Sinless Mary and the Bible

[Sime]

The trinity, God’s omnipotence and omniscience are clearly demonstrated within the pages of Scripture. “Bible” isn’t a relevant argument (take a look in your local Barnes & Noble and you could find a “bible” for computers, printers, high tech devices, and other things besides what we are discussing here). Bible is what the compilation of the different books are called (not a scriptural concept). I have already addressed the question of the canon (or list of books that make up the books of the Bible). I suggest you take a closer look at what I’ve already said about Scripture and “adding to what is written”.

True, God’s omnipotence and omniscience are clearly demonstrated in scripture even though it’s not explicitly stated. The reason I used the analogy was since in one of your posts you asked, “Where in Scripture does it say that Mary is the second Eve or that she is sinless?” So in that statement you were implying that something must be explicitly stated in scripture in order for it to be true. Now you arguing the other way, and implying that something doesn’t need to be explicitly stated. You just demonstrated and admitted that something doesn’t have to be explicitly stated in scripture in order for it to be true. As far as “adding to what is written”; the canon is closed because the Church made that decision. If you want to get technical, the “adding to what is written” statement applies to the book of Revelation alone; which was written long before the canon was established. So it was an authority outside of scripture (the Church) that determined the canon.

President Lincoln and President Kennedy both had a vice president named Johnson. Both were assassinated (shot in the back of the head). Both had their wives present when they were shot. Both assassins had 3 names (John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald). Both assassins were killed before they could stand trial. What does this mean? We may never know for sure. As humans, we have an innate ability to find patterns, parallels, etc… in almost anything. Conclusions aside, I can take your same list of parallels and substitute “Church” for “Mary” and still have a valid list of parallels, only the conclusion would differ. The question I would ask is “Did God inspire anyone to make these connections directly within Scripture in the same way they made the connection between Adam and Jesus?” The answer I come up with is “No!”

The parallels I offered were held by the early Church because they read scripture using typology. And yes, there are parallels between Mary and the Church as well. Mary after all, gave birth to Jesus, and the Church is His body, and therefore the Blessed Mother “gave birth” to the Church as well. You have to remember also that not all Jesus said and did is written in scripture. Scripture itself teaches that it is the Church that is the foundation and pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

By golly, you got me. I guess since Mary is the only woman Jesus ever called “woman”, then I have to agree with everything you’ve said. Oh, wait a minute. Mary ISN’T the only woman Jesus addressed as “woman” (there was a Samaritan woman in John 4, a woman caught in the very act of adultery in John 8, and even a woman in the synagogue in Luke 13). Are these women also your mother?

True, the difference is that the other examples you mentioned are normative examples of how one addressed a female with respect outside of one’s family. The term ‘woman’ was not a derogatory term but one of respect. This however was not the usual way one would address their mother and is unprecedented. Second, those other women did not carry God in their womb. Third, the bible doesn’t say that those other women would be called “Blessed” by ALL generations. Fourth, scripture doesn’t say that those other women have souls that magnify the Lord. Fifth, those other women were not chosen to be the mother of the Lord. Mary alone was chosen out of all the women in world throughout history, who had ever lived and will live, to be the mother of Jesus.

Sorry. Don’t see it. I could see the Levites who carried the Ark as a type of Mary (I believe they were the Korahites), but I don’t see her as the Ark. Plus (you can probably guess what’s coming), the Scriptures do not make this connection (just like the “new Eve” claim). I’m not sure if this is related to the topic, but when was the earliest documented use of Rev 11 or 12 in relation to Mary? I have found a commentary from the 3rd or 4th century, but Mary is not mentioned in either chapter. I would say that makes any claim of “Apostolic Tradition” highly questionable.

I think it’s more fair to say that you don’t want to see it, rather than saying “you don’t see it.” For example, the presence of God was inside the ark (not inside the Levites). Jesus was inside Mary. The presence of God overshadowed and then indwell the ark, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and indwelled Mary. The ark contained the ten commandments (the word of God in stone, the golden urn of mann, and Aaron’s rod (symbol of the priesthood). In Mary was the Word of God made flesh, the living bread from heaven, and the eternal priest. The ark travelled to Judah, Mary ravelled to Judah. The ark remained in Obed-edom for 3 months, Mary remained at Elizabeth’s for 3 months. And the list goes on. At least show me as many scriptural parallels between the ark and the Levites and then we can compare; if you’re going to use that argument.

I think the earliest written mention about Mary being the ark was Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) and Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

Gregory the Wonder Worker: “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. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
“O Virgin Mother of God, Gate of heaven, and Ark, in thee I have a secure salvation. Save me out of the pure mercy (δωρεάυ, gratis), O Lady” (Precat. ix. Opp. Gr. et Lat. Tom. iii. P. 522) (Blessed Virgin, p. 294).

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).

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

St. Athanasius (c. 296-373)
“Be mindful of us, most holy virgin, who after childbirth didst remain virgin; and grant to us for these small words great gifts from the riches of they graces, O thou full of grace. Accept them as though they were true and adequate praises in they honor; and if there is in them any virtue and any praise, we offer them as a hymn from ourselves and from all creatures to thee, full of grace, Lady, Queen, Mistress, Mother of God, and Ark of sanctification” (Orat. In Deip. Annuntiat, nn. 13, 14. Int. Opp. S. Athanasii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 80).

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. Dionysius (died 264)
“As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother” (S. Dionysius of Alexandria, Respons. ad Quoest. v. Pauli Samos) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

St Dionysius (died 264)
“Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God” (Ib. ad Quoest. vii. In calling Mary σκηνλχειροποιη ο, the Saint implies that she was of an election and origin altogether singular and exceptional. The word occurs three times in the New Testament (Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1, Col. Ii. 11), and in each case denotes what is of singular and divine origin. See also Heb. ix. 11, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

 

[Sime]

I find the following from the Fragments of the lost writings of Irenaeus(c 125 AD - c. 202 AD) -

VIII. For(1) as the ark [of the covenant] was glided within and without with pure gold, so was also the body of Christ pure and resplendent; for it was adorned within by the Word, and shielded without by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be clearly shown forth.

and

XLVIII. As(1) therefore seventy tongues are indicated by number, and from(2) dispersion the tongues are gathered into one by means of their interpretation; so is that ark declared a type of the body of Christ, which is both pure and immaculate. For(3) as that ark was gilded with pure gold both within and without, so also is the body of Christ pure and resplendent, being adorned within by the Word, and shielded on the outside by the Spirit, in order that from both [materials] the splendour of the natures might be exhibited together

Seems to me that another ECF (from an earlier date) thought the Ark of the Covenant was a type of Jesus (I’m sure you know there are other ECF’s that taught the same thing). Rather than get into a “My ECF’s are more correct than yours!”, I’ll just say that I take what they say into consideration in so far as it agrees with the written word (Scripture). I do not believe the ECF’s were infallible, nor do I believe any of them were always right.

Now compare what St. Irenaeus wrote about the ark and what the other ECF said about the ark: Notice the SAME LANGUAGE used by St. Irenaeus to describe the ark and that of the Early Church Fathers to describe the ark (The Blessed Mother)

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).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

Gregory the Wonder Worker: “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. Dionysius (died 264)
“As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother” (S. Dionysius of Alexandria, Respons. ad Quoest. v. Pauli Samos) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

St Dionysius (died 264)
“Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God” (Ib. ad Quoest. vii. In calling Mary σκηνλχειροποιη ο, the Saint implies that she was of an election and origin altogether singular and exceptional. The word occurs three times in the New Testament (Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1, Col. Ii. 11), and in each case denotes what is of singular and divine origin. See also Heb. ix. 11, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

St. Athanasius (c. 296-373)
“Be mindful of us, most holy virgin, who after childbirth didst remain virgin; and grant to us for these small words great gifts from the riches of they graces, O thou full of grace. Accept them as though they were true and adequate praises in they honor; and if there is in them any virtue and any praise, we offer them as a hymn from ourselves and from all creatures to thee, full of grace, Lady, Queen, Mistress, Mother of God, and Ark of sanctification” (Orat. In Deip. Annuntiat, nn. 13, 14. Int. Opp. S. Athanasii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 80).

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).

It is clear that St. Irenaeus was referring to Mary, even though in the FRAGMENTS she is not identified by name. LOOK at the language also used by the other early Church Fathers use to describe Mary noted above that St Irenaeus used:

Gregory the Wonder Worker: “wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary”

“gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification”

“St. Cyril (315-387?) “The Ark would be the type and image of Christ” and “and the wood of it was imperishable, and with pure and choicest gold”

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"

This is the same language that St Irenaeus uses to describe the ark, i.e. materials, a type of and image Christ, glided within and without with pure gold,

It is clear from these examples and the language used within them that St. Irenaeus was referring to Mary - "full of grace, Lady, Queen, Mistress, Mother of God, and Ark of sanctification” . St. Athanasius

 

[Cachonga]

Sime:

I think it’s more fair to say that you don’t want to see it, rather than saying “you don’t see it.” For example, the presence of God was inside the ark (not inside the Levites). Jesus was inside Mary. The presence of God overshadowed and then indwell the ark, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and indwelled Mary. The ark contained the ten commandments (the word of God in stone, the golden urn of mann, and Aaron’s rod (symbol of the priesthood). In Mary was the Word of God made flesh, the living bread from heaven, and the eternal priest. The ark travelled to Judah, Mary ravelled to Judah. The ark remained in Obed-edom for 3 months, Mary remained at Elizabeth’s for 3 months. And the list goes on. At least show me as many scriptural parallels between the ark and the Levites and then we can compare; if you’re going to use that argument.

It doesn’t appear as though you read my response to Randy Carson. As I pointed out, Irenaeus taught that the Ark of the Covenant was a type of Jesus (and there are other ECF’s that taught that). I generally don’t rely on the ECF’s because the only things we can really learn from them is that they were not infallible, they were not always correct, and they had much greater freedom in what they taught and believed than Catholics do today (not sure if that’s a good thing, but they still had that freedom).

BTW, your reference from St. Cyril (315-387?) indicates that he also taught the Ark was a type for Jesus, and your last 2 references from St. Dionysius (died 264) indicates that he taught Mary was the tabernacle, not the ark.

I think the earliest written mention about Mary being the ark was Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) and Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373).

Perhaps I wasn’t clear before. I wasn’t asking when Mary was first compared to the Ark. I’ll try and restate my question as clearly as I can - What is the earliest documented comparison of the Ark in Rev 11 with Mary? What is the earliest documented comparison of the woman of Rev 12 with Mary?

 

[Sime]

It doesn’t appear as though you read my response to Randy Carson. As I pointed out, Irenaeus taught that the Ark of the Covenant was a type of Jesus (and there are other ECF’s that taught that). I generally don’t rely on the ECF’s because the only things we can really learn from them is that they were not infallible, they were not always correct, and they had much greater freedom in what they taught and believed than Catholics do today (not sure if that’s a good thing, but they still had that freedom).

BTW, your reference from St. Cyril (315-387?) indicates that he also taught the Ark was a type for Jesus, and your last 2 references from St. Dionysius (died 264) indicates that he taught Mary was the tabernacle, not the ark.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear before. I wasn’t asking when Mary was first compared to the Ark. I’ll try and restate my question as clearly as I can - What is the earliest documented comparison of the Ark in Rev 11 with Mary? What is the earliest documented comparison of the woman of Rev 12 with Mary?

I’ll have to do a bit of research regarding Rev 12 and get back to you on that.

The type and image of Christ that St Cyril refers to is Mary, just as the the rest of the early Church Fathers identify her as the ark. St Cyril said “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.”

Just as St. Hippolytus said"

" 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”

So to paraphrase, “the ark came from the ark”. That is why the Church Fathers said the ark is the type and image of Christ.

As for St Dionysius, He refers to Mary as the tabernacle, where the ark was placed. no contradiction there. She is referred to as the temple, the ark, the tabernacle etc.

 

[Sime]

It doesn’t appear as though you read my response to Randy Carson. As I pointed out, Irenaeus taught that the Ark of the Covenant was a type of Jesus (and there are other ECF’s that taught that). I generally don’t rely on the ECF’s because the only things we can really learn from them is that they were not infallible, they were not always correct, and they had much greater freedom in what they taught and believed than Catholics do today (not sure if that’s a good thing, but they still had that freedom).

BTW, your reference from St. Cyril (315-387?) indicates that he also taught the Ark was a type for Jesus, and your last 2 references from St. Dionysius (died 264) indicates that he taught Mary was the tabernacle, not the ark.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear before. I wasn’t asking when Mary was first compared to the Ark. I’ll try and restate my question as clearly as I can - What is the earliest documented comparison of the Ark in Rev 11 with Mary? What is the earliest documented comparison of the woman of Rev 12 with Mary?

By the way, since you want to use history to prove your argument. Can you show me the earliest documented proof that shows the early Church believed what you believe, worshipped as you worshipped? And please don’t say the bible. Prove by the earliest documents that what you believe and how you interpret scripture is the the same as the early Church.

 

[PoorKnight]

Nice sentiment, but I can’t find anywhere in the Law of Moses where someone can make a sin offering on behalf of someone else.

Job 1:4-5
4 And his sons went and held a feast in the house of each one upon his day; and they sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. [R] +]
5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

Sin offerings for others…

 

[PoorKnight]

Before I begin, I want you to remember this: In the Old Testament, one could die just for touching the ark of the covenant (1Ch 13:10) (1 Sm 6:1-2).

Now you may ask, "how is that relevant to the Blessed Mother? Compare the Old and New Testament passages.

God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then indwelled the Ark. The Ark became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Exodus 40:34-35] God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and the indwelled Mary. At that time Mary’s womb became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Luke 1:35].

The Ark contained the 10 Commandments [the words of God in stone], a pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that came back to life [Deuteronomy 10:3-5; Hebrews 9:4]. The womb of the Virgin contained Jesus: the living Word of God enfleshed, the living bread from heaven, “the Branch” (Messianic title) who would die but come back to life [Luke 1:35].

The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judah to rest in the house of Obed-edom [2 Samuel 6:1-11]. Mary traveled to the hill country of Judah (Judea) to the home of Elizabeth [Luke 1:39]

Dressed in a priestly ephod, King David approached the Ark and danced and leapt for joy [2 Samuel 6:14]. John the Baptist, son of a priest who would himself become a priest, leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the approach of Mary [Luke 1:43].

David shouted for joy in the presence of God and the holy Ark [2 Samuel 6:15]. Elizabeth exclaimed with a loud cry of joy in the presence God within Mary [Luke 1:42].

David asked, “How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?” [2 Samuel 6:9]. Elizabeth asks, “Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” [Luke 1:43].

The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for 3 months [2 Samuel 6:11]. Mary remained in the house of her cousin Elizabeth for 3 months [Luke 1:56].

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the Ark [2 Samuel 6:11]. The word “blessed” is used 3 times in Luke 1:39-45 concerning Mary at Elizabeth’s house.

The Ark returned to its sanctuary and eventually ends up in Jerusalem where the presence and glory of God is revealed in the newly built Temple [2 Samuel 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11]. Mary returned home from visiting Elizabeth and eventually comes to Jerusalem, where she presents God the Son in the Temple [Luke 1:56; 2:21-22].

As you can plainly see, scripture identifies Mary as the ark of the New Covenant. Remember, in the old Testament you could die just for touching the ark. We know that ‘types’ in the New Testament are greater than their counterparts of the Old Testament. For instance in (Romans 5:14) Adam is identified as a ‘type’ of Jesus. And in 1 Corinthians 15:45 Christ is referred to as the ‘last Adam’.

Here are a few more examples of biblical typology:

Peter uses Noah’s ark as a type of Christian baptism (1 Pt 3:18-22).
Paul explains that circumcision foreshadowed Christian baptism (Col 2:11-12).
Jesus uses the bronze serpent as a type of his Crucifixion (Jn 3:14; cf. Nm 21:8-9).
The Passover lamb prefigures the sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor 5:7).
Paul says that Abraham “considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back” (Heb 11:19).

Let’s talk about the construction of the ark for a moment. God was very specific about every exact detail of the ark (Ex 25-30). It was a place where God himself would dwell (Ex 25:8). God wanted his words—inscribed on stone—housed in a perfect container covered with pure gold within and without. The Old Testament tells us that one item was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant while in the Sinai wilderness: God told Moses to put the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inside the ark (Dt 10:3-5). Hebrews 9:4 informs us that two additional items were placed in the Ark: “a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded.”

Notice the amazing parallels: In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary’s womb was the Word of God in flesh. In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God’s people alive in the wilderness; in Mary’s womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life. In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary’s womb is the true priest.

It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.How much more would he want his Word—Jesus—to have a perfect dwelling place! If the only begotten Son were to take up residence in the womb of a human girl, would he not make her flawless?

In Chronicles Chapter 15 &16 we see awesome reverence (not worship) the jews had for the ark: veneration, vestments, songs, harps, lyres, cymbals, trumpets. So we now venerate the ark of the New Covenant (Mary).

We do not worship Mary. Remember that the ‘types’ of the New Testament are far greater that their counterparts in the Old Testament. Having a great love of Mary and veneration for her does not take anything away from Christ, in fact it honours Him as King. For in the Old Testament it was the Mother of the King who reigned as queen and was shown honour and respect by the King HimseLf (1 Kings 2:19), and the queen also acted as an intermediary (1 Kings 2:18).

Jesus is the King (Luke 1:32). That would make the Blessed Mother Queen. You should treat her accordingly. The Virgin Mary is the living shrine of the Word of God, the Ark of the New and Eternal Covenant.

The Blessed Virgin (the ark of the New Covenant and Queen of Heaven) was entrusted to St. John (John 19:27). Then in Rev 11:9 St. John writes:

“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple.”

We know the temple spoken of is Jesus (John 2:21). Then he mentions the ark of the covenant. What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven?
“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child” (Rv 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rv 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.

This woman is the Mother of all Christians, for her offspring are those who keep God’s commandments and bear testimony to Jesus (Rev 12:17). It is interesting to note that whenever Our Lord addressed His Mother in scripture He used the term “woman”. Eve was also called ‘woman’ by Adam; and Eve meant ‘mother of all the living’. Just as the ‘woman’ in Rev 12:17 is said to be the mother of all Christians. Mary is also the “New Eve”, for she is the Mother of all Christians.

The Bible begins with a real man (Adam), a real woman (Eve), and a real serpent (the devil)—and it also ends with a real man (Jesus, the Last Adam [1 Cor 15:45]), a real woman (Mary, the New Eve [Rv 11:19-12:2]), and a real serpent (the devil of old). All of this was foretold in Genesis 3:15.

I mean this in the greatest love: If Protestants read Sacred Scripture in anything but a Modern American context, this would be Game, Set, Match…

But since Christianity is “Sola Americana”…

 

[PoorKnight]

President Lincoln and President Kennedy both had a vice president named Johnson. Both were assassinated (shot in the back of the head). Both had their wives present when they were shot. Both assassins had 3 names (John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald). Both assassins were killed before they could stand trial. What does this mean? We may never know for sure. As humans, we have an innate ability to find patterns, parallels, etc… in almost anything. Conclusions aside, I can take your same list of parallels and substitute “Church” for “Mary” and still have a valid list of parallels, only the conclusion would differ. The question I would ask is “Did God inspire anyone to make these connections directly within Scripture in the same way they made the connection between Adam and Jesus?” The answer I come up with is “No!”

By golly, you got me. I guess since Mary is the only woman Jesus ever called “woman”, then I have to agree with everything you’ve said. Oh, wait a minute. Mary ISN’T the only woman Jesus addressed as “woman” (there was a Samaritan woman in John 4, a woman caught in the very act of adultery in John 8, and even a woman in the synagogue in Luke 13). Are these women also your mother?

So Sacred Scripture now contains ‘Coincidences’ huh? Heck I learned from being a protestant that “there are no ‘co-incidences’. Only ‘God-incidents’!”

Then I guess the whole bit in Gen 3:15 with Mary being prophesised is just ‘co-incidence’ too.

Hey, maybe ALL the prophesies of the Old Testament are co-incidence. Then we should all become Jewish. Or is it just the prophesies that YOU believe are real, are real; and the ones YOU think are co-incidence are just co-incidence.

Hmm… question: are you infalibly proclaiming the corolations in Sacred Scripture to be mere ‘co-incidence’?

 

[Sime]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear before. I wasn’t asking when Mary was first compared to the Ark. I’ll try and restate my question as clearly as I can - What is the earliest documented comparison of the Ark in Rev 11 with Mary? What is the earliest documented comparison of the woman of Rev 12 with Mary?

First, I would like to clarify that the Church has never denied that Rev 12 speaks of the Church. John’s use of rich symbolism is well known, but it is obvious from the Bible itself that the ‘woman’ is Mary. The Bible begins with a real man (Adam), a real woman (Eve), and a real serpent (the devil)—and it also ends with a real man (Jesus, the Last Adam [1 Cor 15:45]), a real woman (Mary, the New Eve [Rv 11:19-12:2]), and a real serpent (the devil of old). All of this was foretold in Genesis 3:15.

Although there is no specific or explicit “written” mention among the Church Fathers as Mary being the ‘woman’ in Rev 12, that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t believed or taught to the faithful.
The early Church had always taught that Mary is the ark of the New Covenant; and the ark is seen by St John at the end of Rev 11 just before the the ‘woman’ of Rev 12 is mentioned.

St… Irenaeus of Lyons, writing about A.D. 189 seems to describe the Virgin Mary’s womb when he says:

Again, there are those who say, “He is a man, and who shall know him?”(14) and, “I came unto the prophetess, and she bare a son, and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God;”(15) and those [of them] who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, [born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He [nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chap. 33, paragraph 11.)

If the Virgin Mary’s womb is ‘that pure womb which regenerates men unto God’, then that would seem to make her the mother of “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev 12:17) and thus the woman of Revelation 12.

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)

“With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib *, a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon. For in that ark [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror. There was then a mystery revealed, in that Dagon was brought low in his own place of refuge. The accomplishment came after the type, in that the wicked one was brought low wherein he trusted…Fulfilled was the mystery. Blessed is He who by the true Lamb redeemed us, and destroyed our destroyer as He did Dagon”

This quote by St. Ephrem does seem to allude to Rev 12. The “rib and ark” is in reference to Mary (a reversal of what had happened in Genesis). The “hidden power, the book, the mystery” that arose from the “rib and ark” is Jesus. The dragon is obviously Satan. Satan is only referred to as “the dragon” in the book of Revelation. At the end of Rev 11, and just prior to the beginning of Rev 12 and the ‘woman’ who is mentioned, the ark is seen in heaven by St John; the Bible was not written with chapter divisions, they were added in the 12th century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.

For further reading see: matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html*

 

[GraceSofia]

GraceSophia, You’re right. I was the one who took this off topic. Sorry. It happens sometimes. If you want to start a thread on Mary’s virginity, I may join in and go into greater detail. I will just make a quick comment on your last comment –

Are you saying that conception and birth are the same thing?

No.

 

[Sime]

Baptism was not required by the law. Also, this was a turning point for Jesus, from His private life into His public ministry.QUOTE]

I think you missed the point; the point was that although Jesus did not require baptism He nevertheless was baptized by John; even though He had no sins to repent of. In the same manner, Mary fulfilled the law, seeing as she was born under the law.

This is what Luke tells us was done. Notice, though, that one of the turtledoves was still a sin offering.

Mary, like every other Jew of her time, was born under law. In other words, under the old covenant, she had to obey the 10 Commandments and all the ceremonial laws given by God through Moses. Thereby fulfilling the law.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sime]

Baptism was not required by the law. Also, this was a turning point for Jesus, from His private life into His public ministry.

This is what Luke tells us was done. Notice, though, that one of the turtledoves was still a sin offering.

The Law was given by God for a reason. If He required a sin offering for childbirth, there was a reason, and He certainly was aware that Mary would give birth to Jesus when He gave the Law to Moses. I see no reason to believe that Mary is some kind of exception to the Law. She obviously made a sin offering. Logically, she would either have to have had sin before the offering, or she bore false witness against herself (which is a sin) and was a sinner because of the offering. Of course, when you redefine “sin”, you can ignore the consequences.

I think you missed the point; the point was that although Jesus did not require baptism He nevertheless was baptized by John; even though He had no sins to repent of. In the same manner, Mary fulfilled the law, seeing as she was born under the law.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth.

Mary, like every other Jew of her time, was born under law. In other words, under the old covenant, she had to obey the 10 Commandments and all the ceremonial laws given by God through Moses. Thereby fulfilling the law.

You keep falling back on the same argument:“if it isn’t written in scripture then we must assume it isn’t true”. However the same thing could be said of many protestant beliefs. The the list of inspired texts is NOWHERE to be found in the New Testament. So how do you know with absolute certainty (based on what is written in scripture) that those books that make up the NT are the inspired Word of God since they are not even mentioned in scripture? Who decides if they are indeed the inspired texts? You? And by what authority do you make your claim?

 

[Sime]

The trinity, God’s omnipotence and omniscience are clearly demonstrated within the pages of Scripture. “Bible” isn’t a relevant argument (take a look in your local Barnes & Noble and you could find a “bible” for computers, printers, high tech devices, and other things besides what we are discussing here). Bible is what the compilation of the different books are called (not a scriptural concept). I have already addressed the question of the canon (or list of books that make up the books of the Bible). I suggest you take a closer look at what I’ve already said about Scripture and “adding to what is written”.

President Lincoln and President Kennedy both had a vice president named Johnson. Both were assassinated (shot in the back of the head). Both had their wives present when they were shot. Both assassins had 3 names (John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald). Both assassins were killed before they could stand trial. What does this mean? We may never know for sure. As humans, we have an innate ability to find patterns, parallels, etc… in almost anything. Conclusions aside, I can take your same list of parallels and substitute “Church” for “Mary” and still have a valid list of parallels, only the conclusion would differ. The question I would ask is “Did God inspire anyone to make these connections directly within Scripture in the same way they made the connection between Adam and Jesus?” The answer I come up with is “No!”

By golly, you got me. I guess since Mary is the only woman Jesus ever called “woman”, then I have to agree with everything you’ve said. Oh, wait a minute. Mary ISN’T the only woman Jesus addressed as “woman” (there was a Samaritan woman in John 4, a woman caught in the very act of adultery in John 8, and even a woman in the synagogue in Luke 13). Are these women also your mother?

Sorry. Don’t see it. I could see the Levites who carried the Ark as a type of Mary (I believe they were the Korahites), but I don’t see her as the Ark. Plus (you can probably guess what’s coming), the Scriptures do not make this connection (just like the “new Eve” claim). I’m not sure if this is related to the topic, but when was the earliest documented use of Rev 11 or 12 in relation to Mary? I have found a commentary from the 3rd or 4th century, but Mary is not mentioned in either chapter. I would say that makes any claim of “Apostolic Tradition” highly questionable.

Clearly written? Your trying to tell me that the definition of the Blessed Trinity is found clearly within scripture? The definition of the Holy Trinity: One God, three persons, all eternally coexistent with each other. That the Holy Spirit is Divine and the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, and that it proceeded from the Father and the Son as most Christian churches profess? We know this definition and this term, not because it is in the Holy Bible, but because Christ’s Church, which embraced the only Christian Faith for the first 1000+ years of Christianity taught us this.

And as humans we have a tendency to not see what is plainly there to see. And of course you would be able to make certain parallels between Mary and the Church. Mary gave birth to Jesus, and the Church is His body; so in essence Mary gave birth to the Church as well (all the faithful).

The fact that the samaritan, adulterous and the woman in the synagogue were all addressed as ‘woman’ does not deny or detract from Mary’s identity as the woman in Rev 12. Just as the faithful who are called son’s of God (Galatians 3:26) doesn’t negate or deny the fact that Jesus is the Son of God.

It is not surprising that you don’t see it. “Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.” Matthew 13:12

As for the earliest reference to Mary as being the woman in Rev 12:

St… Irenaeus of Lyons, writing about A.D. 189 seems to describe the Virgin Mary’s womb when he says:

Again, there are those who say, “He is a man, and who shall know him?”(14) and, “I came unto the prophetess, and she bare a son, and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God;”(15) and those [of them] who proclaimed Him as Immanuel, [born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely THAT PURE WOMB WHICH REGENERATES MEN UNTO GOD, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He [nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chap. 33, paragraph 11.)

If the Virgin Mary’s womb is ‘that pure womb which regenerates men unto God’, then that would seem to make her the mother of “those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev 12:17) and thus the woman of Revelation 12.

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)

“With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib *, a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon. For in that ark [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror. There was then a mystery revealed, in that Dagon was brought low in his own place of refuge. The accomplishment came after the type, in that the wicked one was brought low wherein he trusted…Fulfilled was the mystery. Blessed is He who by the true Lamb redeemed us, and destroyed our destroyer as He did Dagon”

This quote by St. Ephrem does seem to allude to Rev 12. The “rib and ark” is in reference to Mary (a reversal of what had happened in Genesis). The “hidden power, the book, the mystery” that arose from the “rib and ark” is Jesus. The dragon is obviously Satan. Satan is only referred to as “the dragon” in the book of Revelation. At the end of Rev 11, and just prior to the beginning of Rev 12 and the ‘woman’ who is mentioned, the ark is seen in heaven by St John; the Bible was not written with chapter divisions, they were added in the 12th century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.*

 

[cc42]

Cachonga:

Cachonga:

The Trinity, Original Sin etc are demonstrated in scripture based upon ideas and concepts from scripture, so is the Immaculate Conception.

The Greek says that Mary was completely filled with grace indicating this was before the Annunciation. I don’t see where you deal with this point. You say she wa filled with grace at that point not before.

Paul also doesn’t talk about the Virgin Birth. Paul doesn’t talk much about Mary but that doesn’t mean that truths about her aren’t true.

Here’s another type: Adam was taken from pure ground that was later cursed. the New Adam would have to be taken from something pure which is not cursed. Mary being sinsless isn’t just a matter of speech which you make it to be when you say that she was purified at the Annunciation. These statements are dealing with universals not momentary instantiations.

You’re also making the Old Testament greater than the New with your arguments but we know that the New surpasses the Old.

 

[Cachonga]

Sime:

I’ll have to do a bit of research regarding Rev 12 and get back to you on that.

No hurry. This is more just a matter of curiosity to me. I seem to have wandered off topic again (sorry). In regard to what any ECF has said, we can both find ECF’s to support our favorite position, and we both know (I hope) that no ECF was infallible or always right about everything he addressed. That being the case, I don’t see a great deal of value in looking to ECF’s on a thread that deals with the Bible (like this one is supposed to be doing).

By the way, since you want to use history to prove your argument. Can you show me the earliest documented proof that shows the early Church believed what you believe, worshipped as you worshipped? And please don’t say the bible. Prove by the earliest documents that what you believe and how you interpret scripture is the the same as the early Church.

Sorry you misunderstood. I am not trying to prove my argument from history. Scripture is what I am looking at (which fits with the topic of this thread). I do seem to get off track rather easily lately (could be the new meds).

Although there is no specific or explicit “written” mention among the Church Fathers as Mary being the ‘woman’ in Rev 12, that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t believed or taught to the faithful.

Seems a little difficult for me to believe that anyone taught such a thing for centuries (apparently) and yet nobody wrote about it for a very long time (especially considering the amount of writing going on). This is the main reason I’m curious about when this first appears in writing (again, no hurry as it is off topic).

BTW – I have glanced at the link you gave (to matt1618), but haven’t had a chance to go over it in any depth. It will take me a couple of days (hopefully), but I promise I will go over it and see what is says (may not comment on this thread, but it may come up some other time).

I think you missed the point; the point was that although Jesus did not require baptism He nevertheless was baptized by John; even though He had no sins to repent of. In the same manner, Mary fulfilled the law, seeing as she was born under the law.

As I mentioned before, John’s baptism was not for forgiveness of sins (he did not have that authority from God). Furthermore, if this “repentance” is for sin, what of the times that God repented in the OT (surely you’re not accusing God of sin?)

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth

So when God’s written word says it’s a sin offering, that doesn’t mean it’s an offering for sin? I’m beginning to feel like I’m on a merry-go-round. Let’s see if we can’t simplify this. I don’t believe Mary was sinless because I don’t find anything in Scripture to convince me she was anything other than a normal human being (at least up until the angel greeted her). You (and many others here) believe she is sinless because your Infallible Magisterium says so (and only they can “infallibly” define and interpret both Scripture and Tradition, or so they claim, but that’s a story for another thread).

You keep falling back on the same argument:“if it isn’t written in scripture then we must assume it isn’t true”. However the same thing could be said of many protestant beliefs. The the list of inspired texts is NOWHERE to be found in the New Testament. So how do you know with absolute certainty (based on what is written in scripture) that those books that make up the NT are the inspired Word of God since they are not even mentioned in scripture? Who decides if they are indeed the inspired texts? You? And by what authority do you make your claim?

I’ve already addressed this in a previous post.

Clearly written? Your trying to tell me that the definition of the Blessed Trinity is found clearly within scripture? The definition of the Holy Trinity: One God, three persons, all eternally coexistent with each other. That the Holy Spirit is Divine and the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, and that it proceeded from the Father and the Son as most Christian churches profess? We know this definition and this term, not because it is in the Holy Bible, but because Christ’s Church, which embraced the only Christian Faith for the first 1000+ years of Christianity taught us this.

Heard it before. May not be relevant to the topic (Mary’s sinlessness, not the Trinity), but I have shown in the past the Biblical proof, and was then informed that the proof I gave was somehow completely missed by everyone until it was officially defined by the church.

And as humans we have a tendency to not see what is plainly there to see. And of course you would be able to make certain parallels between Mary and the Church. Mary gave birth to Jesus, and the Church is His body; so in essence Mary gave birth to the Church as well (all the faithful).

Following this line of reasoning (again, off topic, but I’ll address it anyway), then either Mary is NOT part of the Body of Christ, or she has somehow managed to give birth to herself.

The fact that the samaritan, adulterous and the woman in the synagogue were all addressed as ‘woman’ does not deny or detract from Mary’s identity as the woman in Rev 12. Just as the faithful who are called son’s of God (Galatians 3:26) doesn’t negate or deny the fact that Jesus is the Son of God.

It is the Roman Catholic who is using the term “woman” as an indication (or proof?) of claims made for Mary. If she was the only person Jesus ever addressed in this fashion, I would be inclined to agree that you might have a valid point. However, since He uses this term of other women, then what is it that makes Mary special when He uses it of her? You don’t need to answer (it doesn’t really address her sinlessness, so it’s not really on topic).

It is not surprising that you don’t see it. “Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.” Matthew 13:12

Not on topic.

As for the earliest reference to Mary as being the woman in Rev 12:

… and following …

Off topic, but I am looking for specific references, not “allusions”, “indications”, or even “pretty darn close!” I am aware that Scripture was not divided into chapters and verses until centuries after they were written. Still, it shouldn’t be a problem for an author to write something like “As John says in his Apocalypse, …” followed by a direct quote.

 

[Cachonga]

PoorKnight:

Job 1:4-5
4 And his sons went and held a feast in the house of each one upon his day; and they sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. [R] +]
5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

Sin offerings for others…

Nice try, but no cigar. Let’s review the problems with it –

1. Job lived before the Law was given.
2. Job was not a Levitcal priest, and so could not make a sin offering (according to the Law).

So Sacred Scripture now contains ‘Coincidences’ huh? Heck I learned from being a protestant that “there are no ‘co-incidences’. Only ‘God-incidents’!”

Where do I use the term “coincidence” in what I wrote? I pointed out some well known parallels between President’s Lincoln and Kennedy, but offered no conclusion (there are plenty out there to choose from). I then stated that I could take the list of parallels between Eve and Mary, substitute “Church” in place of “Mary” and still have a valid list of parallels. The point was, parallels are easy to find. The conclusions arrived at are what I question. Mostly, I question that if the conclusion is true, and it is something that Christians really need to know, why didn’t God inspire someone to include it when they were writing Scriptures? We certainly know about Jesus being the New Adam because it’s clearly stated in Scripture, and there was opportunity in Scripture for these things to have been included, even places where one might logically expect to read about such things (for example, when we first meet Mary in Scripture we learn she is a virgin, lives in Nazareth, and is engaged to marry Joseph, but there is not a single word about her having any vows or being free from all stain of sin from conception).

Then I guess the whole bit in Gen 3:15 with Mary being prophesised is just ‘co-incidence’ too.

Hey, maybe ALL the prophesies of the Old Testament are co-incidence. Then we should all become Jewish. Or is it just the prophesies that YOU believe are real, are real; and the ones YOU think are co-incidence are just co-incidence.

I’ll bet you could provide enough scare crows for the entire state of Kansas with all the straw men you’re building here. You brought up coincidences, so why are you accusing me of things I didn’t say?

Hmm… question: are you infalibly proclaiming the corolations in Sacred Scripture to be mere ‘co-incidence’?

This is off topic, but just to give you something to cogitate on, do you infallibly understand ANY infallible doctrine of the Church? For myself, I have never claimed infallibility (I have asked some close friends to “take care of me” if I ever do).

 

[Cachonga]

cc42:

The Trinity, Original Sin etc are demonstrated in scripture based upon ideas and concepts from scripture, so is the Immaculate Conception.

I disagree. I can find references to the Trinity and original sin easy enough, but I cannot find any such evidence for the immaculate conception.

The Greek says that Mary was completely filled with grace indicating this was before the Annunciation. I don’t see where you deal with this point. You say she wa filled with grace at that point not before.

I did deal with this. The tense of the verb only indicates the filling was at some point before the announcement, but there is nothing in the text, the word, the tense, the context, etc… that would cause me to believe this filling of grace happened at her conception. All anyone can really say, based on the Scripture evidence, is that Mary may have been filled with grace at some point in time before the angel spoke to her (I say “may” because, as Mary herself indicates (as recorded in Scripture), this was a greeting, not a declaration). Furthermore, being filled with grace doesn’t necessarily mean a person is sinless.

Paul also doesn’t talk about the Virgin Birth. Paul doesn’t talk much about Mary but that doesn’t mean that truths about her aren’t true.

What is the relevance of this?

Here’s another type: Adam was taken from pure ground that was later cursed. the New Adam would have to be taken from something pure which is not cursed. Mary being sinsless isn’t just a matter of speech which you make it to be when you say that she was purified at the Annunciation. These statements are dealing with universals not momentary instantiations.

Even IF Mary had to be sinless to be the mother of Jesus (I don’t believe that, but for the sake of the argument, let’s run with it), it doesn’t follow that this sinlessness had to be from her conception, or even all of her life. Just as God was able to purify the Ark of the Covenant for His use and glory (even though it was made from ordinary materials formerly owned and used by sinful people, many of whom never entered the promised Land), so too He could have purified Mary, making her sinless and fit for His purpose at any point in her life, regardless of her condition (or do you deny that God is able to do this?).

You’re also making the Old Testament greater than the New with your arguments but we know that the New surpasses the Old.

I find this an interesting accusation. Could you give an example?

 

[Nicea325]

Sorry if my point was confusing to you. Let me try again. We do not see anywhere in Scripture where Mary was ever baptized. However, as this was a common practice of the early church (which we DO know from Scripture), then it is not unreasonable to believe Mary was baptized.

Again,tell me where Scripture teaches explicitness? Can you tell me from the exact whereabouts of the 12 Apostles? Does scripture teach Thomas went to India?

On the other hand, since the Scripture does not tell us anything about Mary prior to the angel coming to her, then it is not unreasonable to believe that she was just like any other woman who was engaged to be married (including having original sin and other faults). To claim she was preserved from all stain of sin from conception is to go beyond the Scriptures.

Pure conjecture! Where does Scripture teach it is BEYOND God? You a mere finite creature are being the Judge of Divine Revelation and God your student. Who are you to claim 100% certitude God CANNOT and WOULD NOT preserve Mary from original sin?

Apparently, you were also confused about what I was saying about the canon of Scripture. Webster’s dictionary includes the following definition for the word “Canon” –

3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard]
a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture
b: the authentic works of a writer
c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works

Not at all! I have studied the canon extensivley and what you provided is the definition-and?

Note a and b are similar, in that God is the author of the Scriptures. Keep this in mind and reread what I said about the canon being found within the Scriptures.

Yes God is the author and He used humans as His instruments to write…nothing new as many other orthodox doctrines being defined. Oh that is right, a fallible church defining infallible doctrines? WRONG! You are the one confused. Show me the chapters and verses where it states a defined list and made OFFICIAL (And who made it official?) telling us which books should make up the NT canon?

I would recommend you examine some of my following posts, which will address other issues that you will very likely raise. Hope this helps.

Ok.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Post #22, Cachonga?

I will briefly state that Luke 2:24 says that they offered “a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:” (DR). Lev 12:6-8 describes this sacrifice, which applies to the mother **(note the use of the word “her” in these verses), **

**No, There is no use of HER in those verses – there is the use of THEM.
**
There is NOT A SINGLE Greek manuscript which has “her” there. The reference to the law which they were fulfilling was in Luke 2:22:

scripturetext.com/luke/2-22.htm

World English Bible
When the days of** their purification** according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord
Young’s Literal Translation
And when the days of their purification were fulfilled, according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present to the Lord,
ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 2:22 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
Καὶ ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν, κατὰ τὸν νόμον Μωϋσέως, ἀνήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα παραστῆσαι τῷ κυρίῳ,

Luke didn’t write her – because he KNEW better. Apologists who don’t read scripture carefully, Catholic or Otherwise, are doomed to misquote it.

It is a bad idea to walk into a USA theater and scream “FIRE!”
It is a bad idea to come to a Catholic site and insult their mother with false witness.

Logically, she would either have to have had sin before the offering, or she bore false witness against herself (which is a sin) and was a sinner because of the offering. Of course, when you redefine “sin”, you can ignore the consequences.

I didn’t redefine anything, he didn’t redefine anything.
And so this saying shall be verified: By your own words, you will be judged.
Every idle word one says…

Exodus 20:16

Protestant commentary:

Clarke’s Commentary on the BibleThou shalt not bear false witness, etc. - Not only false oaths, to deprive a man of his life or of his right, are here prohibited, but all whispering, tale-bearing, slander, and calumny; in a word, whatever is deposed as a truth, which is false in fact, and tends to injure another in his goods, person, or character, is against the spirit and letter of this law. Suppressing the truth when known, by which a person may be defrauded of his property or his good name, or lie under injuries or disabilities which a discovery of the truth would have prevented, is also a crime against this law. He who bears a false testimony against or belies even the devil himself, comes under the curse of this law, because his testimony is false. By the term neighbor any human being is intended, **whether he rank among our enemies or friends. **

This is well said.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I think you missed the point; the point was that although Jesus did not require baptism He nevertheless was baptized by John; even though He had no sins to repent of. In the same manner, Mary fulfilled the law, seeing as she was born under the law.

The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn’t imply a moral fault in childbirth.

And that presumes the Sin offering was for that reason – eg: by her – and Luke purposely evades that point. There is no reason to allow Cachonga to use the point without proving it.

Specifically, as Catholics we have the freedom to believe according to EXACTLY what is written, and not only what the author might have intended – but the Holy Spirit prevented from being written (with even the slightest error) … esp. in light of the Catholic Church teaching that Mary’s perpetual virginity was NOT violated even in childbirth.