E
EphelDuath
Guest
So now you understand exactly why Catholics have such a profound reverence for the MOTHER OF GOD.It what the arc contained that gave it power. Not the box itself.
So now you understand exactly why Catholics have such a profound reverence for the MOTHER OF GOD.It what the arc contained that gave it power. Not the box itself.
The Old Covenant is the foreshadow to the New. The New Covenant is different, but God gave us the Old so that we could properly understand the New. The Ark of the Old Covenant was given so that we could properly understand the Ark of the New Covenant, and understand properly the holiness that is found inside.By that logic anyone that touched Jesus or Mary would have dropped dead which we know wasnât the case.
Not so. If that were true, God would not have prohibited anyone except the priests touching it. There is a great danger in âspiritualizingâ away the connection between soul and body. We are not just souls, but bodies, bodies that will be resurrected, bodies that, in the persons of Jesus and Mary, have been taken into heaven, glorified for all eternity, as ours will be. Maryâs person was inviolate to all men. She did not and could not, without breaking her vow to God, have had sexual relations with a man. That is what it means.It what the arc contained that gave it power. Not the box itself.
We donât claim that Mary has power of her own. She is special for one reason (among many) because she held GOD HIMSELF inside her. REALLY think this over a few times. She held GOD HIMSELF in her womb. God took her nature to become man. Really think this over some.It what the arc contained that gave it power. Not the box itself.
I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion . However, Mary wasnât just âbodyâ, just as Christ isnât âjust bodyâ. She is a person, a rational being comprised of body and soul who gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity. The soul animates the body through the intellect. A âhuman personâ is a being with a human nature and other individuating human traits. In Maryâs case a very distinct being, the spouse of God.Not so. If that were true, God would not have prohibited anyone except the priests touching it. There is a great danger in âspiritualizingâ away the connection between soul and body. We are not just souls, but bodies, bodies that will be resurrected, bodies that, in the persons of Jesus and Mary, have been taken into heaven, glorified for all eternity, as ours will be. Maryâs person was inviolate to all men. She did not and could not, without breaking her vow to God, have had sexual relations with a man. That is what it means.
Not to be pedantic, but I didnât state that Mary is just âbodyâ. I was emphasizing the fact that we are not just souls and not just bodies, but souls and bodiesâthat both are equally important, as demonstrated by the fact that both Jesus and Maryâs bodies were taken to heaven. Naturally, their souls are a part of their bodies.I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion . However, Mary wasnât just âbodyâ, just as Christ isnât âjust bodyâ. She is a person, a rational being comprised of body and soul who gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity. The soul animates the body through the intellect. A âhuman personâ is a being with a human nature and other individuating human traits. In Maryâs case a very distinct being, the spouse of God.
Violating the person of Mary would violate Godâs spouse, and mother.
JoeT
Under Jewish law, nobody was allowed to touch a woman other than his wife. Touching a woman other than one you were legally allowed to be intimate with was forbidden. Even today, observant Orthodox Jews avoid all contact with women other than their wife. They will not shake hands, will not make casual contact when paying for something at the store, etc.By that logic anyone that touched Jesus or Mary would have dropped dead which we know wasnât the case.
Youâll need to explain a bit more, I donât want to assume what is intended. How have made contortions with regard to marriage? We know that marriage is a âman leaving father and mother, and becomes faithful to his wife: and the two will live in one spiritâ. (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5). That is a man and woman unite themselves becoming like the essence of one person. Mary and Joseph together are as one person in this unity they both are joined to as one flesh with God ~ which, by the way, is the view of a Catholic marriage. Furthermore, these two united together in one spirit with God are âChurchâ. So, as I see it Mary, receiving Godâs progeny becomes âChurchâSo with enough contortions and historiography, one can indeed divest marriage of what ordinary men take to be one of its sine qua non properties. Given current events, Iâm not sure thatâs comforting.
It seems Joseph had a great deal of apprehension. It took a special messenger to get him to take Mary. Also, it was customary among ascetics to marry for the needs of a household.But if itâs so, all thatâs an argument for Mary & Josephâs not getting married in the first place: if she was âthe spouse of the Holy Ghostâ in the senses you claim, then of course Joseph wouldâve been wrong to lay a hand on her. But he wouldâve been no less wrong to consent to a marriage ceremony, live in the same house as she did, and go around letting people refer to him as her husband, or her his wife.
I didnât say Joseph and Mary werenât really husband and wife - youâve assumed it. Marriage isnât predicated on the physical, rather it is predicated on the union. It is your mind that reaches for the lowest denominator to judge what is âreal marriageâ and what isnât. The Protestant does âbesmirchâ Christâs Person and Mary as His mother. What makes one âsecond-raterâ is to fail a clear vision of Christ through the lens of Mary. As Iâve said it divides Christ into human or God, but never Theandros.In the end, thereâs no suggesting that Joseph & Mary werenât really husband and wife that doesnât end up besmirching them on other grounds. (This assumes that the common Protestant assumption somehow âbesmirchesâ them in the first placeâthat, as Catholics seem to believe, ordinary, legitimate marriage is for spiritual second-raters and somehow unworthy of Mary)
The arc was just a box. It did nothing until the tablets were placed inside. Bezalel and Oholiab created it per Mosesâ instructions. Nothing happened to them.Not so. If that were true, God would not have prohibited anyone except the priests touching it. There is a great danger in âspiritualizingâ away the connection between soul and body. We are not just souls, but bodies, bodies that will be resurrected, bodies that, in the persons of Jesus and Mary, have been taken into heaven, glorified for all eternity, as ours will be. Maryâs person was inviolate to all men. She did not and could not, without breaking her vow to God, have had sexual relations with a man. That is what it means.
It was especially constructed for only one purposeâto contain the Law, thus making it holy. Mary was preserved free of original sin and filled with grace from the moment of her conception, so when was she holy enough according to you? God created her for only one purposeâto be the Mother of God Incarnate. Try again.The arc was just a box. It did nothing until the tablets were placed inside. Bezalel and Oholiab created it per Mosesâ instructions. Nothing happened to them.
If you took the tablets out of the box. The box was inert. If you are making the comparison literal wouldnât the birth of Christ make Mary âinertâ as well? In other words while she carried the Christ in her womb, she was the arc. When He was born she no longer was.It was especially constructed for only one purposeâto contain the Law, thus making it holy. Mary was preserved free of original sin and filled with grace from the moment of her conception, so when was she holy enough according to you? God created her for only one purposeâto be the Mother of God Incarnate. Try again.
No. Once the Ark had been constructed it was set aside for only one purpose, no matter if it still contained the tablets of the Law or not. It was the same for all the things made for the worship of God from the candlesticks to the Tabernacle itself. Maryâs whole life was vowed to God, not just her womb.If you took the tablets out of the box. The box was inert. If you are making the comparison literal wouldnât the birth of Christ make Mary âinertâ as well? In other words while she carried the Christ in her womb, she was the arc. When He was born she no longer was.
You simply have no idea what you are talking about. The men selected were the ones who could craft it. Once it was crafted, and consecrated, it could never be touched again. And just as the serving instruments and other items in the tabernacle that are mentioned in my prior posts were consecrated, they could not be touched either. NONE of the items reserved to God could be touched unless EXPLICITLY given permission from God to do so. So NO, the Ark was NOT just a box. That is an insult to God who declared that the Ark was holy and reserved for Him.The arc was just a box. It did nothing until the tablets were placed inside. Bezalel and Oholiab created it per Mosesâ instructions. Nothing happened to them.
I understood, I was simply restating your comment for my own purposes - it helps me focus on a particular subject. Iâm sorry if I lead you to believe anything else.Not to be pedantic, but I didnât state that Mary is just âbodyâ. I was emphasizing the fact that we are not just souls and not just bodies, but souls and bodiesâthat both are equally important, as demonstrated by the fact that both Jesus and Maryâs bodies were taken to heaven. Naturally, their souls are a part of their bodies.Too many people have the heretical idea that our bodies donât matterâthat they are simply vessels for the soulâan idea that came about during the reformation and has poisoned portions of Christianity ever since. The poster denied that the Ark itself was a holy object, but only its contents. This is patently not true, just as it would not be true to say that only Mary or Jesusâ souls were holy and not the whole of their persons, bodies and souls. Does that make sense?
The arc was taken/lost/destroyed in the Babylonian conquest. People moved it.No. Once the Ark had been constructed it was set aside for only one purpose, no matter if it still contained the tablets of the Law or not. It was the same for all the things made for the worship of God from the candlesticks to the Tabernacle itself. Maryâs whole life was vowed to God, not just her womb.
This is true. The Ark was holy even when it was empty.No. Once the Ark had been constructed it was set aside for only one purpose, no matter if it still contained the tablets of the Law or not. It was the same for all the things made for the worship of God from the candlesticks to the Tabernacle itself. Maryâs whole life was vowed to God, not just her womb.
When was it empty? Before it was filled? It wasnât striking people dead then.This is true. The Ark was holy even when it was empty.
Jews believed that the Ark was intrinsically holy, not just because of what it held but because it was a physical manifestationof God on earth. It was the only such physical object of its kind on earth.
The Midrash and the Talmud are valuable insights into what the Jews believed about the Ark. There is an easy to read article at jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/ark.html.
-Tim-