Mary's Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter irish1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
clmowry:
You have no comment on the verses I provided that say the Ark contained nothing but the tabets or that the other items were “before the testimony”?

You have no comment on the verses I provided indicating that the mana was not being kept as a vestage of their rebellion?
I didn’t see any verses quoted by you which actually denied it.
The only analogies we should be proposing for the OT/NT types of the Ark would be the Tablets/Word of God vs. Christ/Word of God.
Well, then again we’re back to the fact that: (1) no N.T. writer ever refers to Mary as “the ark of the N.C.”, (2) a “covenant” is not a person but a promise, (3) the N.C. (like the old) was inaugurated not by birth but by blood. IOW, the new covenant began not with Christ’s conception but with His sacrificial death; at the time Mary carried Jesus in her womb there was no new covenant; Jesus Himself was a Jew, born under the Law (the old covenant, Gal. 4:4); and (4) even if only the tablets were in the ark that still wouldn’t change anything. The 10 Commandments represented the covenant made at Sinai with Israel, a covenant they transgressed and broke (see Jer. 31:32; Hos. 8:1). 5) The N.C. requires no external testimony (ark) but an internal, spiritual regeneration made possible through an individual’s personal faith in the sacrificial death and subsequent bodily resurrection of the One who inaugurated it in His blood.
 
Where in the NT does it say “the Ark is Mary, who housed the miraculous bread from heaven”? Which writer of the NT or church father ever taught such a thing?
Jesus developed in Mary’s womb, right?
Luke 1:31
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. "

I would not use the word “housed” because that seems to imply that she did not materially contribute to His development.

Jesus is the bread from heaven, right?

John 6:47-51
47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The manna in the OT prefigured the Bread of Life in the New. The Ark that carried the manna prefigured the Ark that carried the Bread of Life. This is what we mean by seeing the doctrines implicit in scripture.
 
Jesus developed in Mary’s womb, right?
Luke 1:31
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. "

I would not use the word “housed” because that seems to imply that she did not materially contribute to His development.

Jesus is the bread from heaven, right?

John 6:47-51
47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

The manna in the OT prefigured the Bread of Life in the New. The Ark that carried the manna prefigured the Ark that carried the Bread of Life. This is what we mean by seeing the doctrines implicit in scripture.
Did anyone in the first 7 centuries see this same kind of thing as you do and others?
 
I didn’t see any verses quoted by you which actually denied it.
You’re correct; it didn’t deny your interpretation. It just said something explicit and different from your interpretation about why God said the Israelites were to keep the manna. (Which is apparently irrelevant to making a correct interpretation?)
Well, then again we’re back to the fact that: (1) no N.T. writer ever refers to Mary as “the ark of the N.C.”, (2) a “covenant” is not a person but a promise, (3) the N.C. (like the old) was inaugurated not by birth but by blood. IOW, the new covenant began not with Christ’s conception but with His sacrificial death; at the time Mary carried Jesus in her womb there was no new covenant; Jesus Himself was a Jew, born under the Law (the old covenant, Gal. 4:4); and (4) even if only the tablets were in the ark that still wouldn’t change anything. The 10 Commandments represented the covenant made at Sinai with Israel, a covenant they transgressed and broke (see Jer. 31:32; Hos. 8:1). 5) The N.C. requires no external testimony (ark) but an internal, spiritual regeneration made possible through an individual’s personal faith in the sacrificial death and subsequent bodily resurrection of the One who inaugurated it in His blood.
Well that’s all interesting but you keep talking about something other than what I’m asking.

What is wrong with this “logic”?

“Ark” = Gold Plated Wooden Box; once the container of the tablets of the testimony.

Tablets of the Testimony = “Word of God”

Ark = once the container of the Word of God

Word of God = Jesus Christ

Mary = once the “container” of Jesus Christ

Mary = once the container of the Word of God

Mary ~ Ark

I’m not asking about your theological differences with Catholics, I’m asking what is wrong with this “logic”.

That said, I just looked at the title of the thread again and really none of this belongs here…so…away I go…

Chuck
 
It is IMPLICIT in Scripture; read the Old Testament and the New Testament and compare the TYPOLOGY as it relates to Jesus and you will also see the corollary of what it means to be a King (which He is) as well as what it means to be the MOTHER of a King (which MARY is), what a KINGDOM is, etc.

Over and over you have seen the writings of the ECFs in the ‘7 centuries’ you have now adopted as your ‘timeline’.

And is it POSSIBLE that it has NEVER occurred to you, JK4, that those first 350 years or so of the Church, not only do we find few writings (and the canon of Scripture was not finalized) because the MAJORITY of preachers spoke from ORAL TRADITION which would have included as much oral ‘recitation’ of Scripture as the individual preacher would have known plus the ‘passed on’ oral tradition of Jesus and the apostles–we also have people who are being persecuted and KILLED.

Now imagine you have a society where the majority of people cannot read or write, where they are in danger of DEATH if somebody ‘figures’ out they are Christian . . . now just how much ‘written material’ are you going to leave around or have around to ‘discuss’??? NOT MUCH. Because few people could USE IT to START WITH, because it would be so unusual that people would notice, would then report it, and the people with the writing would be investigated, etc.

Sheesh. How REMISS of those poor illiterate Christians in AD 300 not to go around writing down EVERYTHING that their preachers told them.

How SILLY of them to ‘wait’ until centuries later, when people were more literate, when records were beginning to be maintained as a matter of course, and when some people started to get the teachings ‘wrong’, to write down the CORRECT teaching about Mary being ever virgin, and assumed into heaven. Didn’t they REALIZE that centuries after THEM, people would start to say, "how come I didn’t see ‘anything totally specific about the assumption until way ‘late’ in Christianity; obviously it wasn’t taught UNTIL THEN.’ :rolleyes:
 
Did anyone in the first 7 centuries see this same kind of thing as you do and others?
Since this is where we glean the ideas, I would say that no one since the first 7 centuries has come up with anything new on it .
On what is the church teaching based on in these centuries?
The Sacred Oral Tradition contained in the preaching of Our Lord Jesus and His Apostles. However, some of this teaching was written down, and was canonized into the NT in 385, and that is equally a source for Teaching of Apostolic truth.
But they never mention this. So how can it be said this is based on their teachings?
Unless you have been reincarnated, or given a heavenly vision like Paul’s, you were not present, and you don’t know what they said. The Church has faithfully preserved the Teachings, and these are part of them. Scripture is also part of them. You cannot accept that because you believe that “all we have of the apostle’s teachign is in the Bible”. Since you have limited yourself to this part of the revelation, you will not be able to apprehend that there are other Apostolic Teachings. 😉
 
You’re correct; it didn’t deny your interpretation. It just said something explicit and different from your interpretation about why God said the Israelites were to keep the manna. (Which is apparently irrelevant to making a correct interpretation?)

Well that’s all interesting but you keep talking about something other than what I’m asking.

What is wrong with this “logic”?

“Ark” = Gold Plated Wooden Box; once the container of the tablets of the testimony.

Tablets of the Testimony = “Word of God”

Ark = once the container of the Word of God

Word of God = Jesus Christ

Mary = once the “container” of Jesus Christ

Mary = once the container of the Word of God

Mary ~ Ark

I’m not asking about your theological differences with Catholics, I’m asking what is wrong with this “logic”.
But Mary is not called by Catholics “the Ark of the Word of God,” but the “Ark of the N.C.”

Here’s the core problem: How could Mary be the “Ark of the N.C.” when it is explicitly stated that Jesus Himself was “born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4)? Until the day of His death He walked in total submission to the Old Covenant.

What is illogical in calling Mary the “Ark of the N.C.” is that it would imply that the “New” covenant was submissive (even inferior) to the “old.”

The truth/fact is, Mary didn’t carry the “New Covenant” in her womb. She carried a male Child, born a Jew, born under the Law (the Old Covenant). And for this reason they presented the proper sacrifice for the “first-born” son out of her womb (according to the old covenant), and circumcised Him (according to the old covenant).

The New Covenant was not inaugurated until approx. 33 years AFTER He left her womb. Allow me to reiterate: The N.C. was not inaugurated by birth but by blood. It was not the result of a conception, but the substitutionary, blood sacrifice of the One who was conceived.
 
The New Covenant was not inaugurated until approx. 33 years AFTER He left her womb.
Christ establishes the New Covenant.
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
The Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

Your reformed interpretations cannot undo this. It is a simple truth.
 
40.png
Mickey:
Christ establishes the New Covenant.
Before or after His birth?
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.
Born under the “old” or “new” covenant?
The Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.
Not a conclusion based on your two former statements. You simply declare it.
Your reformed interpretations cannot undo this. It is a simple truth.
It’s a teaching accepted by the “simple,” maybe. But given any REAL thought, it can’t be classified as a “truth” at all. Only an assertion, a declaration without validation. There’s no need to “undo” something that was never “done” in the first place. Instead a misnomer had been corrected.
 
Before or after His birth?Born under the “old” or “new” covenant?
You are truly humorous! There are not two Jesus’. There is not a Jesus before the New Covenant and another Jesus who establishes it. There is one Jesus Christ–born of the Virgin Mary. And she is the Ark of the New Covenant. It is a simple truth. And you will not change this with your odd understandings.

Silly wabbit!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_15_33.gif
 
You are truly humorous! There are not two Jesus’. There is not a Jesus before the New Covenant and another Jesus who establishes it. There is one Jesus Christ–born of the Virgin Mary. And she is the Ark of the New Covenant. It is a simple truth. And you will not change this with your odd understandings.
What’s so “odd” about:Gal 4:4 "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,…"How could Mary be the “ark” of a covenant that did not yet exist?

Now I call that “odd.”

Could this be the reason no “New Covenant” writer ever referred to Mary by such a title?
 
I’ve been watching from the sidelines, and this struck me as being out of touch with reality. We start with the reasonable…
There is one Jesus Christ–born of the Virgin Mary.
So far, so good.
And she is the Ark of the New Covenant.
Obviously this is what is being debated at the moment, so stating it doesn’t seem to help the conversation.
It is a simple truth. And you will not change this with your odd understandings.
This makes my mind spin. Do you really believe that saying “this is how it is, whether you agree or not” actually helps the conversation in any way? So long as you are fallible (as we all are), anything you believe could potentially be wrong. Moreover, stating that something is “simple truth” without logical and reasonable support that doesn’t get knocked down by a simple logical test is useless.

It’d be like me saying, “Roman Catholics pray to Mary, and that is a sin. This is all simple truth, whether you accept it or not. No matter your odd reasonings and understandings, it’s fact.”

It’s quite obvious that we don’t agree on the subject, so what would be the point in saying it? The only time such a thing would have validity is if I can prove that I am somehow superior to you in terms of beliefs, which is essentially claiming inerrancy in belief for myself.

So, either your statements were useless, or you’re claiming that your beliefs (whether they be in the Virginity of Mary, the infallibility of the RCC, or whatever else you may choose to believe) are not subject to any possibility of error.

This is one of the finest examples of rhetoric – words which seem to have profound meaning and effect, but in reality, have no substance and are thus meaningless.
 
Do you have a problem with Mickey or with the Church’s teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity?
 
Do you have a problem with Mickey or with the Church’s teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity?
Most Protestants do have a problem with the Church’s Marian doctrines, although they don’t have a leg to stand on in their rebuttals. Both Scripture and history attest to that fact. They reject every Catholic doctrine which is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. And they reject the Apostolic teaching authority of the Church Fathers and the Popes and Bishops of the Magisterium. Protestants will keep telling us: “If it isn’t in the Bible, I won’t believe it”. Yet Catholic doctrines do find scriptural support, even if it is only implicit. No teaching of the Catholic Church is irreconciled with the Scriptures. Jesus promised to guide his Church to all truth until the end of time when he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and assured his apostles that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. In their defence of the false principle of ‘sola scriptura’ Protestants will refer to 2Tim 3:16-17: “All Scripture is inspired by God, and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work.” But they fail to notice that verse 16 says “all” Scripture, not “only” Scripture. Now what does Paul mean by “all” Scripture? What Scripture did he refer to, and what Scripture was available to Timothy as early as A.D.65-66? The earliest Gospel, that of Luke, was written shortly before A.D. 70 along with Mark. But these two Gospels were not in use at the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy. :nope: During the first century the Scriptures used by the early Christians was the Old Testament: the Jewish Septuagint. There was no New Testament for centuries until the Council of Carthage gathered the 27 Books which comprised the original Holy Bible in A.D. 397. So if Protestants accept 2Tim as the authority for ‘sola scriptura’, then they have to throw out the New Testament and make do with the Old. Further, if they cling to 2Tim, then they are in the awkward position of having to accept the Old Testament Books Luther rejected as Apochrypha. What Paul and the other apostles taught at the time of their letters and gospels about Jesus was primarily done orally and according to Sacred Tradition, not the New Testament. The Bible could not possibly have been the sole sufficient source of divine truth at the time. Nor does the NT teach us that Tradition must be discarded once the texts have been compiled and made canon. On the contrary, Paul tells Timothy in verse 14 of all places: “But do you continue in the things you have learned and that have been entrusted to you.” He is telling the Bishop to hold on to Tradition, that which has been taught apart from the NT texts which were not yet completed.

“I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.”
{1 Corinthians 11:2}

‘Sola Scriptura’ is neither scriptural nor historical: the false concept originated with Luther, a defrocked Catholic priest, 1500 years after Jesus founded his One, Holy, and Apostolic Church. :yup: His erroneous doctrine created the ‘everyone for himself’ syndrome for Bible interpretation. Each individual could now claim “The Holy Spirit told me.” But the Bible explicitly tells us that such private interpretation cannot realistically be done: Acts 8:27-39; 2Pet 1:20; 3:16-18. Belief in ‘sola scriptura’ is the primary reason for the fact that there are several orthodox and heterodox groups on top of innumerable splinter groups which disagree with each other on many essential doctrinal points. What they do entirely agree on comes from the Apostles Creed of the Catholic Church. But there can only be one truth for all Christians. That is why Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to his Church: a unity of faith, like that which exists in Catholicism. All Protestant groups claim to have the truth, despite their differences. Which of these groups can honestly know that they have the true faith, unless each one has a different Holy Spirit or the Paraclete is revealing numerous truths at odds with each other? The doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ is evidently a false doctrine of men. It’s a human tradition in Protestantism. Those who rely on this false principle to dispute the Church’s Marian doctrines don’t have a leg to stand on. :whistle:

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”

St. Athanasius,’ Letter to Serapion of Thmuis’ (A.D. 359)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top