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

[Mannyfit75]

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).

The Ark is Mary and the Covenant is Jesus Christ. The comparision was actually professed by one of the Early Church Fathers.

Here is a sample from the great St. Athanasius (c. 296-373) who defended the Trinity and Divinity of Christ:

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

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

Mary consented to God’s will. The flesh of Jesus comes from Mary. Mary made it possible for the invisible God to become a visible God in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is both true God, and true Man. He is the Second Person of the Trinity. And it is Jesus who died for us all.

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 see no error in this interpretation. I believe your interpretation is correct as well as mind.

 

[sola_scriptura]

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.

The woman is clearly NOT the New Jerusalem. There is a clear distinction drawn. The woman is clothed with the sun and the moon is at her feet. The New Jerusalem does not need the sun or moon to illuminate it (contrast Rev. 12:1 with Rev. 21:23).

 

[mercygate]

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 they claim this fallacious nexus as part of their evidence for the Mary as Ark typology.

I’ve lost you. The Ark as the type of Mary in Rev 12 starts with the last verse of Revelation 11:
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and** the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple**; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. [Then Ch 12:1] And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun . . .”

Remember: when it was written, and for more than 1000 years, there were no chapter divisions.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

The belief of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant dates back to the times of the Early Church Fathers. St. Anathansius is one prime example.

It is not only the Catholic Church who affirms that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant and the Queen of Heaven. The Eastern Orthodox Church also affirms this.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The woman is clearly NOT the New Jerusalem. There is a clear distinction drawn. The woman is clothed with the sun and the moon is at her feet. The New Jerusalem does not need the sun or moon to illuminate it (contrast Rev. 12:1 with Rev. 21:23).

The woman is the Church because her offsprings are the followers of Jesus Christ, which make up the Church.

Revelation 12:17 states,
**
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.**

Christians keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

She is Mary. You cannot convince me otherwise. I have no problem with your interpretation because it is your interpretation. I don’t believe some of what you said though but you cannot convince me otherwise that she isn’t Mary.

The only way I would NOT believe Mary to woman in Revelation 12:1-5, if you can convince me that the MALE CHILD is not Jesus. You have not been able to convince me otherwise.

 

[maryj]

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.

Chapter divisions are not part of the Bible. Stephen Cardinal Langton added chapter divisions for our reading convenience. Read it without the chapter break, immediately after seeing the Ark, John describes Mary.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Chapter divisions are not part of the Bible. Stephen Cardinal Langton added chapter divisions for our reading convenience. Read it without the chapter break, immediately after seeing the Ark, John describes Mary.

well said.

 

[sola_scriptura]

I’ve lost you. The Ark as the type of Mary in Rev 12 starts with the last verse of Revelation 11:
“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and** the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple**; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. [Then Ch 12:1] And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun . . .”

Remember: when it was written, and for more than 1000 years, there were no chapter divisions.

Okay – let me explain. The Ark descends with (actually within) the temple (which if you read Rev. 21 the temple of God is within the city – the New Jerusalem). This occurs at end times – whereas the “woman” who descends to earth (crowned with the 12 stars on her head – signifying the 12 tribes of Israel) – represents both Israel and Mary.

When you read the context in which the Ark (contained within the Temple) descends this is obvious. It is at the sounding of the Seventh trumpet (which occurs at end times) – whereas Rev. 12 depicts the “woman” as giving birth to a male child after she descends.

Here is some language from Rev. 11 that will help you see my point:

18The nations were angry; and your wrath has come.
The time has come for judging the dead,
and for rewarding your servants the prophets
and your saints and those who reverence your name,
both small and great—
and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

19Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

Notice the words I bolded – this (the descending of the Ark) occurs at end times – obviously Mary giving birth to Christ is a past event. Hence two separate chronological periods. There is the connector “then” between verses 18 and 19 (not that we really even need this – but it solidifies my point). Rev. 12 begins an entirely different time period (fyi Revelation is not written in chronological order – just read the whole book this is readily apparent).

 

[sola_scriptura]

Chapter divisions are not part of the Bible. Stephen Cardinal Langton added chapter divisions for our reading convenience. Read it without the chapter break, immediately after seeing the Ark, John describes Mary.

It doesn’t matter – read the text and your fallacious typology disintegrates. Read my response directly above. These sort of typologies really do strip your theologians of any credibility.

 

[sola_scriptura]

The woman is the Church because her offsprings are the followers of Jesus Christ, which make up the Church.

Revelation 12:17 states,
**
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.**

Christians keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

She is Mary. You cannot convince me otherwise. I have no problem with your interpretation because it is your interpretation. I don’t believe some of what you said though but you cannot convince me otherwise that she isn’t Mary.

The only way I would NOT believe Mary to woman in Revelation 12:1-5, if you can convince me that the MALE CHILD is not Jesus. You have not been able to convince me otherwise.

Of course you insert a red herring because I never said the “woman” wasn’t Mary …

Please read my posts more carefully.

 

[sola_scriptura]

The belief of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant dates back to the times of the Early Church Fathers. St. Anathansius is one prime example.

It is not only the Catholic Church who affirms that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant and the Queen of Heaven. The Eastern Orthodox Church also affirms this.

and they’re wrong – I don’t pretend that they just started being wrong yesterday?

 

[Mannyfit75]

It doesn’t matter – read the text and your fallacious typology disintegrates. Read my response directly above. These sort of typologies really do strip your theologians of any credibility.

It falllacious to you because you refuse to understand our faith. We do not expect you to believe our doctrines. You are not Catholic. We do expect you to at least understand why we believe our faith to be truth.

Second, you do not hold any credibility about the theology of Biblical typology. I do find that many Protestant interpretation of Scripture more erroneous than those Catholics who disagree with the Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

and they’re wrong – I don’t pretend that they just started being wrong yesterday?

The writings of the ECF attest to the fact that Mary is consider to be the Ark because they understand Scripture more than you. Besides, they are closer to the Age of the Apostles than you.

Your own doctrines develop out of the Reformation which dates in the 1530s.

 

[mercygate]

Okay – let me explain. The Ark descends with (actually within) the temple (which if you read Rev. 21 the temple of God is within the city – the New Jerusalem). This occurs at end times – whereas the “woman” who descends to earth (crowned with the 12 stars on her head – signifying the 12 tribes of Israel) – represents both Israel and Mary.

When you read the context in which the Ark (contained within the Temple) descends this is obvious. It is at the sounding of the Seventh trumpet (which occurs at end times) – whereas Rev. 12 depicts the “woman” as giving birth to a male child after she descends.

Here is some language from Rev. 11 that will help you see my point:

18The nations were angry; and your wrath has come.
The time has come for judging the dead,
and for rewarding your servants the prophets
and your saints and those who reverence your name,
both small and great—
and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

19Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

Notice the words I bolded – this (the descending of the Ark) occurs at end times – obviously Mary giving birth to Christ is a past event. Hence two separate chronological periods.

In apocalyptic literature, it is not either necessary or possible to limit the imagery to history or time. In a sense, Mary perpetually gives birth to the Church – just as the Church was “born” on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came in fire upon the apostles in prayer together with Mary, the mother of Jesus . . .

Do you belong to a tradition that recites the Apostle’s creed? Do you say that you believe “in Jesus Christ, His only son, Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary . . .” Jesus is still “conceived by the Holy Spirit” in our hearts – and born of the Virgin Mary whose heart is one with that of her Son.

 

[sola_scriptura]

The Ark is Mary and the Covenant is Jesus Christ. The comparision was actually professed by one of the Early Church Fathers.

Here is a sample from the great St. Athanasius (c. 296-373) who defended the Trinity and Divinity of Christ:

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

Mary consented to God’s will. The flesh of Jesus comes from Mary. Mary made it possible for the invisible God to become a visible God in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is both true God, and true Man. He is the Second Person of the Trinity. And it is Jesus who died for us all.

I see no error in this interpretation. I believe your interpretation is correct as well as mind.

The bottom line is the quote from the saint above simply tells me the church created an erroneous doctrine to refute anther (albeit more) erroneous doctrine – when there was no need to do such a thing. Mary and Jesus are not both the Ark – there is no co-mediation relationship. Mary has no role in the economy of salvation. She was blessed among women – but she was a “woman” all the same.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The bottom line is the quote from the saint above simply tells me the church created an erroneous doctrine to refute anther (albeit more) erroneous doctrine – when there was no need to do such a thing. Mary and Jesus are not both the Ark – there is no co-mediation relationship. Mary has no role in the economy of salvation. She was blessed among women – but she was a “woman” all the same.

What Church Council condemned these so-called erroneous doctrines? If there were disagreement with them, why didn’t the Early Church condemned them like they did with the Arianism and Nestorianism? I mean some Christian bishop who were taught by the Apostle would clearly see it as you.

However, the those who deny that Mary is the Theotokos or the Mother of God, is condemned as a heretic in the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.

However, Christian history show no such protest. It was not until the arrival of Protestantism that these doctrines were condemned.

I find that the Protestant denial of these Catholic doctrines and belief as heretical as completely blind sided.

If you lived in those days of St. Anathasius, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireneaus, and others, they would consider you to be a heretic because you deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (Even though this is not part of the discussion but I assumed you do not believe in the Real Presence)

 

[bpbasilphx]

1. Mary could not be the mother of God. God always was and has no beginning. Mary had a natural birth as a natural human.

**But Mary did NOT give birth to a mere human nature. She gave birth to a PERSON, and this PERSON is both God and Man.

What He experienced as Man in His Incarnation, He experienced as God.

And Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, called Mary “Mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43)–and who is Lord BUT God? (Psalm 117/118:27).

Indeed, Elizabeth was actually saying “Mother of YHVH.” Therefore, the term “Mother of God” is quite Biblical.

Indeed, the term “Mother of God/Theotokos” has to do with who Jesus is.**

1. Scripture does not tell us that Mary was conceived without sin. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that Mary could not have been conceived without sin because of the Scriptures telling us that Mary rejoiced in God her savior. St. Thomas Aquinas is canonized saint in the RCC and I don’t believe anybody posting here is.

**No one expects saints to be absolutely infallible in everything. Even the Pope’s infallibility is limited to certain subjects and carefully defined conditions.

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that Christ’s Redemption (which is eternal, or timeless in its consequences) was in her case anticipated in time, and she was “kecharitomene” (full of grace) from the first instant of her existence.**

1. Again, Scripture doesn’t say anything about Mary remaining a virgin. It in fact tells us that she had other children besides Jesus and says nothing to the contrary that Mary led a normal married life with Joseph.

**No, it doesn’t say she had other children by Joseph.

If the Greek particle “eos” in Matthew 1:25 means that Mary had children by Joseph, then the same word in the same Gospel, Matthew 28:20, means that at the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with us.

Moreover, Matthew 1:2 refers to “Judah and his brothers”–even though they actually had 4 mothers between them! So clearly “brother” does not always mean “of the same mother.”

Furthermore, we read of the “mother of the sons of Zebedee”–but only of “Mary, the mother of Jesus”, not “Mary, mother of the sons of Joseph” or even “Mary, the mother of Jesus and His brothers.”

Think about it.**

1. Scripture tells us of Enoch being assumed into Heaven body and spirit but never anything about Mary.

**It doesn’t have to. This is part of the historical tradition of the Church. The Bible doesn’t say that Peter was crucified upside down or Paul was beheaded, but this is generally accepted from the SAME tradition.

From the Orthodox standpoint, it was really needless to dogmatize this point of tradition. It’s rather like declaring “In 1492/Columbus sailed the ocean blue” to be a dogma of faith.

And it’s the LAST thing I would discuss with someone who doesn’t even believe that the Virgin’s Son is God.**

 

[sola_scriptura]

Of course as I’ve said I have no objection to the idea of Mary as mother of God. I merely point out that it can be a misleading title if not accompanied by a proper explanation (and indeed it has been spun far beyond what the council of Ephesus dictated).

Moreover, I also don’t have a problem with the doctrine of “real presence” (I do, however, find bizarre RCC attempts to explain how this occurs with philosophical sophism). I was a Methodist (which adheres to “real presence”) and became Presbyterian after our denomination adopted real presence (and rejected Calvin’s view). We adopted the Lutheran view (and entered into communion with the Lutherans).

If its any conciliation I find Calvin’s terminology (real “pneumatic” presence) almost as absurd as the RCC attempts to define real presence. I like the Methodist doctrine in this area – real presence & it’s a mystery how God does this … end of story.

Sorry if I sound a bit callous in my depiction of this – but honestly I can’t stand philosophical sophism. I like philosophy … studied all the same stuff anyone with a college degree studied; but to conflate it with theology is just folly to the umpteenth degree.

God was around long before Aristotle. It’s funny – I read City of God by Augustine (my favorite RCC theologian – though I don’t always agree with him) and he thought Plato and Aristotle met each other (I think it was Ambrose who first dreamed up this idea). Obviously this was later debunked (and Augustine himself ultimately admitted it was a silly idea) – but to think Catholics have a monopoly on the truth is sheer folly & frankly it’s the reason why your theology is drifting into no mans land.

Look if you guys were to say the councils are the only official doctrine in the church – I would say right on, since I agree with at least the first four councils. The fifth that condemned Origen was convened by Justinian (and the Pope objected to it) so I still scratch my head & wonder if Origen is still considered a heretic or not (since I’ve spoken to some Catholics who disagree with this council). The Seventh Council (that restored veneration of icons) I obviously disagree with – however, this council reversed an earlier council (the Council of Hieria) so I simply think that council was invalid.

Moreover, with regard to the Council of Ephesus, the term Theotokos actually means “God bearer” (not mother of God). Not that there’s any significant difference – but I’d thought I’d mention it.

 

[sola_scriptura]

1. Mary could not be the mother of God. God always was and has no beginning. Mary had a natural birth as a natural human.

**But Mary did NOT give birth to a mere human nature. She gave birth to a PERSON, and this PERSON is both God and Man.

What He experienced as Man in His Incarnation, He experienced as God.

And Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, called Mary “Mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43)–and who is Lord BUT God? (Psalm 117/118:27).

Indeed, Elizabeth was actually saying “Mother of YHVH.” Therefore, the term “Mother of God” is quite Biblical.

Indeed, the term “Mother of God/Theotokos” has to do with who Jesus is.**

OK – no problem here (again – I simply note that this terminology must be accompanied by an explanation and clarification – that might of helped some of your theologians who dreamed up the idea of co-redeemer).

1. Scripture does not tell us that Mary was conceived without sin. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said that Mary could not have been conceived without sin because of the Scriptures telling us that Mary rejoiced in God her savior. St. Thomas Aquinas is canonized saint in the RCC and I don’t believe anybody posting here is.

I agree with Aquinas – but he ended up going along with the Church who disagreed with him (hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception).

No one expects saints to be absolutely infallible in everything. Even the Pope’s infallibility is limited to certain subjects and carefully defined conditions.

The good St. Aquinas was right on point with regard to Mary being born with sin (like everyone else) – he just overreached a bit after reading to much Aristotle … LOL (but overall I love Aquinas’ work – there’s a condensed version of Summa Theologica out there I’d recommend for any Christian).

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that Christ’s Redemption (which is eternal, or timeless in its consequences) was in her case anticipated in time, and she was “kecharitomene” (full of grace) from the first instant of her existence.

this doctrine is wrong & Aquinas was right … simple.

1. Again, Scripture doesn’t say anything about Mary remaining a virgin. It in fact tells us that she had other children besides Jesus and says nothing to the contrary that Mary led a normal married life with Joseph.

**No, it doesn’t say she had other children by Joseph.

If the Greek particle “eos” in Matthew 1:25 means that Mary had children by Joseph, then the same word in the same Gospel, Matthew 28:20, means that at the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with us.

Moreover, Matthew 1:2 refers to “Judah and his brothers”–even though they actually had 4 mothers between them! So clearly “brother” does not always mean “of the same mother.”

Furthermore, we read of the “mother of the sons of Zebedee”–but only of “Mary, the mother of Jesus”, not “Mary, mother of the sons of Joseph” or even “Mary, the mother of Jesus and His brothers.”

Think about it.**

Jesus had siblings. Either the EOC view is right (they were children of Joseph from a prior marriage) or Mary had children. The source of the EOC doctrine is the Nativity of Mary (an apocryphal work). However, that document is obviously not an Apostolic (or accurate) source since it has Jesus being born in a cave (rather than a nativity). Moreover, not all early Christians held this view (Tertullian disagreed – even though I generally don’t like relying on him since he ended up leaving the church for a bizarre Christian sect). However, there were different views in this early period because no one really knew for sure. It’s not something any Apostle ever taught – so the better view is that it’s not important either way to our faith.

1. Scripture tells us of Enoch being assumed into Heaven body and spirit but never anything about Mary.

**It doesn’t have to. This is part of the historical tradition of the Church. The Bible doesn’t say that Peter was crucified upside down or Paul was beheaded, but this is generally accepted from the SAME tradition.

From the Orthodox standpoint, it was really needless to dogmatize this point of tradition. It’s rather like declaring “In 1492/Columbus sailed the ocean blue” to be a dogma of faith.

And it’s the LAST thing I would discuss with someone who doesn’t even believe that the Virgin’s Son is God.**

You would think John (who we can assume outlived Mary) would have known if she ascended into heaven (since he was charged by Jesus with her care). Remember, the siblings of Jesus didn’t believe in Him during His lifetime. So obviously Jesus couldn’t trust them with caring for their mother (in fact they didn’t even show up at His execution).

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
Of course as I’ve said I have no objection to the idea of Mary as mother of God. I merely point out that it can be a misleading title if not accompanied by a proper explanation (and indeed it has been spun far beyond what the council of Ephesus dictated). **

**The only ones I’ve seen stretching it are usually Protestant polemicists.

If any Orthodox or Catholics do so, it’s not BECAUSE of the teaching of the Church, BUT IN SPITE OF IT.**