The Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament

[PRmerger]

successors of the apostles, right?..not actual apostles

What’s the difference?

Isn’t the successor to a prince a prince?

Wasn’t the successor to President Lincoln another president?

 

[Zenas]

No, they don’t…It seems that when Luke wanted to make a connection between Elijah and John the Baptist (in Luke 1 exactly) he just said it plainly. In contrast, however, I am supposed to believe that when he wanted to make a connection between the Ark and Mary (in that very same chapter) he resorted to dropping hints? That makes no sense and the hints aren’t even that good. How long did it take the early church fathers to figure out Luke’s code? …and today it seems that Catholic Venerators feel obliged to fudge or enhance the hints so that they appear to be better than they actually are The alleged connection isn’t believable.

I’m getting in on this discussion late but I have to take issue with this. Luke is utterly fascinated with lifting language out of the Old Testament and applying it to his gospel. Most of it is from 1 Samuel but not all of it. In addition to the disputed ark of the covenant passages, you have these:

Mary’s Magnificat in Luke 1, which is very similar to Hannah’s song in 1 Samuel 2.

The men of Beth-shemesh said, “Who is able to stand before the LORD, this holy God? 1 Samuel 6:20. In Luke 1:19 the angel says: “II am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God.” Luke takes the rhetorical question of the men of Beth-shemesh and answers it with the angel Gabriel who is able to and does stand before God.

Compare 1 Samuel 2:26, “Now the boy Samuel was growing in stature and in favor both with the LORD and with men,” with Luke 2:52, “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.”

Finally we have Luke ripping off 1 Kings 17:23 when he tells about Jesus raising the dead man in Luke 7:15. “Elijah . . . gave him to his mother.” 1 Kings 17:23. “Jesus gave him back to his mother.” Luke 7:15.

The above list is not exhaustive, it is simply all the instances I have found in which Luke uses language in the O.T. to portray a point in his gospel. The practice is so pervasive it cannot have been done inadvertently.

 

[Radical]

Where can I go for your pastor’s theological views?

well, since my pastor is busy, I guess you’ll have to talk to me …stinks to be you

 

[Radical]

That’s a very nebulous answer for such an important concept.

It would appear that you’re not quite sure how you know that Hebrews is inspired…except that “somebody” told you?

as I said before…I don’t KNOW that it is inspired, it is by FAITH that I treat it as inspired

Really? You base the Word of God on “somebody”, some nebulous creature’s decision?

here is a bit of a news flash…we don’t KNOW who wrote many of the books of the bible(Hebrews included)…we don’t KNOW who worked in their preservation…there is a lot of nebulous stuff out there, but the difference between us is not what we can KNOW about the history of the formation of the OT and the NT, the difference is that you think that you have an infallible source (other than God himself)…and I don’t

 

[stewstew03]

well, since my pastor is busy, I guess you’ll have to talk to me …stinks to be you

Better to remain a moving target… eh, Radical?

 

[stewstew03]

as I said before…I don’t KNOW that it is inspired, it is by FAITH that I treat it as inspired

here is a bit of a news flash…we don’t KNOW who wrote many of the books of the bible(Hebrews included)…we don’t KNOW who worked in their preservation…there is a lot of nebulous stuff out there, but the difference between us is not what we can KNOW about the history of the formation of the OT and the NT, the difference is that you think that you have an infallible source (other than God himself)…and I don’t

The difference is that our pillar and foundation of truth is the Church. Your truth foundation appears to be some “nebulous stuff out there.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

as I said before…I don’t KNOW that it is inspired,** it is by FAITH that I treat it as inspired**

here is a bit of a news flash…we don’t KNOW who wrote many of the books of the bible(Hebrews included)…we don’t KNOW who worked in their preservation…there is a lot of nebulous stuff out there, but the difference between us is not what we can KNOW about the history of the formation of the OT and the NT, the difference is that you think that you have an infallible source (other than God himself)…and I don’t

Doesn’t Faith require reason? Otherwise its just credulity. Augustine said that, you can argue with him if you’d like.

So you don’t know if the Holy Spirit worked in their preservation?

Define “nebulous stuff”.

So you don’t have an infallible source to make you believe without a doubt that the Bible is the written Word of God???

You sound more like an atheist

What do you believe?

 

[1voice]

Not sure what this means.

I’m going to simply assume, 1voice, that you are not claiming to be infallible, and thus when I assert that you agree with Catholics when they agree with your own fallible, personal interpretation of Scripture that you would agree.

And if you’re fallible, (which isn’t an offensive comment, yes? I think that’s what the Scripture verse you’re citing is trying to say?) why should anyone follow your prone-to-error interpretation?

I understand what you are saying … I also understand that your default position is that Catholic teaching is infallible and there is no debate.
You stand on what you believe to be infallible teaching and tradition. I stand on the words clearly stated on the page in the Bible. I am confident in God’s word. God said that He sent the Holy Spirit to teach and to guide. I trust my relationship with the Holy Spirit. I dont depend on myself. I realize that you reject that.

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
You dont see the difference? … between Jesus being born to Mary … and praying to Mary:
“O Holy Mother of God; to thee we lift our prayers for thou, powerful and merciful, art the Mediatrix of our salvation.” Leo XIII: Encycl., Jucunda semper

Indeed Mary *is *the Mediatrix of our salvation. Jesus came through her.

There is no way around that, if you are a believer in the Incarnation.

Just like there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, for it is ONLY through the Catholic Church that you have been able to hear the Good News. The Church has been the mediatrix of the Gospel for 2000 years.

Do you think that the word ‘mediatrix’ as used in the quote refers exclusively to the incarnation?

 

[PRmerger]

Do you think that the word ‘mediatrix’ as used in the quote refers exclusively to the incarnation?

It refers exclusively to the fact that Jesus came THROUGH Mary, and thus, Mary is the mediatrix, she who bore Him and then delivered Him to us.

Now, even if it referred exclusively to the Incarnation, (and perhaps it does), how does that matter?

The Incarnation is the beginning of the* only important thing *that ever occurred in this universe, so her part in that is not to be dismissed, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

well, since my pastor is busy, I guess you’ll have to talk to me …stinks to be you

Ah, I see then.

I think my point has been received by you and understood with great clarity. There is no source that we can go to to confirm what you believe Scripture is saying, what you believe God has revealed to us.

You have no other authority except your own fallible (which, by definition means it’s GOING TO BE WRONG) interpretation of the Word of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1voice perhaps since you have mentioned twice you were within the Catholic Faith for a period. Can you explain to us what became the issue? Somehow its seems to relate to Incarnation/Intercession thus Our Ladys place in the order of Grace.

So what don’t you believe and do you believe. And what convinced you this was indeed correct?

 

[LittleSoldier]

1voice - you basically just cut & paste from this anti-Catholic website.

Did you see the picture of the “priest?” Rather snarky, IMHO.

Context is important. And when the truth is deliberately distorted to fit a narrative it’s dishonest. Dishonesty is the moral equivalent of lying. Satan is the father of lies. And, as we know…

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 7:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Amen!

 

[LittleSoldier]

“God has committed to the Blessed Virgin Mary the treasury of all good things in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace and all salvation.” …
Pius IX: Encycl., Ubi primum

Please 1voice, the broken-record technique is well-known and shows only that you have no real defense. You just keep postin’ those quotes - out of context, as has already been shown to you.

You have already admitted that Mary is a kind of the Ark of the Covenant and that we are, in a way, the Ark of the Covenant. I agree that we are all a kind of the Ark of the Covenant. But it seems that you want Mary - who never sinned, who is the Theotokos, who literally carried the Christ within her body both physically and spiritually (something you cannot even claim in truth), to be a lesser Ark of the Covenant than people who sin and do terrible things - who are unholy. You know what happens to those who are impure who touched the original, built Ark of the Covenant - they were struck dead on the spot.

Mary is the Ark of the Covenant - the PERFECT Ark of the Covenant as seen and reported by John in Revelation. To deny this is to deny the Bible itself.

 

[1voice]

It refers exclusively to the fact that Jesus came THROUGH Mary, and thus, Mary is the mediatrix, she who bore Him and then delivered Him to us.

Now, even if it referred exclusively to the Incarnation, (and perhaps it does), how does that matter?

The Incarnation is the beginning of the* only important thing *that ever occurred in this universe, so her part in that is not to be dismissed, yes?

I never implied that Mary’s giving birth to the Savior was not important.
That is not the focus…

This statement about Mary’s role as mediatrix indicates far more than that…

… "our manner of praying to the Blessed Virgin has something in common with our worship of God so that the Church even addressed to her the words with which we pray to God: ‘Have mercy on sinners.’” Leo XIII: Encyclical, Augustissimae

 

[Luvtosew]

I never implied that Mary’s giving birth to the Savior was not important.
That is not the focus…

This statement about Mary’s role as mediatrix indicates far more than that…

… "our manner of praying to the Blessed Virgin has something in common with our worship of God so that the Church even addressed to her the words with which we pray to God: ‘Have mercy on sinners.’” Leo XIII: Encyclical, Augustissimae

Well we all agree that the BVM is very special no doubt about that, but Luke always comes to mind

Luke 11:27-28

New International Version (NIV)

27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

I think we always have to follow the word of God.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Well we all agree that the BVM is very special no doubt about that, but Luke always comes to mind

Luke 11:27-28

New International Version (NIV)

27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

I think we always have to follow the word of God.

Actually Jesus praised Mary with those words.

 

[Radical]

I’m getting in on this discussion late but I have to take issue with this. Luke is utterly fascinated with lifting language out of the Old Testament and applying it to his gospel.

I think that you are far too optimistic in this regard. Some time ago, to demonstrate how easy it is to find Luke’s alleged fascination with creating a hidden “Ark” message by importing wording from the OT, I produced this proof that Stephen is, in fact, the new Ark:

a) Stephen is brought before the assembly of the religious leaders of God’s people (Acts 6:12) and the religious leaders of God people are assembled before the Ark of the Covenant (the AC) (2 Chron 5:2)

b) The Lord appeared upon the mercy seat of the AC (Lev 16:2) and the Lord appeared to Stephen just before he died (Acts 7:56)

c) Stephen was full of God’s power (Acts 6: 8) and the AC was called the Ark of God’s power (2 Chron 6:41)

d) Stephen did miraculous things among the people (Acts 6:8) and the AC did miraculous things among the people (drying up the Jordan at Jos 4:15-16, striking Uzzah dead at 2 Sam 6:7)

e) Stephen had the face of an angel (Acts 6:15) and the AC had angels on its lid (2 Chron 5:7)

f) Stephen saw the glory of God above him and the AC had God’s glory fill the temple area above it (2 Chron 5: 14)

g) The last record of Stephen’s existence on earth is at Jerusalem and the last record of the AC’s existence on earth is at Jerusalem.

h) Stephen’s last recorded resting place was amongst stones and the last recorded resting place of the AC was amongst the stones that formed the temple.

i) The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth. Stephen has disappeared and no trace of him can be found anywhere on earth

j) The Jews shouted in front of Stephen (Acts 7:57) and the people shouted before the AC (2 Sam 6:15)

k) Stephen asks God to forgive the people for their sin (Acts 7:60) in stoning him and Solomon in dedicating the temple with the AC inside of it asks God to forgive the people for their sin (2 Chron 6:27).

Personally, I don’t think my proof is any weaker (or more contrived) than the one that has been produced regarding the Mary-Ark connection

Most of it is from 1 Samuel but not all of it. In addition to the disputed ark of the covenant passages, you have these:

here’s another one:

2 Sam 24:21: And Araunah said, Wherefore is my lord the king come to his servant?

Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?

The practice is so pervasive it cannot have been done inadvertently.

so Luke did not inadvertently connect David going to see Araunah with Mary going to see Elizabeth? …why did he do that?..was he really saying that Mary was looking to buy a thrashing floor from Elizabeth? Personally, I think it is as simple as the case being that, if one is determined to do so, then one will usually be able to find common words and phrases in two different works.

 

[Luvtosew]

+JMJ+

Actually Jesus praised Mary with those words.

“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

He didn’t even mention Mary nor did he praise her in that sentence, nothing to do with Mary there, but the word of God.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I think that you are far too optimistic in this regard. Some time ago, to demonstrate how easy it is to find Luke’s alleged fascination with creating a hidden “Ark” message by importing wording from the OT, I produced this proof that Stephen is, in fact, the new Ark:

a) Stephen is brought before the assembly of the religious leaders of God’s people (Acts 6:12) and the religious leaders of God people are assembled before the Ark of the Covenant (the AC) (2 Chron 5:2)

b) The Lord appeared upon the mercy seat of the AC (Lev 16:2) and the Lord appeared to Stephen just before he died (Acts 7:56)

c) Stephen was full of God’s power (Acts 6: 8) and the AC was called the Ark of God’s power (2 Chron 6:41)

d) Stephen did miraculous things among the people (Acts 6:8) and the AC did miraculous things among the people (drying up the Jordan at Jos 4:15-16, striking Uzzah dead at 2 Sam 6:7)

e) Stephen had the face of an angel (Acts 6:15) and the AC had angels on its lid (2 Chron 5:7)

f) Stephen saw the glory of God above him and the AC had God’s glory fill the temple area above it (2 Chron 5: 14)

g) The last record of Stephen’s existence on earth is at Jerusalem and the last record of the AC’s existence on earth is at Jerusalem.

h) Stephen’s last recorded resting place was amongst stones and the last recorded resting place of the AC was amongst the stones that formed the temple.

i) The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth. Stephen has disappeared and no trace of him can be found anywhere on earth

j) The Jews shouted in front of Stephen (Acts 7:57) and the people shouted before the AC (2 Sam 6:15)

k) Stephen asks God to forgive the people for their sin (Acts 7:60) in stoning him and Solomon in dedicating the temple with the AC inside of it asks God to forgive the people for their sin (2 Chron 6:27).

Personally, I don’t think my proof is any weaker (or more contrived) than the one that has been produced regarding the Mary-Ark connection

Yep, can’t see anything wrong with that interpretation. St Stephen, and all Christians, are the new Arks of the Covenant too.