Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[savedsinner]

Hardly an assertion on my part. Go back and read my posts. The idea of an “ark” connected to the New Covenant is your assertion and the teachings of men. It’s a foreign concept to the Scriptures.

So it’s really your burden to prove the New Testament reality of your assertion and their teachings

When the New Testament writers write passages which sound so very close to something that was written in the Old Testament, it isn’t just a coincidence, they are trying to point to a truth.
So when Luke writes about Mary being with Elizabeth for 3 months, or the baby leap in Elizabeth’s womb, it is not just written for a bar room trivia, it is pointing us to something very important.


Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant
Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

1 Chron. 13:9-10 - this is another account of Uzzah and the Ark. For God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh. This is incomprehensible.

1 Chron. 15 and 16 - these verses show the awesome reverence the Jews had for the Ark - veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets.

Luke 1:39 / 2 Sam. 6:2 - Luke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In these verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

Luke 1:41 / 2 Sam. 6:16 - John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

Luke 1:43 / 2 Sam. 6:9 - How can the Mother / Ark of the Lord come to me? It is a holy privilege. Our Mother wants to come to us and lead us to Jesus.
**
Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14** - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

Rev 12:1 - the “woman” that John is describing is Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Just as the moon reflects the light of the sun, so Mary, with the moon under her feet, reflects the glory of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ.

Rev. 12:17 - this verse tells us that Mary’s offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus. This demonstrates, as Catholics have always believed, that Mary is the Mother of all Christians.

Rev. 12:2 - Some Protestants argue that, because the woman had birth pangs, she was a woman with sin. However, Revelation is apocalyptic literature unique to the 1st century. It contains varied symbolism and multiple meanings of the woman (Mary, the Church and Israel). The birth pangs describe both the birth of the Church and Mary’s offspring being formed in Christ. Mary had no birth pangs in delivering her only Son Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7 - for example, we see Isaiah prophesying that before she (Mary) was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son (Jesus). This is a Marian prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Gal 4:19 - Paul also describes his pain as birth pangs in forming the disciples in Christ. Birth pangs describe formation in Christ.

Rom. 8:22 - also, Paul says the whole creation has been groaning in travail before the coming of Christ. We are all undergoing birth pangs because we are being reborn into Jesus Christ.

 

[savedsinner]

Jer. 13:21 - Jeremiah describes the birth pangs of Israel, like a woman in travail. Birth pangs are usually used metaphorically in the Scriptures.

Hos. 13:12-13 - Ephraim is also described as travailing in childbirth for his sins. Again, birth pangs are used metaphorically.

Micah 4:9-10 - Micah also describes Jerusalem as being seized by birth pangs like a woman in travail.

Rev. 12:13-16 - in these verses, we see that the devil still seeks to destroy the woman even after the Savior is born. This proves Mary is a danger to satan, even after the birth of Christ. This is because God has given her the power to intercede for us, and we should invoke her assistance in our spiritual lives.

 

[Mickey]

I did some resarch on the ark and it doesn’t fit with Mary being a type of it.

Then perhaps your research sources are a bit tainted.

 

[apophasis]

Christ cannot be separated from the New Covenant, as much as revisionists as yourself may try.

So you’re saying the mediator of a covenant and the covenant are one and the same. Then you must be consistent and say Moses and the old covenant are one and the same.

In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

Looks to me like He’s figuratively referring to the chalice.

The shedding of His blood is the means by which He inaugurates the New Covenant. Both the old and new covenants were inaugurated by blood (Ex. 24:6ff.; Heb. 10:18-19).

However the New is based on better “promises,” eternal realities.Heb 8:6 "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises."Under the new covenant there is no “ark” to be carried around, or to be adored or revered, or kept separate from the people. Under the “New” the way been opened for every true believer, himself, to go before the throne of grace with confidence:Heb 4:16 "Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."You see, there’s no need for an “ark” with this covenant. The idea of an “ark” connected to it is totally foreign to Scripture and Apostolic teaching.

 

[Mickey]

Looks to me like He’s figuratively referring to the chalice.

Looks to me like your revisionist teaching has led you astray once again.

 

[Mickey]

Under the new covenant there is no “ark”

Our Lady is a type of the Ark. We have been teaching you–but you will not hear.

 

[Mickey]

The idea of an “ark” connected to it is totally foreign to Scripture and Apostolic teaching.

It has been shown to you over and over again that Our Lady as a type of the Ark, is Scriptural and a vital part of the Apostolic faith, taught by the Apostolic Church as part of the Sacred Tradition. The revisionists do not believe it, but we cannot make you understand.

 

[PC_Master]

I did some resarch on the ark and it doesn’t fit with Mary being a type of it. For one thing God’s presence did not dwell inside the box, but remained over the Ark, in between the two Cherubim.

That’s another great point! Quite accurate too. I honestly think a lot of this mistaken “Mary is the New Ark” thing is simply the result of a lack of understanding what the Ark actually was (and is, if we ever find it again).

Aren’t catholics claiming that because Mary carried Christ in her womb that this makes her a type of ark? If so, then having God outside the ark and not in would mean that Mary being a type of ark would not apply.

It’s far more simple than that – the ark was hallowed (made holy, set apart) by God, not because of his presence (for in fact he is present with us in many places besides the ark, and was for the Hebrews as well), but because it contained the written covenant, a covenant between the almighty and his chosen people. Thus, God deemed is justifiable to strike dead any man who touched the ark without properly being consecrated first.

The New Covenant is just that – a new agreement, between God and all those who choose to follow him. Per Jeremiah 31 and 32, we see that the new covenant consists of the words of God being written on our hearts (actually, bowels in Hebrew, but it’s speaking figuratively of the seat of the emotions, not of the actual body part), whereas formerly they were written on tablets of stone.

That is the new covenant. Jesus was the one who brought that covenant to fruition, but he himself was not, and is not, that covenant.

Why don’t you try this over on the Eastern forum? They are distinctly non (if not anti) Roman, and they received this also from the Apostles…

Fallacy remains fallacy, whether it comes from Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[guanophore]

Then you must be consistent and say Moses and the old covenant are one and the same.

I agree with you that it is right to disinguish the difference between the covenant (promise) and the mediator. However, I do think that Moses had a special mediatory role in the Old Covenant that no one else had. Just as Mary has a special role in the New, that no one else had.

Ex 9:35
as the LORD had spoken through Moses.

Num 4:49
49 According to the commandment of the LORD through Moses

Num 12:2-8
“Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” And the LORD heard it. 3 Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all men that were on the face of the earth. 4 And suddenly the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, “Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting.” And the three of them came out. 5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forward. 6 And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in dark speech; and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

Under the new covenant there is no “ark” to be carried around, or to be adored or revered, or kept separate from the people.

why not? It does not take away from what God has done.

Under the “New” the way been opened for every true believer, himself, to go before the throne of grace with confidence:Heb 4:16 “Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

May we all respond with the same grace and obedience that Mary has!

You see, there’s no need for an “ark” with this covenant. The idea of an “ark” connected to it is totally foreign to Scripture and Apostolic teaching.

I think that God does not “need” any of the figures or people He chose. He decided to use Moses as the mediator of the Old Covenant. He decided to have the Israelites build an Ark. He decided to use Mary as a way into the world. This idea is not at all foreign to Apostolic Teaching, though I can see where it could easily be hidden in the figures of the OT.

 

[apophasis]

]
Tell you what, I will take the affirmative meaning that the burden of proof is on me.

However, before we begin, I would like to ask three questions:

1. Does the Old Testament contain types that are found more fully present in the New Testament?

Yes. But in the New Testament EVERY “type” taught there was in reference to Christ Himself. You would have to show me where Mary, herself, is actually taught (not through the allegorical teachings of men) to be the direct OBJECT of O.T. prophecy and types. In other words, making Mary herself to be an object of N.T. faith.

For instance, in Is. 7:14 Mary (herself} is not the object/fulfillment of that “sign.” She is the means by which the sign is fulfilled, but the sign itself is the miracle of a virgin birth and the naming of the son of that birth (Matt. 1:22-23).

Now don’t sidestep the point by coming back with, “but without Mary there would be no virgin birth.” The point is, Mary herself is not the object of that prophecy, the fact that “a virgin” would give birth is. And the focus of N.T. doctrine is not the virgin herself (an object of N.T. faith), but the One born to the virgin and the results of that miraculous birth.

1. Since forum rules prohibit me from copying articles at length, are you willing to read articles on the subject that I link to if I promise not to bury you with them?

Now I’ve already read a lot of articles. And in them they freely allegorize O.T. Scriptures and subjectively apply them to Mary. But can you provide me with articles that actually prove that such allegorizing is Apostolic in origin and not simply men making Scripture conform to their fully formed, Catholic, Marian dogmas?

You see, here’s where the problem lies, Randy. Through the allegorical method of interpretation men can make Scripture conform to any of their teachings or personal beliefs they wish. And those who have already accepted their teachings readily gavitate to the writings that contain their allegorical interpretations - like a moth to light. It’s the method of interpretation (hermeneutics) adopted by all the “christian” cults that make use the Bible. But if they would approach the Scriptures literally (teach what it teaches), the Bible would not, nor, could not, support many of their dogmas. Consequently, I see this to be the fundamental problem with most of the Catholic Marian dogmas. They’re founded primarily on an allegorical method of interpretation. Or they’re just asserted.

Now in Gal. 4:21-31 Paul presents us with an allegorical teaching on Sarah and Hagar, the Jerusalem above and Mt. Sinai below, applying it (the allegory) to his N.T. teachings on law vs. grace. But I can accept this allegory because (1) it’s theopneustos, (2) it’s apostolic in origin.

1. Do you think we should start a new thread to avoid hijacking this one any further?

Only if you think you can truly present something objective. Simply barraging me with a bunch of allegorical teachings by men is far too subjective. Like the list of allegories “savedsinner” presents in posts 259-60. If you can’t do better than that there’s really no need to start a new thread. The discussion can go no further.

 

[savedsinner]

I did some resarch on the ark and it doesn’t fit with Mary being a type of it. For one thing God’s presence did not dwell inside the box, but remained over the Ark, in between the two Cherubim.
Aren’t catholics claiming that because Mary carried Christ in her womb that this makes her a type of ark? If so, then having God outside the ark and not in would mean that Mary being a type of ark would not apply.

Thank you for researching it, in your research, did you try looking up the following items?

The ark contained the stone tablets " word of God"
the staff of Aron who was high priest
and the manna which was the bread of God.

Mary had Jesus in her womb who is the word of God made flesh
Jesus the high priest
Jesus bread of life.

In my humble opinion, these similarities would point to the fact that Mary is a type of ark.

 

[savedsinner]

Yes. But in the New Testament EVERY “type” taught there was in reference to Christ Himself. You would have to show me where Mary, herself, is actually taught (not through the allegorical teachings of men) to be the direct OBJECT of O.T. prophecy and types. In other words, making Mary herself to be an object of N.T. faith.

For instance, in Is. 7:14 Mary (herself} is not the object/fulfillment of that “sign.” She is the means by which the sign is fulfilled, but the sign itself is the miracle of a virgin birth and the naming of the son of that birth (Matt. 1:22-23).

Now don’t sidestep the point by coming back with, “but without Mary there would be no virgin birth.” The point is, Mary herself is not the object of that prophecy, the fact that “a virgin” would give birth is. And the focus of N.T. doctrine is not the virgin herself (an object of N.T. faith), but the One born to the virgin and the results of that miraculous birth.Now I’ve already read a lot of articles. And in them they freely allegorize O.T. Scriptures and subjectively apply them to Mary. But can you provide me with articles that actually prove that such allegorizing is Apostolic in origin and not simply men making Scripture conform to their fully formed, Catholic, Marian dogmas?

You see, here’s where the problem lies, Randy. Through the allegorical method of interpretation men can make Scripture conform to any of their teachings or personal beliefs they wish. And those who have already accepted their teachings readily gavitate to the writings that contain their allegorical interpretations - like a moth to light. It’s the method of interpretation (hermeneutics) adopted by all the “christian” cults that make use the Bible. But if they would approach the Scriptures literally (teach what it teaches), the Bible would not, nor, could not, support many of their dogmas. Consequently, I see this to be the fundamental problem with most of the Catholic Marian dogmas. They’re founded primarily on an allegorical method of interpretation. Or they’re just asserted.

Now in Gal. 4:21-31 Paul presents us with an allegorical teaching on Sarah and Hagar, the Jerusalem above and Mt. Sinai below, applying it (the allegory) to his N.T. teachings on law vs. grace. But I can accept this allegory because (1) it’s theopneustos, (2) it’s apostolic in origin.Only if you think you can truly present something objective. Simply barraging me with a bunch of allegorical teachings by men is far too subjective. Like the list of allegories “savedsinner” presents in posts 259-60. If you can’t do better than that there’s really no need to start a new thread. The discussion can go no further.

Where in the bible does it say that the old testament types will only point to christ, I don’t want reasoning of men, but a bible verse which states this fact.

 

[savedsinner]

Yes. But in the New Testament EVERY “type” taught there was in reference to Christ Himself. You would have to show me where Mary, herself, is actually taught (not through the allegorical teachings of men) to be the direct OBJECT of O.T. prophecy and types. In other words, making Mary herself to be an object of N.T. faith.

For instance, in Is. 7:14 Mary (herself} is not the object/fulfillment of that “sign.” She is the means by which the sign is fulfilled, but the sign itself is the miracle of a virgin birth and the naming of the son of that birth (Matt. 1:22-23).

Now don’t sidestep the point by coming back with, “but without Mary there would be no virgin birth.” The point is, Mary herself is not the object of that prophecy, the fact that “a virgin” would give birth is. And the focus of N.T. doctrine is not the virgin herself (an object of N.T. faith), but the One born to the virgin and the results of that miraculous birth.Now I’ve already read a lot of articles. And in them they freely allegorize O.T. Scriptures and subjectively apply them to Mary. But can you provide me with articles that actually prove that such allegorizing is Apostolic in origin and not simply men making Scripture conform to their fully formed, Catholic, Marian dogmas?

You see, here’s where the problem lies, Randy. Through the allegorical method of interpretation men can make Scripture conform to any of their teachings or personal beliefs they wish. And those who have already accepted their teachings readily gavitate to the writings that contain their allegorical interpretations - like a moth to light. It’s the method of interpretation (hermeneutics) adopted by all the “christian” cults that make use the Bible. But if they would approach the Scriptures literally (teach what it teaches), the Bible would not, nor, could not, support many of their dogmas. Consequently, I see this to be the fundamental problem with most of the Catholic Marian dogmas. They’re founded primarily on an allegorical method of interpretation. Or they’re just asserted.

Now in Gal. 4:21-31 Paul presents us with an allegorical teaching on Sarah and Hagar, the Jerusalem above and Mt. Sinai below, applying it (the allegory) to his N.T. teachings on law vs. grace. But I can accept this allegory because (1) it’s theopneustos, (2) it’s apostolic in origin.Only if you think you can truly present something objective. Simply barraging me with a bunch of allegorical teachings by men is far too subjective. Like the list of allegories “savedsinner” presents in posts 259-60. If you can’t do better than that there’s really no need to start a new thread. The discussion can go no further.

Here is a link which quotes the church fathers on Mary, ark of the new covenant.
(It should open up as an 8 page word document)
I know that you probably won’t accept the writings of the fathers, but what they teach was passed down from the apostles.
You can accept this truth, or reject it, but it is truth. These weren’t just “men” they were the leaders of the early christian church.

 

[apophasis]

Looks to me like your revisionist teaching has led you astray once again.

Actually, the revisionist is the one who teaches that Jesus is saying that He himself is the New Covenant.

 

[apophasis]

Our Lady is a type of the Ark. We have been teaching you–but you will not hear.

You’ve got it backwards. It’s the O.T. that presents “types.” The N.T. presents the “anti-types.” What you’re saying is Mary is a type of a type.

 

[guanophore]

Yes. But in the New Testament EVERY “type” taught there was in reference to Christ Himself. You would have to show me where Mary, herself, is actually taught (not through the allegorical teachings of men) to be the direct OBJECT of O.T. prophecy and types. In other words, making Mary herself to be an object of N.T. faith.

I don’t think this is right Apo. In fact, one that came to mind in the course of this discussion (about the Ark) is in 1 Peter 3:20-21
“… who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…”

I think the Apostle is using the Ark as an allegory of being saved through water. Anyway, the point is that it is not a reference to Christ Himself, per se. One wonders if the “Ark of the New Covenant” might be considered Baptism!

 

[apophasis]

Here is a link which quotes the church fathers on Mary, ark of the new covenant.
(It should open up as an 8 page word document)
I know that you probably won’t accept the writings of the fathers, but what they teach was passed down from the apostles.

Proof? Do they supply quotes?

You can accept this truth, or reject it, but it is truth. These weren’t just “men” they were the leaders of the early christian church.

They’re early writings of men within the church. But none of their writing were theopneustos. You cannot justify forming Christian doctrines on them. You have a right to accept their personal beliefs as your personal beliefs (doesn’t make the beliefs correct), but those writings are not the basis for forming Christian doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

Proof? Do they supply quotes?They’re early writings of men within the church. But none of their writing were theopneustos.

It is an error to assume that no writings are Theopneustos just because they are not included in the canon. Although the Church has proclaimed that all the ones contained in there definitely are, it does not follow that there are others that may be also. For example, perhaps the letter to the Laodicians that Paul wrote?

You cannot justify forming Christian doctrines on them. You have a right to accept their personal beliefs as your personal beliefs (doesn’t make the beliefs correct), but those writings are not the basis for forming Christian doctrine.

No, no scripture is the basis for the formation of Christian doctrine. On the contrary, the scriptures are the reflection of Christian doctrine. The doctrine is formed by the preaching of Christ and the Apostles. Some of this is reflected in scripture, but the doctrine came first, and the scripture later.

One of the factors used to determine canonicity of the early writings was the consistency of the content with the Apostolic Faith as it has been handed down.

 

[savedsinner]

Proof? Do they supply quotes?They’re early writings of men within the church. But none of their writing were theopneustos. You cannot justify forming Christian doctrines on them. You have a right to accept their personal beliefs as your personal beliefs (doesn’t make the beliefs correct), but those writings are not the basis for forming Christian doctrine.

I am not sure how to argue with your reasoning.
I would assume that you accept the New Testament as being theopneustos, and that you accept the idea of the Trinity, and you probably worship on Sunday instead of the Sabbath.
None of these are in the Bible, yet Christians accept them (for the most part)
You seem to borrow some of the Catholic teachings and Sacred Traditions, and yet you reject others. They are all passed on the same way, through the Sacred Oral Tradition, and the teaching of the Church Magisterium, yet you accept some, and others you reject while they were all handed down in the Church the same way.
When these Oral Traditions were first spoken to the Apostles from Jesus, they were “God breathed”, but after that, when they were passed on, they were no longer “God breathed”, but they were still protected from error by the gift of the Holy Spirit.
You seem to have a double standard for your beliefs, either they should only be found in the bible, or not. You seem to be pilfering Catholic teachings when they suit your needs, and then condeming them when they don’t.

We see St. Paul telling Timothy to pass on the traditions to others who will in turn pass on to others the teachings that St. Paul recieved.
That is how the teaching on Mary’s Perpertual Virginity was passed down. Then the fathers wrote this information in letters if they were confronted by heretics, and needed to defend the truth that was passed down from the apostles, other than that you won’t see to much exegesis in the writings of the early church fathers. They had way too many things to defend before the subject of Mary became an issue that needed to be addressed. But it is there in the writings of the fathers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes. But in the New Testament EVERY “type” taught there was in reference to Christ Himself. You would have to show me where Mary, herself, is actually taught (not through the allegorical teachings of men) to be the direct OBJECT of O.T. prophecy and types. In other words, making Mary herself to be an object of N.T. faith.

Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that “EVERY “type” taught” refers to Jesus only? There were no OT types of baptism or the Lord’s Supper?

Concerning Mary, is there no prophecy concerning her in Genesis 3:15?

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Whenever do we normally speak of “seed” as being from a woman? Isn’t “seed” commonly thought of as coming from the man? Yet, there was no man involved in the conception of Jesus, so this passage must refer to that unique conception that we call the “virgin birth”.

Since we are all “at odds” with Satan who seeks to destroy us, why should there be any special “enmity” between this woman and the ancient serpent. In fact, because of our sinfulness, we actually have some affinity with the devil. But Mary, conceived without sin, does not.

Therefore, I submit that this passage (and those of Revelation 12) refers specifically to Mary.

Perhaps I have missed your point…