The Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament

[PRmerger]

Just
… too hard for me …

I think I sense a little bit o’ pride welling up in that statement, 1voice. Sarcasm notwithstanding.

If I took it incorrectly, I apologize.

At any rate, can you please address the post that asked how it is that you know when the Bible is silent on something if that means it’s forbidden (as in calling Mary a source of grace) or allowed (as in contraception).

I realize that I just only recently posted that question, but I am very interested in your response.

 

[GaryTaylor]

God’s word.

You would agree at this point there is also a very real history in Christianity/Judaism which coincides with the Greatest Book ever written?

 

[Luvtosew]

'zactly.

And just to be clear, the Word of God is not ONLY Scripture. It’s Scripture AND Tradition.

Unless you have a verse in the Bible that says that God’s Word is to be found ONLY in the Scriptures.

(We are giving tacit acknowledgement here that we all accept that JESUS is the true Word of God.)

Always the same debate questions I see, are they memorized? There is warnings all over the NT to be careful about swaying from from Scripture.

 

[Luvtosew]

Why are we going on the premise that the Ark of the Covenant is a person?

Has that premise been established?

Thanks.

No it certaintly hasn’t.

 

[Radical]

The problem with your proof is that there is no logical connection between Stephen and the Ark.

and that is exactly my point…a similar list of “connections” can be produced for someone who is obviously not the new Ark…so why should we give any credence to an argument that resorts to a (contrived) list to identify Mary as the new Ark? It seems that you think “logic” is the reason for placing value on the list produced for Mary

Stephen did not bear the “Bread of Life,”…

…and Mary carried the person (later identifed as the bread of life for a brief time) and not permenantly…if we are to resort to this sort of logic then it would seem that Jesus is the better candidate by far to be the new Ark. He is permenantly the Word, high priest and bread of life and the ark was to be the permenant home for corresponding symbols.

…and it certainly is not Stephen who appears in Heaven right after the only the only mention of the Ark in the N.T.

nor is Mary mentioned right after the only mention of the Ark in the NT…again, if logic is to be the key to this, then give me a sound logical reason why neither Luke nor the author of Revelation bothered to identify Mary as the new Ark…particularly when you want to argue that Luke made a considerable effort to make that exact connection. That being said, if some preacher wanted to suggest that the Ark served as a type for Mary, (and left it at that), then it would be an interesting, harmless suggestion. But that isn’t where the matter is left. From Mary being the Ark, it is argued that b/c the Ark was pure, Mary must also be pure and on that basis she is declared to be free of sin. It becomes a real problem when dogma is created on contrived connections.

Besides we have many centuries of tradition interpreting these passages to show the correlation betweem Mary and the Ark. That can’t be discounted.

how odd that you are so quick to absolutely discount the centuries (at the very start) when these interpretations were not in existence…centuries matter when it serves your purpose notice them and are then ignored when they go against the claim that you want to make.

Once again, there is no logical connection. On the other hand, 2 Samuel 6:9 goes rather nicely with the Luke 1:43 verse you have quoted.

it doesn’t go nicely at all. 2 Sam 6:9 is an expression of fear/dread and is followed by David NOT bringing the Ark to himself in Jerusalem, but storing the Ark elsewhere. Elizabeth doesn’t express dread at the arrival of Mary…Elizabeth doesn’t store Mary elsewhere. Your connections are achieved by selectively looking at what

 

[Luvtosew]

Let’s just say, for the sake of this discussion, that 3 John does make a reference to God or Jesus. And that it was written by an apostle (although you still haven’t addressed that question as to how you know it was written by an apostle, because it doesn’t say that it was.)

Are those the criteria you used to discern whether something is the inspired word of God?

If so, then how do you know that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired, Luv? It certainly mentions Jesus–lots more than 3 John. And it was written by an apostle.

So why don’t you believe the Gospel of Thomas is the inspired word of God?

The books of the NT were established by 170 Ad and closed. Those books authors were unclear and deicided to be non inspired. 3 John was also in question but they let it in, so its in the bible.

 

[Luvtosew]

Well, as people here are objecting to our devotion to Mary, and not to Jesus, OF COURSE we are going to be defending Mary and not Jesus.

If someone were to object to Catholic teaching on Jesus you can bet your patootie that I’d be defending Jesus.

It all depends upon what the objection is, you know?

yes I know you love Christ and would defend him with your life, but I’m sorry most of the RC teachings on Mary are just fabricated, she was the BVM, a servant of Christ. She is blessed and worthy of respect. Seems funny there is no mention of her except at the beginning of Acts when they received the HS.

I am not dishonorig her by saying she is The BVM , a Jewish virgin girl who God found favor with to carry the flesh of Jesus Christ.

 

[1voice]

I think I sense a little bit o’ pride welling up in that statement, 1voice. Sarcasm notwithstanding.

If I took it incorrectly, I apologize.

At any rate, can you please address the post that asked how it is that you know when the Bible is silent on something if that means it’s forbidden (as in calling Mary a source of grace) or allowed (as in contraception).

I realize that I just only recently posted that question, but I am very interested in your response.

I wasnt being sarcastic. At least that was not the intention.
I am responding to the fact that as soon as I say that the Bible is my source … Invariably the response (not just from you) is how can you know for sure … or… that we are not able to know if we are interpreting correctly/ slippery slope argument / pride comes before the fall … etc.
When I respond that I reallly honestly do have the same relationship with God that Brother Lawrence of the Ressurection knew and enjoyed … people dont respond … or just ignore or think, yeah right. … or just continue with the same thing they were saying up to that point, as if to say … so what… it hasnt helped you think straight. .

As for the rest. I have an appointment in Banks OR … long drive … will respond later…

 

[PRmerger]

Always the same debate questions I see, are they memorized?

Not sure why this is a point of contention with you. I have seen over and over again (numbering in the hundreds) a basic list of objections to Catholicism.

There are numerous ways to approach and refute these objections, and some of them overlap, and some of them bear repeating, and some of them are new in a specific context of a specific thread, and…

really, God help me if I say something really new, you know?

The Truth has been spoken already. 2000 years ago.

It’s just my job to repeat it as often as it needs to be repeated to those who have not heard it.

There is warnings all over the NT to be careful about swaying from from Scripture.

Could you cite them, please?

And, while that’s an interesting tributary, I want you to cite any place that the Scriptures say that God’s Word is contained ONLY to the Bible–which was my original question to you.

Can you cite them, please?

 

[PRmerger]

The books of the NT were established by 170 Ad and closed.

Who established them, Luv?

Was it MEN? Yes, or no?

Those books authors were unclear and deicided to be non inspired. 3 John was also in question but they let it in, so its in the bible.

Who “decided” this, Luv?

Again, was it MEN? Catholic men? Catholic bishops?

Of course it was.

So each and every time you quote the Bible you are giving tacit approval to the authority of the Church in deciding something for you.

 

[PRmerger]

Seems funny there is no mention of her except at the beginning of Acts when they received the HS.

And who decided that a person’s importance in revelation is based upon how many times she is mentioned in the Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

I am responding to the fact that as soon as I say that the Bible is my source …

Your source of what? Truth?

Where does the Bible say that it should be your source?

When I respond that I reallly honestly do have the same relationship with God that Brother Lawrence of the Ressurection knew and enjoyed … people dont respond … or just ignore or think, yeah right. … or just continue with the same thing they were saying up to that point, as if to say … so what… it hasnt helped you think straight.

.

Huh? Never heard of Brother Lawrence.

 

[Luvtosew]

Not sure why this is a point of contention with you. I have seen over and over again (numbering in the hundreds) a basic list of objections to Catholicism.

There are numerous ways to approach and refute these objections, and some of them overlap, and some of them bear repeating, and some of them are new in a specific context of a specific thread, and…

really, God help me if I say something really new, you know?

The Truth has been spoken already. 2000 years ago.

It’s just my job to repeat it as often as it needs to be repeated to those who have not heard it.

Could you cite them, please?

And, while that’s an interesting tributary, I want you to cite any place that the Scriptures say that God’s Word is contained ONLY to the Bible–which was my original question to you.

Can you cite them, please?

Actually all the stuff about the BVM has evolved over the years and the same with most things. I’ve read a lot of early church stuff also, and I am aware that very early in the 1st century there was much controversy about everything.

177Ad Clement of Alexandris, Stromata 7.16 -do not accept any teaching that is not clearly taught in the Scriptures. It must be proven logically and completely from the Scriptures or it is just and opinion. Anyone who divides the body of Christ with opinions is sinning against the body of Christ.

Anything that is written after the NT is not to be taught , plan and simple. Read the very early church people they quote the NT .

Can you give me verses to prove the Trinity, but its everywhere in the NT and even in the OT, same with warning of heretics and foolish speculations is in the NT, many places warn about men changing and adding to the Scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually all the stuff about the BVM has evolved over the years and the same with most things.

Yes, it is good that you understand this. So to dismiss something because it “has evolved” is to dismiss the Trinity.

You do believe in the Trinity, right? Even if it’s not in the Bible? Even if the dogma evolved over the centuries?

So I’m curious why you would dismiss the teachings on the BVM because they’ve evolved, but not dismiss the Trinity.

Anything that is written after the NT is not to be taught , plan and simple. Read the very early church people they quote the NT .

Does that include the Trinity?

 

[Luvtosew]

Yes, it is good that you understand this. So to dismiss something because it “has evolved” is to dismiss the Trinity.

You do believe in the Trinity, right? Even if it’s not in the Bible? Even if the dogma evolved over the centuries?

So I’m curious why you would dismiss the teachings on the BVM because they’ve evolved, but not dismiss the Trinity.

Does that include the Trinity?

The trinity is all over the NT , may verses lead to it.The trinity was defined in 325 due to Constantines insistance, but before that it was believed by most, except of course gnostics.

The BVM history evolved.
431 Theotokos- I uncerstand she needed a title since Jesus was God and Man
1300 rosary
1508 Ave Maria approved
1850 Immaculate Conception
1950 Assumption
1965 Queen of Heaven.
the Ark of the Covenant
Mother Church
New Eve
Full of Grace
15 promises of the Rosary
Mediatrix- is that official??

 

[PRmerger]

The trinity is all over the NT ,

Heh.

As Bishop Fulton Sheen liked to say, “Mary is on every page of the Bible” as well.

So whatever your objections to Mary you must also apply to the Trinity.

And whatever allowances you make for the Trinity being “all over the NT”, you must also cede to Mary.

 

[Luvtosew]

Heh.

As Bishop Fulton Sheen liked to say, “Mary is on every page of the Bible” as well.

So whatever your objections to Mary you must also apply to the Trinity.

And whatever allowances you make for the Trinity being “all over the NT”, you must also cede to Mary.

No I don’t see it, sorry PR. Mary is not on every Page, Christ is.

 

[PRmerger]

No I don’t see it, sorry PR. Mary is not on every Page, Christ is.

Why are you holding 2 different standards, Luv? You don’t see Christ literally on every page. You even made a great assumption about an entire book in the NT (3 John). You don’t see the Trinity “all over the NT”, except in shadows and hints. (If it truly were “all over” then Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons wouldn’t be arguing to the contrary).

But you can’t see Mary on every page? She’s there–you just have to look for her with the same eyes you use to see Jesus there and the Trinity there.

 

[Luvtosew]

Why are you holding 2 different standards, Luv? You don’t see Christ literally on every page. You even made a great assumption about an entire book in the NT (3 John). You don’t see the Trinity “all over the NT”, except in shadows and hints. (If it truly were “all over” then Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons wouldn’t be arguing to the contrary).

But you can’t see Mary on every page? She’s there–you just have to look for her with the same eyes you use to see Jesus there and the Trinity there.

I will get you some scriptures that point to the trinity. But no I have never seen Mary the way you do, May has never jumped off a page for me. Of course I grew up saying the Hail Mary. she was never more than the BVM to me. Actually I hate to say this, but when I see pics of her with a jeweled crown on and all decked out I cringe, and I cringe worst when I see pictures of her with a baby on her lap and yes even a lamb. Just hits a sore note with me. The way I see it Jesus is eternal , always was and always will be and Mary is a creation of God, Jesus before Mary, but I still think Mary is very special to Jesus of course, as our parents are to us. I do think Calvary was just horribly painful for her, as its a nightmare to even imagine. So I think she indured much pain for her position, and I’m sure she is of course very special in heaven, and happy, and right by Jesus.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is part of the problem with those who go by the Bible alone for their doctrines.

Sometimes they have the paradigm: if it’s not in the Bible then it’s forbidden (as you are saying here regarding Mary)

But!

Then they also have the paradigm: if it’s not in the Bible then it’s allowed (as many say regarding contraception.)

How do you decide when the Bible is silent if that indicates it’s permissible or if it’s forbidden?

And, unfortunately, the ending of the Gospel of John is ignored.