E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Thus is by far a stringer argument than others presented.
- Status
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Good post.
E
Erich
Guest
I say no such thing. Joseph wanted to send Mary away secretly BEFORE he even knew that God was involved. But once he knew God was involved, he understood that he couldn’t be – at least, not in the same sense you would have us believe.
And what if Joseph somehow knew, before the angel told him, that God was involved? Righteous man that he was, don’t you think he’d have to have concluded that there was no logical place for him in that relationship? But we know that wasn’t the case either. No, Joseph awoke and did as the angel told him. It wasn’t until after the angel told him that God was involved, that he came to recognize her special consecration as God’s living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. And, faithful Hebrew that he was, he would already have been familiar with the stories of Moses and Uz’zah, and he would also have been familiar with the Eastern Gate described in Ez 44:1-3 – “This gate shall remain shut: it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered it; THEREFORE, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord.” When I said above that Joseph “understood that the same fate would likely befall him if he tried” I was referring to “if he tried having marital relations with Mary.”
Mary was not the first immaculate human being, even if she was the first to be conceived immaculately. The angels in heaven are not gods, but they were created sinless and have remained so ever since. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were free from sin, and they weren’t gods, the serpent’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. The saints in heaven are not gods, although each of them is now completely sinless (Rev. 14:5; 21:27). Did you even bother reading the link explaining the relationship between Mary as Ark of the New Covenant and her perpetual virginity (it doesn’t look like it)? Or are you just here to tell Catholics how wrong we are – and how wrong the Holy Spirit is – for believing/teaching a doctrine contrary to yours?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
The orthodox don’t believe that Mary is in revelation 12. Its not only Protestants. And there are early fathers who didntread it this way.
E
Erich
Guest
According to Orthodox Answers, the Ark of the Covenant is a type or symbol of Mary the Theotokos, who in turn is a type or symbol of the Church.
“Certainly, Mary is certainly one aspect of the fulfillment of Revelation 12, but the full expression seems to be the Church as Wisdom, which is made obvious by a comparison with Wisdom 7.”
And, nothing in this Orthodox Apologetics blog contradicts anything I’ve said earlier in this thread.
Finally, there are some Protestant scholars who see the woman of Revelation 12 as Mary. Baptist A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament - six volumes), says of Rev. 12:5: “There is here, of course, direct reference to the birth of Jesus from Mary”. Eerdmans Bible Commentary likewise states: “the ‘catching up’ is sufficiently similar to the victorious ascension of Jesus to make plain its real meaning in this context.*” *Jamieson, Fausset,and Brown Commentary states: “rod of iron . . . ch. 2:27; Psalm 2:9, which passages prove the Lord Jesus to be meant. Any interpretation which ignores this must be wrong.” It also notes the reference to the ascension.
Perhaps you’d like to revise your claims?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
What evidence do we have of Mary being the ark?
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
Psalms 131:8 “Arise O Lord to thy resting place, thou and the Ark of thy might.”
The ONLY thing that could be the Ark of the Lord and encradle and contain His might would be Mary.
Pope Pius XII cites this verse in the bible as one of the reasons for the Assumption of Mary.
Actually Revelation 12 refers to more than one thing at once. It refers BOTH to Mary and to the church.
The ONLY thing that could be the Ark of the Lord and encradle and contain His might would be Mary.
Pope Pius XII cites this verse in the bible as one of the reasons for the Assumption of Mary.
Actually Revelation 12 refers to more than one thing at once. It refers BOTH to Mary and to the church.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
That’s very dwweak. Imagine if we had that type of evidence that Jesus was a real man.
C
Cairisti
Guest
What did the Ark of the OT Covenant contain?
(Hint: the tablets containing the Law, the Manna, and the rod of Aaron (for the priesthood)
What did Mary carry in her womb? The Word , the Bread of Heaven and our High Priest. Yeah, she’s the Ark of the New Covenant.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
It’s interesting that John the apostle glosses over this in Chapter 1 where he describes how Christ tabernacled among us. He was teaching that Christ’s body is the temple of God. So it the temple inside mary as well?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
And the ark of the Old Covenant continued to carry those items. Does mary continue to carry these items?
The ark in the Old Covenant maintained it’s holiness precisely because of the items and the glory of God which made it’s home in it, it is also a place of sacrifice. If you were to remove these things, the ark would no longer have it’s holiness. Therefore, since Jesus has been removed from the womb of Jesus, does she maintain this holiness? And if we are to grant that she would maintain this holiness, do all human beings who touch her die?
Why are you not seeing how ridiculous this is?
You are doing the same things that the protestants do. They build huge theological buildings off of chicken coop foundations such as the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers, dispensationalism, etc,etc
The ark in the Old Covenant maintained it’s holiness precisely because of the items and the glory of God which made it’s home in it, it is also a place of sacrifice. If you were to remove these things, the ark would no longer have it’s holiness. Therefore, since Jesus has been removed from the womb of Jesus, does she maintain this holiness? And if we are to grant that she would maintain this holiness, do all human beings who touch her die?
Why are you not seeing how ridiculous this is?
You are doing the same things that the protestants do. They build huge theological buildings off of chicken coop foundations such as the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers, dispensationalism, etc,etc
J
johnnyjones
Guest
You can make any OT verse weak if you refuse to accept it. That “type of evidence” is used. Some have said because Jesus is called mighty god and not almighty God he is not Yaweh, or Isaiah 9:6 doesn’t speak of Jesus because the wording is too strong. Gen 1:26 not implying the trinity is another.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Yes but scripture says he was God
T
TimothyH
Guest
Mary is not the ark. The ark forshadows Mary. Mary is the real thing while the ark tells us about Mary.
In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, (Hebrews 1:1-2)
The ark is God’s partial revelation to the Israelites about what would come to fulfillment later on.
- The ark held the two stone tablets upon which were written the law of the covenant - the ten commandments - the written word of God. Mary held the living Word of God.
- The ark held an omer of manna, bread which rained down from heaven, which God gave the Israelites as they wandered in the desert before entering the promised land. Mary held the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ, who’s flesh gives life to the world.
- The ark held Aaron’s staff of almond wood, which budded and bore fruit, indicating that this tribe and family would be priests. Mary held the shoot from the stump of Jesse, the Great High Priest, our Lord Jesus Christ.
-Tim-
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Yes as plainly as scripture says it, there are those who deny Jesus’ deity. That’s my point, you can see a scripture leaning one way but because of peculiar doctrinal beliefs of your own, you refuse it. Scripture has been twisted and turned to fit all kinds of beliefs. The church though is solid in it’s interpretation, you should rely on it and it’s revelations about Mary.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
The trinity was decided by the Bishops, not because simply the tradition stated so, for Athanasius argued from Scripture as well. The Scripture teaches that Jesus our Lord is the Word of God made flesh, who was also God with God.
There really is no excuse to not believe this doctrine.
With regard to Mary, however, we do not have any emphasis on her in the NT writings, though this is not the authority of the matter. We really do not have any apostolic original for the teaching on Mary, we have later deductions.
For instance, that Mary is the 2nd eve, the mother of the redemeed, mother of God, the means by which the Savior would come and wage the war against Satan, etc,etc,etc…
And I want to say Yes amen amen to all this. But to exalt Mary to the level of being a special means of obtaining salvation is to take the original apostolic message to a place that it never had in the beginning.
The means of salvation has always been and always will be a work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel (1 Cor 1-2, Rom 10:1-9, the whole gospel of John, the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Augustine, Irenaeous, Tertullian, etc,etc). Any place that another human being has is that of mediation of prayer and intercessory supplication, but this is accessible to anyone. The prayer of a righteous man avails much (James), and this was not originally an exhortation to look to Mary for more an inside message directly to Jesus, it simply means those who pray with purity of heart will avail much, and this was intended to be an exhortation for everyone to pray. Goodness, if only St. James could hear how people immediately point to Mary from this passage as another mediator special then anyone else.
If Mary is in heaven with Jesus, I am sure that she has a special place as the mother of Jesus. But we must realize that even in his earthly life he understood his mission to God the Father as more important that physical family.
There really is no excuse to not believe this doctrine.
With regard to Mary, however, we do not have any emphasis on her in the NT writings, though this is not the authority of the matter. We really do not have any apostolic original for the teaching on Mary, we have later deductions.
For instance, that Mary is the 2nd eve, the mother of the redemeed, mother of God, the means by which the Savior would come and wage the war against Satan, etc,etc,etc…
And I want to say Yes amen amen to all this. But to exalt Mary to the level of being a special means of obtaining salvation is to take the original apostolic message to a place that it never had in the beginning.
The means of salvation has always been and always will be a work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel (1 Cor 1-2, Rom 10:1-9, the whole gospel of John, the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Augustine, Irenaeous, Tertullian, etc,etc). Any place that another human being has is that of mediation of prayer and intercessory supplication, but this is accessible to anyone. The prayer of a righteous man avails much (James), and this was not originally an exhortation to look to Mary for more an inside message directly to Jesus, it simply means those who pray with purity of heart will avail much, and this was intended to be an exhortation for everyone to pray. Goodness, if only St. James could hear how people immediately point to Mary from this passage as another mediator special then anyone else.
If Mary is in heaven with Jesus, I am sure that she has a special place as the mother of Jesus. But we must realize that even in his earthly life he understood his mission to God the Father as more important that physical family.
Z
zenith15
Guest
I honestly do not mean to take this interesting thread off track but----WHY would God strike someone dead simply because that person, in all innocence and devout intent, was trying to steady the ark from falling? I mean, perhaps they were told never to touch it, etc but when you see something falling your natural instinct is to reach out and try to stop it, especially something as holy as the Ark. Why strike the man dead? It just seems so–cruel somehow. If someone could explain so I can understand better–even in a PM so as not to take the thread offtrack–I would surely appreciate it.
Thanks
W
Waiting
Guest
Only someone who puts on blinders intentionally could argue with this statement.
W
Waiting
Guest
Mary is the Mother of God. Enough said. Does your mother become less valuable after you are born, or more vauable? Even as an adult Jesus worked the miracle at Cana, though He made it clear that His time had not come. He loved His mother. Do you really believe that Mary became sinful and ordinary while in the presence of God? How could she, and why would she? How would you change if you spent your life in the continual presence of God?
W
Waiting
Guest
Maybe as an example to all of just HOW sacred the Ark was. God could not be cruel. I’m sure He dealt compassionately and mercifully with those who were well intentioned in touching the Ark, when they met Him in the hereafter.
- Status