Mary, the Immaculate Conception etc

[Roman_Army]

** this thread is still alive? :banghead: **

Read my quote below, the Pope is the successor of Peter and is infallible. He proclaimed this dogma.

Also read Pope Pius IX’s encyclical on it with an open mind: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

 

[BibleReader]

poppiedancer:

At school in my Religious Education class, we have started a unit on Mary. I thought it would be great, however, it seems that no one believes in the Immaculate Conception. My Baptist friends think that there is no point, after all, they say, what was the pint of Jesus coming if His mother wasn’t with original sin?

This really confuses me mainly because in cases like this, I just believe it because its my faith.

How can I defend it? Is it in the Bible about Mary being without original sin???
Thanks

Hi, poppiedancer. Re confusion, give yourself time. It will become clear. That is one of the great things about Catholicism – ultimately, the Church has everything figured out, and so ultimately it always makes sense.

Re your Baptist friend’s opinion, Mary, herself, was preserved – and HAD TO BE preserved – from the stain of Original Sin by the grace earned by her son’s sacrifice. In other words, the grace of the cross went backwards in time, preserving Mary from the stain of Original Sin. This did not occur independent of Christ’s sacrifice, but *because of *Christ’s sacrifice. Therefore, Mary’s protection does not make Jesus’ ministry pointless, but rather emphasizes its necessity, right? Think about it.

Re the Bible, I like to cite the Parable of the Two Eagles in Ezekiel 17. There a wonderful eagle – the Holy Spirit – grasps the “uppermost branch of a cedar tree” – the last of the Family of the Cross, Jesus – and takes it to a “fertile field” fertilized with seed – Mary’s womb, made immaculate with grace – and plants the cedar branch there – ** the Incarnation at the time of the Annunciation – and it grows up into Christ the Vine – see John 15:5.

Why do I interpret the fertile field, fertilized with seed, as Mary’s immaculate womb?

Well, in the Bible, the Desert/Wasteland/Wildernerss Type refers to “world in need of salvation.” A “fertile field” would be a place in the world NOT in need of salvation.

“Seed” in the Bible refers to grace, sometimes the “grace of faith.”

Oh, by the way, why was Mary immaculately conceived?

Well, if you look at Exodus 33:20, you will see God’s confirmation that just “looking at God’s face” kills humans. Why? Because we are Original-Sin-tainted garbage. If we are not “technically perfect,” then we are “technically disabled” from seeing God’s face. Otherwise, our flesh will be destroyed.

What Mary did – receive a special presence of Almighty God Himself into her flesh – is far, far, FAR more intimate than doing what Moses wanted to do in Exodus 33:20. She would not have survived, and the Incarnation would not have occurred, had she herself not been immaculately conceived.

 

[linus]

Brian Ingram:

Consider the Old Covenant, which prepares the way for Christ by types and figures which foreshadow the mysteries of the Christian economy of salvation. In the Old Covenant, the Word of God is the Torah, represented at its heart by the Ten Commandments, the two tablets, which out of reverence for God’s Word, and at His command, were placed in a wooden Ark, upon which the glory of God descended in a visible fashion to indicate God’s Presence with His People. The Tablets are types of the Eternal Word, the Son of God, who pitched His tent among us at the Incarnation (John 1:14), as the Meeting Tent was pitched in the midst of Israel. The Tablets, of course, were kept in the Ark out of the sight of men. The Ark itself was designed by God. It was holy by virtue of the Tablets within. No man could touch it unbidden, and one man died for doing so even with a good intention (1 Chr. 3;10).

The Ark is a type of Mary, who bore the Son of God into this world. And like the Ark, Mary was established by God in holiness and preserved untouched by man (a Virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ).

Actually, Brian, the Ark of the Covenant is not a type of Mary. The Scriptures clearly reveal that the Ark, with its cover, the "mercy seat," made of gold is a type of Christ.

The Ark itself was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. In it were placed THREE items: (1) a pot of the wilderness manna, which represented Israel’s rebellion toward God’s gracious life provision in the wilderness. The manna itself being a type of Christ (Num. 21:5; Jn. 6), (2) Aaron’s rod which budded, which represented Israel’s rebellion toward the high priestly mediator of God’s choice (Num. 16), and (3) the BROKEN stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, which represented Israel’s rebellion toward God’s Law,* “which they broke”* (Exo. 32; see Jer. 31:32).

The lid which covered the box, made entirely of gold (gold being the symbol of divine righteousness) was called the *“mercy seat” * (Gr. hilasterion). At each end of the mercy seat were cherubim which extended their wings over it (Ex. 25:20). The mercy seat (hilasterion) was called in Hebrew kapporeth, “place of covering,” and is intimately connected with the O.T. word “atonement” (kaphar: to cover sin). The mercy seat, therefore, was the “place of covering” for it was there sacrificial blood was sprinkled by the High Priest on the “Day of Atonement” (Lev. 16:13; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2).

The golden lid was a “mercy seat” because in divine righteousness (gold) it covered from the eyes of the holy cherubim Israel’s three forms of rebellion toward God, while the sacrificial blood, sprinkled on the “mercy seat” by the high priest once a year on the “Day of Atonement,” covered their sins for the year. The whole thing represented the meeting place of an infinitely holy God and sinful man (Lev. 16:2).

This is why the Ark of the Covenant was a foreshadowing, i.e., a “type,” of Christ - not Mary. In the N. T. Jesus Christ is revealed as the “propitiation” (Gr., hilasterion, “mercy seat”) for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2; cf. 4:10; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17) because He Himself is the “meeting place” between an infinitely holy God and sinful, but believing, mankind. Jesus is the “Propitiator” (Gr.* hilasmos*) who not simply “covered” sin (like on the “Day of Atonement” for Israel) but actually “put away” sin, once-for-all, by the sacrifice of Himself (see Heb. 9:26; 1:3; read Heb., chapters 9-10). Men enter into this GRACE through personal faith in Him (Acts 10:43; Rom. 5:1-2).

The other “ark” in the Bible is Noah’s ark. Also a “type” of Christ. As it saved Noah and his family from the judgment of God that came upon the whole world in his day (the deluge), so Jesus Christ saves, completely, all who believe in Him from the future, divine judgment of God because of sin (Jn. 3:17-18; 5:24).

The types and shadows of fhe Old Testament are in anticipation of the coming of Jesus Christ; the New Testament being the revelation of Him. Neither the O.T. or the N. T. are “about” Mary, they’re about Jesus Christ. Genesis speaks of the “seed of the woman,” Isaiah prophesied that a vigin would conceive, but that’s the extent of it. There are no prophecies that speak of Mary’s “Immaculate Conception,” “Assumption,” “Mediatrix,” or her exalted position as “Queen of Heaven.” These are man-made, fabricated after the writing of the N.T. Scriptures and the Apostolic age.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

Actually, Brian, the Ark of the Covenant is not a type of Mary.

Mary is a type of the Ark of the Covenant. She carried God in her womb.

 

[LSK]

I know that Linus will not accept these Biblical references but these are the ones Catholics have always used - since the birth of the Church on Pentecost - to define Mary as the Immaculata.

Lk 1:28 - hail full of grace (highly favored) Lord is with you
Lk 1:30 you have found favor with God
Lk 1:37 for with God nothing shall be impossible
Gn 3:15 complete enmity between woman & Satan, sin
Ex 25:11-21 ark made of purest gold for God’s word (Mary is the Ark of the Covenenant in that she carries The Word, and is therefore purer than simply that in an earthly sense).

We also rely upon the writings of ECF, learned theologians who are in communion with Rome etc. Ronald F. Hock did research on the Provengelium (spelling? forgive my errors) of James that I found interesting. I don’t have the website, darn it, but a reviewer wrote:

According to Hock, a major development found in the Protevangelium of James is this: “Mary, the central character, is no longer a virgin in the ordinary sense of a young woman of marriageable age, but a virgin of extraordinary purity and unending duration.” Hock goes on to argue: “Indeed, Mary’s purity is so emphasized that it becomes thematic and thus answers the fundamental question which guides the narrative: why Mary, of all the virgins in Israel, was chosen to be the mother of the son of God. The answer: no one could have been any purer. Thus Anna transforms Mary’s bedroom into a sanctuary where she receives no impure food and is amused by the undefiled daughters of the Hebrews (6:5). When she turns three years of age, these young women escort her to the temple in Jerusalem where she spends the next nine years in absolute purity and is even fed by the hand on an angel (7:4-8:2). When, at age twelve, she is made the ward of Joseph, she spends her time spinning thread for the temple with the other virgins from Israel (10:1-12:1). When she is later suspected of impurity, she passes a test and has her innocence proclaimed by the high priest (15:1-16:7). Finally, when she gives birth to Jesus, two midwives certify that she remains a virgin (19:18-20:11). In short, it is through her purity that Mary fulfills the blessing which the priests made when she was only one year old: that she might be blessed with a blessing that could not be surpassed (6:9).”

I know this is difficult for someone who is not a Catholic but one thing that may help you understand is to understand how we read Holy Scripture. We read it in a literal sense as opposed to a literalist sense. A literal sense means that we look at Holy Scripture holistically, believing that what is written in the OT connects to what happens and is written in the NT. We do not believe the Bible as a literalist - a good way of explaining that would be to use the example of “raining cats and dogs”. We do not believe, when someone says that, that puppies and kitties are falling from the sky (though an immediate possibility of a Monty Python sketch springs to mind). A thousand years from now, when someone reads that phrase, they may not know immediately that it was raining really hard that day and may have to take it on faith that the phrase means something different from what it reads.

You are in my prayers, as are all those who separate themselves from the full banquet of the Christian faith.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

linus:

Actually, Brian, the Ark of the Covenant is not a type of Mary. The Scriptures clearly reveal that the Ark, with its cover, the "mercy seat," made of gold is a type of Christ.

age.

The Mercy Seat sits above and upon the Ark strictly speaking it is not part of the Ark itself, which is a small chest open at the top. “And thou shalt put The Mercy Seat upon The Ark of the testimony in The Most Holy Place." (Exodus 26:34 KJV)

The mercy seat (Hebrew kapporeth (a covering) or greek hilasterion) is the golden covering of the Ark of the Covenant in Judaism and the throne of God in Heaven. So it is not a type of Christ but the throne that Christ will sit on to dispense judgment to the nations at the last judgment. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things in body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor.5:10).

God appears on the Mercy Seat in fact over shadows or covers the Ark in the Old Testament. “And The Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into The Holy Place within the veil before The Mercy Seat, which is upon The Ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon The Mercy Seat.” (Exodus 16:2 KJV)

In Luke 1:35 The Holy Ghost is said to come upon Mary “and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:”

For overshadow the Greek word episkiazo is used which translated means “From a vaporous cloud that casts a shadow”

One of the Hebrew words used for Ark is tebah, which means a vessel

Christ is the New Covenant, Mary was the vessel (Ark) that carried the new Covenant

Contained in the Ark were the manna, the tablets and the rod of Aaron all types of Christ

Scriptures again points to the above understanding of Mary as the Ark. In Rev 11:19 ”And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: “

What or who is the ark of the testament? The verse following this 12.1 is a pointer, “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:”

Who then is the woman? Some say it is a type for the Church, however Revelation 12:5 undercuts this, “And she brought forth a man-child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.”

It is Christ that the scripture is talking about being bought forth. The “she” is clearly Mary.

In 1531 a “Lady from Heaven” appeared to a poor Indian at Tepeyac, a hill northwest of Mexico City; she identified herself as the Mother of the True God, instructed him to have the bishop build a temple on the site and left an image of herself imprinted miraculously on his tilma, a poor quality cactus-cloth, which should have deteriorated in 20 years but shows no sign of decay 469 years later and still defies all scientific explanations of its origin.

To see the image: http://www.trinitynorfolk.org/photos/Our-Lady-of-Guadalupe.jpg

The image is that of the women described in Rev 12:1

Pax

Brian

 

[linus]

Mickey:

Mary is a type of the Ark of the Covenant. She carried God in her womb.

In the O.T. God was not carried about in the Ark of the Covenant. There were three items in the box and each represented Israel’s rebellion (see my post). Catholic theologians like to refer to the tablets of the Ten Commandments in the Ark, but they were the BROKEN tablets. They represented the Covenant Israel had broken (Jer. 31:32).

None of this corresponds to the Mary’s pregnancy.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

What we need is some way of insuring an authentic interpretation of scripture!

 

[Mickey]

linus:

In the O.T. God was not carried about in the Ark of the Covenant. There were three items in the box and each represented Israel’s rebellion (see my post). Catholic theologians like to refer to the tablets of the Ten Commandments in the Ark, but they were the BROKEN tablets. They represented the Covenant Israel had broken (Jer. 31:32).

None of this corresponds to the Mary’s pregnancy.

Nothing I write is ever going to change your mind, my friend. Read Brian Ingram’s post # 125 and pray about it.

May the Lord open your mind and your heart.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

linus:

There are no prophecies that speak of Mary’s “Immaculate Conception,” “Assumption,” “Mediatrix,” or her exalted position as “Queen of Heaven.” These are man-made, fabricated after the writing of the N.T. Scriptures and the Apostolic age.

Mary as Queen Of Heaven

In Luke 1:48 Mary says, “From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed”. In the Magnificat there are several OT references, but this one is particularly interesting from Psalm 45:6-18, a Messianic prophecy:
“…the Queen takes her place at your right hand in the gold of Ophir….So shall the King desire your beauty, for He is your Lord, and you must worship Him…I will make your name (the Queen’s) memorable throughout all generations, and all nations shall praise you forever and ever.”
This passage references a relationship that was known and understood by ALL Jews: the Queen Mother, or the Mother of the King. Mary was the Mother of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This relationship was a special one and the understanding of it holds great meaning for a proper understanding of the relationship between Mary and Jesus and Mary and Christians, the subjects of the King.

Mary as the Queen Mother
There is an Aramaic word, “Gebirah”, which means “Queen Mother”. Traditionally, next to the throne of the King was a second throne. Many would assume that the second throne belonged to the wife of the King, but in Israel it belonged to the mother of the king. The Gebirah was an official position, one with which everyone (Jesus and His disciples included) was entirely familiar. Her role was as an advocate of the people; anyone who had a petition or sought an audience with the King did so through her. She was an intercessor, presenting the wishes and concerns of the people to the King. This does not imply that the King was unapproachable, or that people were afraid or unable to speak to him. It merely means that the King honored his mother and took her requests into special consideration. On the part of the people, they felt close to her, as if they too were her children. This role is mentioned in 1 Kings 15:13, and in 2 Kings 10:13
In Jeremiah 13:18 " Say to the king and to the queen mother: come down from your throne"
Her specific place of honor and intercession is dramatically illustrated in 1 Kings 2: 13-21: … “There is one small favor I would ask of you,” she said. “Do not refuse me.” “Ask it, my mother,” the king said to her, “for I will not refuse you.”

Compare this to the wedding feast of Canna, (John 2:1-11) although Christ said that His time had not come, He did not refuse His mother.

These are some important lessons:
1.Adonijah assumed that the queen mother would approach the King on his behalf. She was an intercessor to the King.
2. The reaction of the King is noteworthy: he stood up to meet her and paid her homage. This is a picture of Christ’s regard for Mary. Can we or should we regard Mary LESS than Christ Himself regards her?
3. A throne was provided for her, and she sat at his right hand.
4. Her power as intercessor is stressed by the repetition of the idea that the king “will not refuse her”.
5. The Queen Mother was the second most powerful person in the kingdom.
The Church, knowing this type and shadow of the Queen of Heaven and Queen Mother, regarded Mary as the fulfillment of that relationship in Christ. We assume that she will approach the King on our behalf. Now, many Protestants will say “We don’t need to go through anyone; we can speak to God directly, Christ is our only Mediator between God and man.” Yes, Christ is our only Mediator, but we are all intercessors. We ALL ask our friends to pray for and with us, not because we feel that we can’t approach God directly, but because we are a family in Christ. We ALL have the ministry of intercession on behalf of others. We care about each other, and approach God on behalf of those we love.

Pax

Brian

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Some of the Fathers of the Church on Mary as the Ark of the New covenant.

St. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236)
At that time, the Savior 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 Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body (S. Hippolytus, In Dan.vi., Patr. Gr., Tom. 10, p. 648) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)
“The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification. Arise, O Lord, from the Father’s bosom, to raise up again the ruined race of our first parent” (Orat. in Deip. Annunciat. Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaumaturg) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).

St Gregory of Neo-Caesarea (3rd Century)
quotes Psalm 132 as referring to Mary: “Arise O Lord to Thy resting place; Thou and the ark of Thy sanctification” (Psalm 132:8). In this regard, he said, “For the holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without (Exodus 25:10-11, 37:1-2), that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily I on the Annunciation).

St. Ambrose (c. 339-397)
The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly (Serm. xlii. 6, Int. Opp., S. Ambrosii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).

St. Athanasius (c. 296-373)
O Ark of the new covenant, clad on all sides with purity in place of gold; the one in whom is found the golden vase with its true manna, that is the flesh in which lies the God-head.
St. Cyril (315-387?)

The Ark would be the type and image of Christ : for if we look back to the way of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, we shall see that it is in the temple of the Virgin, as in an ark that the Word of God took up His abode. For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as the Scripture saith. But the testimonies in the ark were the word of God, and the wood of it was imperishable, and with pure and choicest gold was it beautified within and without (St. Cyril, De ador. In Spir. Et Verit, p. 293, St. Maximus of Turin and other Fathers apply the Ark of the Covenant to the Blessed Virgin Mary) (Blessed Virgin, p. 76).

Pax

Brian

 

[linus]

Brian Ingram:

The Mercy Seat sits above and upon the Ark strictly speaking it is not part of the Ark itself, which is a small chest open at the top. “And thou shalt put The Mercy Seat upon The Ark of the testimony in The Most Holy Place." (Exodus 26:34 KJV)

The Mercy Seat is as much a part of the Ark as the box below it. In fact, it’s nothing without it. It’s what made the Ark of the Covenant holy and gave it its significance. Otherwise it would have simply been a wooden box overlaid with gold. The Mercy Seat placed on it is the reason it was put in the “Holy of Holies,” and once a year sprinkled with sacrificial blood for the sins of the nation. Without it it could not have been the *“meeting place” * between God and Israel. It prefigured Jesus Christ who Himself would be the “propitiation in His blood” (Rom. 3:25) for the sins of the whole world, obtaining eternal redemption for all who believe in Him:

*"But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance"* (Heb. 9:11-15).

You really should read Hebrews 9-11.

Jesus Christ is not Himself the New Covenant, but is the Mediator of it. He inaugurated it through His substitutionary, sacrificial death on the cross and the shedding of His precious blood for the forgiveness of ALL sins. So the idea that Mary was the “Ark of the New Covenant” really is theologically bogus.

The mercy seat (Hebrew kapporeth (a covering) or greek hilasterion) is the golden covering of the Ark of the Covenant in Judaism and the throne of God in Heaven. So it is not a type of Christ but the throne that Christ will sit on to dispense judgment to the nations at the last judgment. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things in body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor.5:10).

First of all your analogy crashes when you turn the “Mercy Seat” into a “judgment seat.” It’s not called “Mercy” for nothing. At the Last Judgment (which entails only unbelievers) there will be no divine “mercy” being dispensed. Secondly, in 2 Cor. 5:10 Paul is not referring to the “White Throne” judgment as revealed in Rev. 20:11. The “judgment seat of Christ” is for true believers only during this Church age. There the believer’s “works” will be appraised and rewarded accordingly (1 Cor. 3:8-17). The believer’s salvation is not in question at this judgment since salvation is not by works but by GRACE through FAITH (Eph. 2:8-9).

In Luke 1:35 The Holy Ghost is said to come upon Mary “and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee

Significantly, no New Testament writer ever associates Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, but only Jesus Christ Himself.

Christ is the New Covenant, Mary was the vessel (Ark) that carried the new Covenant

As revealed in Scripture Christ is not THE New Covenant, but the Mediator of it (Heb. 9:15).

It is Christ that the scripture is talking about being bought forth. The “she” is clearly Mary.

Take special note that the woman in Rev. 12 was not caught up to Heaven, but the male child to whom she gave birth. Mary never fled into the wilderness and nourished there by God for 1260 days after giving birth to Jesus (vs. 6, 14). Nor was she personally persecuted by Satan. The woman in Rev. 12 is Israel, understood when comparing Rev. 12:1 with Gen. 37:9-11.

In 1531 a “Lady from Heaven” appeared to a poor Indian at Tepeyac,

How do you know for sure it was Mary?

 

[linus]

LSK:

We also rely upon the writings of ECF, learned theologians who are in communion with Rome etc. Ronald F. Hock did research on the Provengelium (spelling? forgive my errors) of James that I found interesting.

This is an example of what I wrote in a previous post:

“The idea that Mary was a “temple-girl” comes from the numerous apocryphal gospels of the third and fourth centuries. They decorated the life of Mary with fantastic (fanciful) fables and wonders of all kinds, and fueled the pseudo-historical foundation for the unscriptural Mariology (even Mariolotry for many) of the Catholic Church. Though the church condemned this apocryphal literature, still many of the incredible elements of it, such as the names of Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, her birth in a cave, her education in the temple, and her mock marriage with the “aged Joseph,” passed into Catholic tradition. All having absolutely no Scriptural or Apostolic support.”

 

[Mickey]

linus:

Jesus Christ is not Himself the New Covenant, but is the Mediator of it.

Just as the New Covenant surpasses the Old, so the new Ark of the Covenant (Our Lady) is superior to the old. The old Ark contained the word of God inscribed on stone tablets, but the new Ark contained the Incarnate Word of God. The old Ark held the Law that could not justify, but the new Ark held Jesus Christ Who Himself is the eternal New Covenant with God; He Who justifies and saves. Moses placed the manna from the desert before the Tablets in the old Ark of the Covenant, but the new Ark was the repository of the true Manna, the Bread come down from heaven, Jesus Christ the Son of God. The old Ark was made of inanimate materials, but the new Ark is the greatest human person whoever has or ever will live - she whose soul has been adorned by God with a superabundance of the choicest graces.

John O’ Connell

 

[linus]

Brian Ingram:

Mary as Queen Of Heaven

In Luke 1:48 Mary says, “From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed”. In the Magnificat there are several OT references, but this one is particularly interesting from Psalm 45:6-18, a Messianic prophecy:
“…the Queen takes her place at your right hand in the gold of Ophir….So shall the King desire your beauty, for He is your Lord, and you must worship Him…I will make your name (the Queen’s) memorable throughout all generations, and all nations shall praise you forever and ever.”

This passage references a relationship that was known and understood by ALL Jews: the Queen Mother, or the Mother of the King. Mary was the Mother of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. This relationship was a special one and the understanding of it holds great meaning for a proper understanding of the relationship between Mary and Jesus and Mary and Christians, the subjects of the King.

It is true Jews understood this Psalm to be Messianic. Even the writer of Hebrews quotes Ps. 45:6 as the Father speaking to the Son, addressing Him as “God.” And apologists use the Hebrew passage as Biblical proof that Jesus is God. But the whole psalm is not about a King and his mother (God forbid), but a King and his new bride. Fatherly advice is given to the princess in verses 10-11: “Listen, O daughter, give attention and incline your ear; forget your people and your father’s house; then the King will desire your beauty; because He is your Lord, bow down to Him…” This is not language proper for a mother/son relationship.

Verses 16-17 are addressed to the King - not the bride. There is the anticipation of male children (princes) as a result of this union to carry on the King’s name. But it is HIS NAME that is promised to be remembered in all generations (see Phil. 2:9-10).

This Psalm is not a prophecy about Mary. It truly is Messianic, a Psalm about Christ (Messiah), but not Mary.

Mary as the Queen Mother
There is an Aramaic word, “Gebirah”, which means “Queen Mother”. Traditionally, next to the throne of the King was a second throne.

I already addressed this in a previous post. King David did not exalt his mother to such a position, nor was Solomon or the subsequent Kings of Judah ever instructed BY GOD to do so. It is dangerous, indeed, to build doctrine on the corrupt actions of men, i.e., actions never sanctioned by God.

QUESTION:
In a post you quoted early Church writers on their view of Mary and the ark. But can you quote Scripture or anyone who directly quotes the Apostles on this teaching?

 

[Mickey]

linus:

QUESTION:
In a post you quoted early Church writers on their view of Mary and the ark. But can you quote Scripture or anyone who directly quotes the Apostles on this teaching?

The early Church Fathers base their writings on the interpretation of Holy Scripture. And with all due respect, I’ll take their interpretation over yours. The deepest wells have the clearest water.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

linus:

The Mercy Seat is as much a part of the Ark as the box below it.

They might belong together much as husband and wives, however scripture is clear they are separate things each given specific designs by God, each with differing purposes.

linus:

Jesus Christ is not Himself the New Covenant, but is the Mediator of it. He inaugurated it through His substitutionary, sacrificial death on the cross and the shedding of His precious blood for the forgiveness of ALL sins.

He is both mediator and the new covenant. The New Testament declares that the new covenant is present in the messiah, Jesus Christ, who comes “in the fullness of time” as “Emmanuel, God is with us” (Gal 4.4; Is. 7.14; Mt 1.23; Micah 5.2; Mt 2.6; Lk 2.1-20; Jn 1.1-18; Phil. 2.5-11). The connection between Jesus Christ and the new covenant is made explicit in the passage: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11.25). The mention of a covenant ratified by his blood recalls Zech 9.11, where the liberation of prisoners is made possible by “the blood of the covenant”). Jesus gives his life for the forfeited life of others. “This cup, poured out for you, is the new covenant sealed by my blood” (Mk 14.24; Lk 22.29).

linus:

So the idea that Mary was the “Ark of the New Covenant” really is theologically bogus.First of all your analogy crashes when you turn the “Mercy Seat” into a “judgment seat.” It’s not called “Mercy” for nothing.

The Mercy Seat signifies the place of propitiation. It received its name from the blood of propitiation which was sprinkled on it on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). It is the place where justice and mercy meet. The blood of the innocent victim (Christ) on the Mercy Seat met the holy demands of God’s Law.

linus:

At the Last Judgment (which entails only unbelievers) there will be no divine “mercy” being dispensed. Secondly, in 2 Cor. 5:10 Paul is not referring to the “White Throne” judgment as revealed in Rev. 20:11. The “judgment seat of Christ” is for true believers only during this Church age. There the believer’s “works” will be appraised and rewarded accordingly (1 Cor. 3:8-17). The believer’s salvation is not in question at this judgment since salvation is not by works but by GRACE through FAITH (Eph. 2:8-9).

Again this (Calvinism) is contrary to the scriptures. A believer has no guarantee in entering into heaven. Titus 1:16 “They profess that they know in God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.:” James 2:17" Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

To enter into heaven one has to strive to enter it. Luke 13:“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door…” (13:24). The phrase “make every effort” (NIV) or “strive” (KJV) is Greek agonizomai, which originally meant “engage in an athletic contest” and then “to fight, struggle.” Paul uses the word in wrestling in prayer (Colossians 4:12), and “fighting the good fight” (1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7).

linus:

Take special note that the woman in Rev. 12 was not caught up to Heaven, but the male child to whom she gave birth. Mary never fled into the wilderness and nourished there by God for 1260 days after giving birth to Jesus (vs. 6, 14). Nor was she personally persecuted by Satan. The woman in Rev. 12 is Israel, understood when comparing Rev. 12:1 with Gen. 37:9-11.How do you know for sure it was Mary?

Yes Jesus is taken up to heaven to sit on a throne (Rev. 12:5), and he ushers in the kingdom of God by defeating the devil: “Now the kingdom of our God has come, for the accuser has been throne down” (12:10).

Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled into the Sinai desert and finally into Egypt staying around 3-4 years there (Matthew 2:13)… You need to study the Coptic tradition of the Holy Family in Egypt.

In regards your assertion that Mary was not persecuted by Satan, my first thought was how nice of him, however it is hardly believable that he did not.

Rev 12:17 "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. "

The woman is Mary and her seed refers to all believers it is talking about the persecution of the Church.

Pax

Brian

 

[Brian_Ingram]

linus:

It is true Jews understood this Psalm to be Messianic. Even the writer of Hebrews quotes Ps. 45:6 as the Father speaking to the Son, addressing Him as “God.” And apologists use the Hebrew passage as Biblical proof that Jesus is God. But the whole psalm is not about a King and his mother (God forbid), but a King and his new bride. Fatherly advice is given to the princess in verses 10-11: "Listen, O daughter, give attention and incline your ear; forget your people and your father’s house; then the King will desire your beauty; because He is your Lord, bow down to Him…" This is not language proper for a mother/son relationship.

This Psalm is not a prophecy about Mary. It truly is Messianic, a Psalm about Christ (Messiah),

In 1 Kings 2:19, Bathsheba, the queen mother of Solomon, is honored by her son, who stands to greet her and pays her homage when she comes to him on a matter of state. The Bible declares, “Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.”
The close link between the king and the queen mother can also be seen in Jeremiah 13:18. Jeremiah warns of the judgment to come on the monarchy and includes the queen mother: “Say to the king and to the queen mother: come down from your throne; From your heads fall your magnificent crowns.” Apparently, not only the king but also the queen mother wore a crown.

Psa 45 This is of the Messiah the bridegroom espousing the church to himself (Rev 19:4-9) and as a king ruling in it and ruling for it. It is probable that our Saviour has reference to this psalm when he compares the kingdom of heaven, more than once, to a nuptial solemnity, the solemnity of a royal nuptial, MT 22:2: 25:1.

The bride the Church is not the Queen who sits beside the King.The bride is described as "arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: " (Rev 19:8) whereas in Psa 45.9 upon thy right hand did stand the queen [dressed in] gold of Ophir.

linus:

QUESTION:
In a post you quoted early Church writers on their view of Mary and the ark. But can you quote Scripture or anyone who directly quotes the Apostles on this teaching?

While not judgeing how each of the Church Father formed there ideas on Mary and the ark, they would have been guided by both written scripture the Old and the New and Tradition
Paul exhorted his readers to adhere to the written and verbal traditions that he and other Christians had received (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6) An early Church Father Papias (c.150 AD), said he preferred the many oral traditions about Jesus to written books. Christ himself used oral tradition in His teachings

Linus you have been shaped by the Reformation tradition of sola scriptura, which views the Bible as the sole foundation of Christian belief, although to be accurate, the subjective interpretation of the Bible by the individual reader, a kind of tradition, plays a huge role.In your case the tradition is Calvinism.

Pax

Brian

 

[natsclem]

QUOTED FROM THE ARTICLE YOU WANTED ME TO READ:

“The second and third arguments are related. Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christ’s death isn’t impeded by time or space.)”

The idea that the saving effects of the cross were applied to Mary at the moment of her conception must conclude that Scripture is in error and that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher. Paul stated to the Ephesian believers: “For by grace you have been saved through FAITH…” (Eph. 2:8). It would have been impossible for Mary to have exercised saving faith at the time of her conception, and therefore God saved someone apart from faith, a violation of His own salvation requirement.

Certainly the saving effects of Christ’s cross are sovereignly applied to all true believers who died before the time of Chirst, but these died believing, hence, were saved by Christ’s shed blood, His substitutionary sacrifice. But this same saving principle, “through faith,” could not be applied to Mary at her conception. It is impossible for one to exercise faith at the time one is conceived. One can be sanctified (set apart as a vessel for God’s purpose while still in the womb), as the prophet Jeremiah was, but that’s not the same as what is being asserted about Mary.

God, being not limited by time and space, has foreseen that Mary, if she is preserved from all stains of original sin, would be able to give her perfect consent to be the Mother of the Savior. Being infinitely just, God has ordained that there should be equal recompense to Adam’s disobedience (which only Christ’s obedience can satisfy) before He would preserve her. Considering that God also has foreseen the victory of Christ on the cross, He applied its merits in advance to preserving Mary from the contamination of original sin from the moment of conception so that being without concupiscence of disobedience she might be able to give her perfect and FAITHful consent and, thus, give the Word of God perfect flesh (pure, without the stains of original sin) to assume human nature and to enable Him to do His mission according to His Father’s will.

Preserving Mary from all stains of original sin is GOD’s GRACE. Her being able to give her FAITHful consent finally is GRACE. Grace upon grace God endowed her–that’s why Gabriel saluted her “Chaire, Kecharitomene” (Hail, full of grace–in Latin Vulgate)

Understood in that way, the preservative redemption of Mary by Christ perfectly fits in Eph. 2:8 requiring faith for salvation. That faith my friend is itself a grace; that’s God’s work not her’, not your’s, not mine. The Immaculate Conception of Mary is a grace that made her a potential perfect faithful God’s daughter (of the Father), mother (of the Son), and spouse (of the Holy Spirit). Her faithful consent to be the Mother of the Divine Savior was an eventful consummation of that potentiality. Being free, she could have said NO; but, in fact, being free, she said YES–the grace of faith fully manifested in action. Faith manifested in action is the faith that truly saves (James 2:17-26).

Question for you: **Can God do it? **If yes, then He must have done it. If He cannot, then He is not Almighty at all. But the Bible testifies “I am Almighty” (Genesis 17:1). Compare this prayer in 2 Samuel 7:27-33 with Mary’s in Luke 1:14-15.

2 Samuel 7:27-33 “O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, you have revealed this to your servant, saying, ‘I will build a house for you.’ So your servant has found courage to offer you this prayer. O Sovereign LORD, you are God! Your words are trustworthy, and you have promised these good things to your servant. Now be pleased to bless the house of your servant, that it may continue forever in your sight; for you, O Sovereign LORD, have spoken, and with your blessing the house of your servant will be blessed forever.”

Luke 1:14-15. *And Mary said:"My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me—holy is his name. *

In the first, the prayer, God promised to build a house for the servant and that house shall be blessed forever. In Mary’s song, Mary is the servant for whom God had done great things for her and because of that she would be called blessed forever. Harmonizing the two prayers/songs…in the first, the servant is the figure of Jesus for whom God promised to build a “house” which is the figure of Mary’s womb specially built, carefully crafted only to serve the purpose of Incarnation. And, this womb (herself a servant) shall be blessed forever, from generation to generation.

God’s ways is not your ways–do not put God into your finite thinking. That’s blasphemous.