with hands, against which the winds and the floods have beaten, yet have not been able to overthrow it:883883 Comp. Matt. vii. 25. yea, and may spiritual wickedness never be able to do so, but be thoroughly weakened by the power of Jesus Christ our Lord.*

I like how Ignatius talks describes the rock that the church is established on – a “spiritual foundation” he calls it, not made with hands. Quite interesting?

Ignatius also wrote:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

and his Strong Believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist:

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

He sounds very Catholic to me. He did extort other Christians from other Churches because he is after all a bishop. It is no different than Cardinal from another country coming to the US and condemning certain immoralies.

 

[dan1el]

Take another example. The Ark was constructed of acacia wood – but was lined with gold both inside and out. This was foretelling the humanity and divinity of Christ. Gold signified the divinity and wood His humanity. So if you insist on a typology for the Ark of the Covenant you need look no further than our Lord Jesus Christ.

I heard that! That’s what I tried to tell them! Just let it be simple; instead…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yeah, I heard that person’s argument, as well, but in it, just as with the Marian agument, they trample all over Scripture, which is a disqualifying thing.

Did you even read the Scriptures I posted? The woman is Jerusalem, not Mary. I wasn’t born of Mary; I was born of Zion:

“And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her.” Psalm 87:5

I did and I do believe the woman is Revelation 12:1-5 is Mary. I also believe the woman is also Jerusalem and the Church. If I were to take it literally, I believe the woman is Mary.

 

[mercygate]

I am the Tabernacle of God; I guess I could be co-mediator, too!
“Know ye not, that ye are the temple of God?”

Yes – to a degree all who are in Christ mediate the grace of God to the world. This in no way competes with or contradicts the unique mediation of our Lord through the hypostatic union, but it is, nevertheless, a “participation in the body of Christ.”

All Christians are in Christ: “No longer I, but Christ who lives within me.” Our Lady, of course, had Christ “living within her” in a unique and privileged way. In fact, her flesh alone gave flesh to Our Lord. This is not a “Marian” mystery; it is a mystery of the Incarnation. When you eliminate Our Lady, you compromise the the Incarnation.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Well, that is your interpretation. Jer 7:8 has nothing to do with Mary and it has nothing to do with pagan origins. Atheist made have made the same claim that Judaism and Christianity is pagan in origin. I saw a Youtube Video done by atheist comparing the Egyptian gods to those of the Jews. He claimed that the ten commandments is borrowed from the Egyptians, etc.

He made a convincing argument but I do not believe him.

I do affirm that Mary is the woman in Revelation 12:1-5 for the mere fact that the male child is Jesus Christ. The male child will rule all nations with an iron rod. He was also taken up into heaven and to his throne. This sounds very similiar to the story of the Lord’s ascension into heaven.

I would only deny the fact that the woman in Revelation 12:1-5 if the male child is not Jesus. I do believe the male child to be Jesus.

Actually the queen of heaven they were worshiping was the queen of Babylon.

The woman in Rev. 12 is Israel (appropriately represented by Mary). However, this adds nothing to your typologies; moreover, there is no connection with the end of Rev. 11 (where the Ark descends from heaven) and Rev. 12. They refer to two different chronological periods (just study the two chapters and this is apparent). I mention Rev. 11 because the RCC asserts a fallacious nexus between the end of chap. 11 and the woman in chap. 12 as part of its evidence for the Mary as Ark typology.

 

[maryj]

Sorry, still please answer the question, not divert the attention.

Funny how no one mentions anything until they are hit with a question they don’t want to answer. People have said MANY demeaning things about me on this board, insulting me, saying I am stupid, that I am misled, that I lack intelligence, etc., etc., etc. and no one has said anything to them on behalf of me… wonder why?
I was just showing the ludicrousness of your thought that the Church is incapable of error, which history itself proves to be false.

You assume way too much of what questions I or any other catholic on these boards “don’t want to answer” Asking a question is one thing- being disrespectful is another. If I have been insulting to you, I sincerely apologize, but two wrongs do not make a right. I know how heated religious debate can become, but this forum is Catholic Answers, and the forum rules state that Non-catholics are welcome to participate but MUST be respectful of the faith of the catholics participating on this board. Everybody take a deep breath…