Protestants and Mary

[CWBetts]

and has been explained, it is a considerable stretch to claim that Mary was the new ark and from there it is a stretch to claim that she must have been sinless
…right, the use of CC’s declaration that scripture states that the CC couldn’t err to prove that the CC didn’t err isn’t circular at all and really settles the matter.

The Ark of the Covenant traveled to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam 6:1-11)
Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zachariah in the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39)

David, dressed as a priest danced and leaped in front of the ark. (2 Sam 6:14)
John the Baptist–of priestly lineage–leaped in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Lk 1:41)

David asks, “How can the ark of th Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)
Elizabeth asks “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43)

David shouts in the presence of the ark. (2 Sam 6:15)
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of Mary. (Lk 1:42)

The ark remained in the house of Obed-Edom three months (2 Sam 6:11)
Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth three months (Lk 1:56)

The house of Obed-Edom was blessed by the presence of the ark. (2 Sam 6:11)
The word “blessed” is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Lk 1:39-45)

The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11)
Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate at the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22)

The ark contained the stone tablets of the Law.
Mary carried the Word of God in the flesh.

The ark contained the urn of manna, the bread from heaven.
Mary had the womb that carried Jesus, the Bread of Life.

The ark had the budding rod of Aaron.
Mary carried the eternal High Priest.

(Source: Ray, Steve. “Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.” This Rock. May-June 2009: 30-35)

Yes Mary, was the Ark of the New Covenant, and there is plenty of Biblical evidenace to support it.

 

[elvisman]

and I will be doing the same (including Mary).

Thanks!
**Now THAT’S very Catholic of you!

 

[Justy90]

The Ark of the Covenant traveled to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam 6:1-11)
Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zachariah in the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39)

David, dressed as a priest danced and leaped in front of the ark. (2 Sam 6:14)
John the Baptist–of priestly lineage–leaped in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Lk 1:41)

David asks, “How can the ark of th Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9)
Elizabeth asks “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Lk 1:43)

David shouts in the presence of the ark. (2 Sam 6:15)
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of Mary. (Lk 1:42)

The ark remained in the house of Obed-Edom three months (2 Sam 6:11)
Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth three months (Lk 1:56)

The house of Obed-Edom was blessed by the presence of the ark. (2 Sam 6:11)
The word “blessed” is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Lk 1:39-45)

The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11)
Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate at the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22)

The ark contained the stone tablets of the Law.
Mary carried the Word of God in the flesh.

The ark contained the urn of manna, the bread from heaven.
Mary had the womb that carried Jesus, the Bread of Life.

The ark had the budding rod of Aaron.
Mary carried the eternal High Priest.

(Source: Ray, Steve. “Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant.” This Rock. May-June 2009: 30-35)

Yes Mary, was the Ark of the New Covenant, and there is plenty of Biblical evidenace to support it.

Interesting I will admit.

 

[Justy90]

Thanks!
**Now *THAT’S ***very Catholic of you!

and Anglican too.

 

[beckycmarie]

However, she was chosen out from among all of us. She was not better than we are. She was a sinner.

Scripture does not support your opinion. A messenger of God, the Archangel Gabriel, greeted Mary saying, “Hail, full of grace.” Someone who has sinned cannot be full of grace.

See Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant for more scriptural references to Mary’s purity.

 

[guanophore]

Even Islam huh? Great, you totally convinced me. Heretics like Muslims adore Mary. We should too…

Muslims are not heretics, and such a characterization is disrespectful. A heretic is one who understood and embraced the faith, then willfully denied it. Most Muslims honor Mary because they are brought up to believe that she is the mother of a great prophet. Muslims in India are also taught that Jesus survived the crucifixion, and He and His mother travelled there and lived until old age. To characterize persons who have been taught such fallacies as “heretics” is not appropriate.

They are non-Christians, but many of them are more respectful to Mary than American Fundamentalists.

 

[CWBetts]

Scripture does not support your opinion. A messenger of God, the Archangel Gabriel, greeted Mary saying, “Hail, full of grace.” Someone who has sinned cannot be full of grace.

See Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant for more scriptural references to Mary’s purity.

One should also point out that “full of grace” is more directly translated as “one who has been and continues to be filled to overflowing with grace”

 

[guanophore]

Dokimas

There is two ways at looking at being saved. I do not question that God saved Mary from her sin. Its explained by some very well known Christians that if someone is pulled out from a pit they were saved by that person, but if another person was stopped before they could fall into the pit then they were saved by that person as well. This analogy is like Jesus saving Mary from sin. She was saved before she could commit a Sin so in actuality God is her savior. She was just saved in a different way then most people. There are plenty of things written by Saints who were around maybe a hundred to three hundred AD that wrote things talking about how Mary was sinless. This is not something the Catholic Church just came up with out of no where. This is very well researched through all the manuscripts that the Catholic Church has. Not only the Bibles teachings but of others who were around at the same time and just after. And for the record I am not just a bias Catholic. As of right now I am a Non-Denominational Protestant Christian looking to join the Catholic Church because after a long time of actually studying the Catholic faith it is impossible to say that they are not the true church. Hope you are on this forum to learn and not to try and convince people they are wrong. God Bless.

-Bob

You make a very good point Bob. It is also instructive to note that these writings predated the closing of the canon, as did the other doctrines accepted by Christians, such as theTrinity, the hypostatic union, worship on Sunday. these things are not found in Scripture either (reflected there, but included because they were taught by the Apostles.)

If people think these doctrines are not infallible, then they have no basis upon which to accept the NT either, because both came from the same source.

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

Scripture does not support your opinion. A messenger of God, the Archangel Gabriel, greeted Mary saying, “Hail, full of grace.” Someone who has sinned cannot be full of grace.

See Mary - the Immaculate Ark of the New Covenant for more scriptural references to Mary’s purity.

Where does it say that? Is this your understanding? I’ve never heard the teaching that “full of grace” means without sin? Is this new?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Sorry, I’m late to the discussion again…(I hate when that happens!)

You treat this like its a battle. What is your problem?

I just put my armor on and I’m back in the battle to defend our Blessed Mother!
Follow Yeshua:

I’ve never heard the teaching that “full of grace” means without sin? Is this new?

A Mother’s womb is a vessel…do you honestly think The Son of God would live in a body that was corrupted by sin… for nine months?? Nope. He gave her the graces to be without sin! Hence, she is Full of Grace. Full of sin? That’s us. And that’s why her intercession is so important.
Of yes, she isn’t a divine human being - we all know that - but she was most definitely not stained with sin!

Blessings,
Therese

 

[elvisman]

Where does it say that? Is this your understanding? I’ve never heard the teaching that “full of grace” means without sin? Is this new?

The Greek word, kecharitomene*** that is in Luke’s Gospel (1:28)****,*is the perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action with permanent result. This translates, "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."

 

[elvisman]

and Anglican too.

Technically - it’s Catholic - Anglicanism being a divorced faction from Catholicism . . .

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

The Greek word, kecharitomene*** that is in Luke’s Gospel (1:28)****,*is the perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action with permanent result. This translates, "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."

Ok once again where does the words full of grace even in the kecharitomene context imply that the person is without sin? Where?

Elvisman, we are not kids that you can utter a fancy word and gain validation because of that.
Once again there is not one place in the bible that states a human being born of a human being who is not the Son of Yahweh is sinless. You can convince children by acting like a historian but in the end they become wise…they always do.

 

[elvisman]

Ok once again where does the words full of grace even in the kecharitomene context imply that the person is without sin? Where?

Elvisman, we are not kids that you can utter a fancy word and gain validation because of that.
Once again there is not one place in the bible that states a human being born of a human being who is not the Son of Yahweh is sinless. You can convince children by acting like a historian but in the end they become wise…they always do.

When you are FULL of grace - there can be no mistake - you are FULL of grace and w****hen you are FULL of grace - there is no room for sin.

As I indicated in another post - Protestants are working under the misconception that everything must be explicitly taught in Scripture to be true. There is much that is implicitly taught - such as the Trinity.
For that matter - please show me where the word, Bible is in the Bible.

Sorry for the BIG words . . .

 

[Radical]

You make a very good point Bob. It is also instructive to note that these writings predated the closing of the canon, as did the other doctrines accepted by Christians, such as theTrinity, the hypostatic union, worship on Sunday. these things are not found in Scripture either (reflected there, but included because they were taught by the Apostles.)

If people think these doctrines are not infallible, then they have no basis upon which to accept the NT either, because both came from the same source.

The Protestant position wrt the validity of the NT seems like a very hard concept for Catholics to grasp. I explained it to PeterJ just a little while ago…so here it is again.
For both Protestants and Catholics it is:
a) I have faith that God revealed his message to us.
b) I have faith that scripture is a reliable record of that message.
c) I have faith that God used fallible men to first write down that message and then to preserve and recognize it .

Please note that it is entirely b/c of God’s involvment that I believe that the early church was able to preserve and recognize the books of the NT…it is not b/c I think the ECFs had any special capabilities. Therefore, b/c I do not believe that the ECFs inherently possessed special capabilities, I am not compelled to believe that anything else that they produced is as reliable as scripture (unless I also think God was involved to the same extent as he was in the production, preservation and selection of the NT)…and in case you missed it, I don’t believe that God was at all involved in the production of any of the Marian doctrines (apart from the virgin birth which is actually set out in scripture) .

 

[CWBetts]

The Protestant position wrt the validity of the NT seems like a very hard concept for Catholics to grasp. I explained it to PeterJ just a little while ago…so here it is again.
For both Protestants and Catholics it is:
a) I have faith that God revealed his message to us.
b) I have faith that scripture is a reliable record of that message.
c) I have faith that God used fallible men to first write down that message and then to preserve and recognize it .

Please note that it is entirely b/c of God’s involvment that I believe that the early church was able to preserve and recognize the books of the NT…it is not b/c I think the ECFs had any special capabilities. Therefore, b/c I do not believe that the ECFs inherently possessed special capabilities, I am not compelled to believe that anything else that they produced is as reliable as scripture (unless I also think God was involved to the same extent as he was in the production, preservation and selection of the NT)…and in case you missed it, I don’t believe that God was at all involved in the production of any of the Marian doctrines (apart from the virgin birth which is actually set out in scripture) .

So what you are telling me is that we have a fallible list of infallible books?? What if the list is wrong?

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

When you are FULL of grace - there can be no mistake - you are FULL of grace and when you are FULL of grace - there is no room for sin.

**As I indicated in another post - Protestants are working under the misconception **that everything must be explicitly taught in Scripture to be true. There is much that is implicitly taught - such as the Trinity. Please show me where the word, Bible is in the Bible.

Sorry for the BIG words . . .

And you are working under the misconception that Rome is without error and the true church.

Please show me the Word Scapular in the Bible?

Sorry about the whole Faith in Yeshua Alone thing…

 

[CWBetts]

And you are working under the misconception that Rome is without error and the true church.

Please show me the Word Scapular in the Bible?

Sorry about the whole Faith in Yeshua Alone thing…

Show me where in the Bible where it says what books are supposed to be in the Bible?

 

[Follow_Yeshua]

Show me where in the Bible where it says what books are supposed to be in the Bible?

Show me in the bible where an Obelisk ( a figure of sun worship representing well I won’t say)
should be placed in the outer Court of the Church that Jesus Christ Started?

Show me in the bible where we are to pray to Mary?

Show me in the bible where I am to call a religious leader Holy Father?

Show me in the bible where it says a Woman would appear all over the world and furthermore morph herself into the ethnicity of her host countries?? Guadalupe, Akita, Lourdes…etc? Where?

You know CW, it works both ways. School may teach you “history” as prepared by Mammon …but who are they? Are we to put our trust in man? Do I trust what St. Simon Stock thought? Or Clement? Or Innocent? Or furthermore Constantine? Do I look to TD Jakes for my spiritual needs? I see the hook jiggling in front of me but I won’t bite. You have your own Bible its called the CCC which is a set of rules that does NOT conform to the teaching of Yeshua the Christ himself. Because in my opinion there is only one Holy City and the prophets of old bear witness to her and her name is

Jerusalem!
Hallelujah!

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Show me in the bible where an Obelisk ( a figure of sun worship representing well I won’t say)
should be placed in the outer Court of the Church that Jesus Christ Started?

uh-boy

Show me in the bible where we are to pray to Mary?

You are the one who has a Bible alone stance. So why do you hold us to a standard that we do not affirm? Furthermore why do you hold us to a standard that even you do not hold to? Repeated what the other poster asked, show us from the Bible what books are to make up the canon of Scripture. I am going to assume that since you were unable to answer the question and instead tried to throw mud against the wall with talk of sun worship that you are unable to do so.

You know CW, it works both ways. School may teach you “history” as prepared by Mammon …but who are they?

Reported

Are we to put our trust in man?

I have. Haven’t you? Is Christ not a man? Is He not perfectly 100% man? The question isn’t why I or CWBetts has placed our trust in a man, but why you haven’t.

I pray that your spirit and your charity will change.

God bless you