The Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament

[PRmerger]

LOL!
That in no way implies that the Scriptures are not involved.

Excellent. That’s very Catholic of you to say.

I repeat:
I never stated that everything to be believed … is in the Bible.

Again, this is commendable for you to say. And very Catholic.

I stated that God is consistent. Anything that he does or says is always consistent with the things that he has already done and said. I compared the Bible to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the US. Everything, that God did or will ever do, lines up with Scripture … Just as all laws in US jurisdictions must line up with the founding documents.

I love this metaphor.

And in your metaphor who is the Supreme Court?

Our Supreme Court, if we follow this metaphor, is the Magisterium, whose job is to interpret the law, so to speak.

Who does the interpretation in your metaphor?

In several earlier posts I pointed out that, in the book of Amos, God uses the plumb line as an illustration of how he views his word. I also pointed to where Jesus stated clearly, when being accused of driving out a demon by the power of satan, Jesus said NO kingdom can stand if it disagrees with itself … and he clearly demonstrates that the rules are God’s rules … even for satan. In fact … The the entire book of Matthew (where the story is recorded) is written in a specific way, stating/ pointing out specific scriptures of the Old Testament, as verification of what God/ Jesus is doing as the events of the New Testament unfold on the page. Matthew is the very first book in the New Testament … God could have designed it in any way that he wanted … It is very significant … and exactly within God’s established pattern … that God considered it crucial that the words and events recorded in Matthew line up specifically and exclusively with what he had previously said and done.

Right.

And the ONLY way that you know that Matthew is an inspired book is because another authority discerned this for you.

 

[1voice]

Quote:
In several earlier posts I pointed out that, in the book of Amos, God uses the plumb line as an illustration of how he views his word. I also pointed to where Jesus stated clearly, when being accused of driving out a demon by the power of satan, Jesus said NO kingdom can stand if it disagrees with itself … and he clearly demonstrates that the rules are God’s rules … even for satan. In fact … The the entire book of Matthew (where the story is recorded) is written in a specific way, stating/ pointing out specific scriptures of the Old Testament, as verification of what God/ Jesus is doing as the events of the New Testament unfold on the page. Matthew is the very first book in the New Testament … God could have designed it in any way that he wanted … It is very significant … and exactly within God’s established pattern … that God considered it crucial that the words and events recorded in Matthew line up specifically and exclusively with what he had previously said and done.

Right.

And the ONLY way that you know that Matthew is an inspired book is because another authority discerned this for you.

I look at it this way… God honors those that honor him. The people that were involved in the development of the Bible were given that position by God alone… it had nothing to do with religious affiliation. It had to do with character. It is in the same way that God honored Martin Luther who stood for the integrity of God’s word and consequently was used by God to re-establish the fundamental truth God had intended the Bible to proclaim.
I dont believe that God honors religion. God honors those that follow his word with integrity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Which contradicts this…

“I dont believe that God honors religion. God honors those that follow his word with integrity.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, new reformed theology. Definately not oldline Lutheran.

 

[PRmerger]

In several earlier posts I pointed out that, in the book of Amos, God uses the plumb line as an illustration of how he views his word.

Amen!

I also pointed to where Jesus stated clearly, when being accused of driving out a demon by the power of satan, Jesus said NO kingdom can stand if it disagrees with itself …

Yes!

and he clearly demonstrates that the rules are God’s rules … even for satan

Quite!

In fact … The the entire book of Matthew (where the story is recorded) is written in a specific way, stating/ pointing out specific scriptures of the Old Testament, as verification of what God/ Jesus is doing as the events of the New Testament unfold on the page. Matthew is the very first book in the New Testament … God could have designed it in any way that he wanted …

Indeed!

It is very significant … and exactly within God’s established pattern … that God considered it crucial that the words and events recorded in Matthew line up specifically and exclusively with what he had previously said and done.

To be sure!

I look at it this way… God honors those that honor him. The people that were involved in the development of the Bible were given that position by God alone…

Yes!

And who were these people, 1voice?

Were they Lutherans? Were they Seventh Day Adventists? Were they Methodists?

Or were they bishops? Catholic bishops?

it had nothing to do with religious affiliation.

That’s absurd. These men were not Zoroastrian. They were not Jews. They were not Jains.

They were nothing but CATHOLIC.

It had to do with character

.

Okay.

It is in the same way that God honored Martin Luther who stood for the integrity of God’s word and consequently was used by God to re-establish the fundamental truth God had intended the Bible to proclaim.

You do know, as Jharek proffered, that Martin Luther honored the Blessed Virgin Mary and was very CATHOLIC in his beliefs, yes?

I dont believe that God honors religion. God honors those that follow his word with integrity.

There’s a false dichotomy you’re offering here, 1voice. If one follows his word then one is a Christian. That is, a member of a religion.

 

[1voice]

This is a typical example of taking a word or two out of a sentence that I write, add an assumption or two, and then using it to create a persona that has nothing whatever to do with me.

 

[1voice]

1voice. If one follows his word then one is a Christian. That is, a member of a religion.

Judaism is an example of a religion. Jesus rejected Judaism. God wants a personal relationship with every person as he did with Paul and Mary and Martha an Lazarus and …

 

[PRmerger]

Judaism is an example of a religion.

Yes, it is. I don’t think anyone here is arguing that it’s not.

Jesus rejected Judaism.

That, 1voice, is again something that you believe because you heard a man say it, but you never read that in a single page of Scripture.

Jesus did not reject Judaism. As if.

Do you not know that he observed the Passover? How is that a rejection of Judaism?

He fulfilled Judaism. But he did not reject it.

God wants a personal relationship with every person as he did with Paul and Mary and Martha an Lazarus and …

Yep. And that’s what religion is for. That’s why we have the Christian religion. So we can have a personal relationship with Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Yep. And that’s what religion is for. That’s why we have the Christian religion. So we can have a personal relationship with Christ.

And, I might add, what could be more *personal *than having a One Flesh Union with Christ.

You can’t say that you can have this in your religion, now, can you, 1voice?

 

[adrift]

WRONG! No where does the Bible state the Bible came first…no where! ORAL teachings came first followed by writing. If the Bible came first, tell me what Bible did Abraham use and show me one place where Abraham quotes the Bible,if the Bible came first according to God? Remember…God…not 1voice.

I missed this. Nicea is right. One thing I would add is that the Oral teaching was first Tradition. Oral tradition is from God just as the Written form of Tradition is.

Nicea makes a valid point that Adam until the first written scripture around 1300 b.c. no one would have had a bible. To make the statement that Bible came first assumes that it dropped from the sky. Oral tradition came first. Jesus did not say to write anything. He said to preach.

 

[Nicea325]

I missed this. Nicea is right. One thing I would add is that the Oral teaching was first Tradition. Oral tradition is from God just as the Written form of Tradition is.

Nicea makes a valid point that Adam until the first written scripture around 1300 b.c. no one would have had a bible. To make the statement that Bible came first assumes that it dropped from the sky. Oral tradition came first. Jesus did not say to write anything. He said to preach.

It is common sense and logical. The Jews were also like many civiliations were everything was passed-on orally (catechesis) for centuries.

 

[Nicea325]

Herees reality.
I clearly/ repeatedly… answered the question. You dont want to hear it.

… or just dont get it… not sure which.

God bless …

And here is another reality of life: You have done nothing of the sort…perhaps you should stop trying to convince yourself and accept the hard facts of life you have not answered the question posed at you many pages back. I will be more than happy to post your words per verbatim. Say when…

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is a typical example of taking a word or two out of a sentence that I write, add an assumption or two, and then using it to create a persona that has nothing whatever to do with me.

Strange to read this coming from someone who posted the following:

Clearly written in the Bible:

"This, then, is how you should pray: “'Our Father in heaven” …
Matt 6:9

“ask in my name”
John 13:14

“Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.”
John 16:24

“pray to the Lord”
Matt 9:38

---

I’ve already pointed out (twice) that nowhere in John 13:14 do the words “ask in my name” appear - not even in the King James version. And what is presented above is “a typical example of taking a word or two out of [a Bible passage] and then using it to create a [claim] that has nothing whatever to do with [the Bible]” and in one case changing the words COMPLETELY.

My goodness. :nope:

(I am using my prerogative to change my mind and will be posting in this thread again.)

 

[LittleSoldier]

Judaism is an example of a religion. Jesus rejected Judaism. God wants a personal relationship with every person as he did with Paul and Mary and Martha an Lazarus and …

Where does it *clearly *state in the Bible that “Jesus rejected Judaism” and that “God wants a personal relationship with every person as he did with Paul and Mary and Martha an Lazarus and…”?

I would also like to submit that it appears that you are basing your belief that Jesus rejected religion on a mistaken assumption that Jesus rejected Judaism (even though He and His own mother were Jewish). Please *clearly *tell me if I am wrong because I am finding your posts very difficult to understand, but this is what I am seeing:

(1) Judaism is a religion. (true)
(2) Jesus rejected Judaism. (false)
(3) Ergo, I don’t believe that God honors religion. (false and does not logically follow from the premises as stated, even if they were both true).

I probably did that wrong as I am just starting to learn Logic. But something isn’t kosher about your thinking, IMHHHO.

I would also like to submit that Jesus built a church. A Church. It says so in the Bible. I’m sure you know exactly where it is. And as Jesus is God (I *do *hope you believe that Jesus is God; I’ve read a few of your posts which make me think that you don’t), it should be crystal-clear that He honors religion highly. In fact, He gave His Church the ability to withstand any and all attacks from the gates of hell. That sounds like honor to me. He also gave Peter (the first Pope) the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and gave His Church the power to bind and loosen. Wow - that is a LOT of honor!

The Bible also states that the Church is the Body of Christ. Quite an honor, indeed!

As for religion, here are a couple of definitions:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

---

This isn’t an actual dictionary definition but I like what it has to say:

What is the meaning of religion?

Religion is a fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a group of people. These set of beliefs concern the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and involve devotional and ritual observances. They also often contain a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Christianity has always stressed a personal relationship with God as the touchstone of religion. When God created Adam and Eve, He walked with them in the Garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, and enjoyed their fellowship. Religion was, and still is, a close, personal, and satisfying relationship with the creator God.

Down through the ages men have devoted their entire life to enjoying this personal relationship with a God who loves the fellowship of human beings. Abraham was called the ‘friend of God’ in 2 Chronicles 20:7 and James 2:23. Genesis 18:17 – “Then the Lord said, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?’” Exodus 33:11 says, “The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.” David is called a man after God’s own heart in 1 Samuel 13:14 and Acts 13:22. The list is endless.

Blaise Pascal (French Mathematician, Philosopher, and Physicist 1623-1662) said, “There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the creator, made known through Jesus.”

Christianity is more than a religion; it is a relationship with Jesus Christ. John 15:9 says, “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now continue in my love.” John 15:15, “I have called you friends.” John 17:24, “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am.” John 15:13, “Greater love has no one than this that he lay down his life for his friends.” In John 10, Jesus makes several statements demonstrating His deep love for us – “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. I know my sheep and my sheep know me – and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

Jesus summarized the true meaning of religion in Matthew 22:37-40, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.”

allaboutreligion.org/meaning-of-religion-faq.htm
[bolding & underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

Christianity is a religion and more. But if you take away the religious aspect you are left with shreds that do not lead one to a close, meaningful relationship with God and with His people. This is where I was wrong about Catholicism. I thought I had it all figured out with just following Jesus’ two Great Commandments. But I was wrong because I failed to take into consideration that I need to be in communion with all other Christians. A personal relationship with God *has *to take that into account. After all, all Christians on earth are part of the Communion of Saints. God didn’t just create me - He created every human being who has ever lived. We are all cells in Jesus’ Body and we have to interact with each other. Cells that do not interact with other cells in the same body DIE.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I missed this. Nicea is right. One thing I would add is that the Oral teaching was first Tradition. Oral tradition is from God just as the Written form of Tradition is.

Nicea makes a valid point that Adam until the first written scripture around 1300 b.c. no one would have had a bible. To make the statement that Bible came first assumes that it dropped from the sky. Oral tradition came first. Jesus did not say to write anything. He said to preach.

I always get a picture in my mind of a Bible, wrapped in gold, with a big bow, floating down to earth on a cloud. I’d like to know what language it was written in so that Adam and Eve could read it - assuming there was even a need to read!

Each piece of Scripture, by itself, is not the Bible. The Bible is an accumulation of Scripture put together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So actually, no one had a Bible until the 5th century. A.D. I’m sure teachings were written down (Paul sent letters, after all) and in probably many more languages than Hebrew and Greek (Aramaic?) but those teachings were not put together in actual book-form until the Church did so.

 

[PRmerger]

I always get a picture in my mind of a Bible, wrapped in gold, with a big bow, floating down to earth on a cloud. I’d like to know what language it was written in so that Adam and Eve could read it - assuming there was even a need to read!

I think what would make this even more picturesque is adding to your image a dove carrying the ribbon in his golden beak. Wouldn’t that make it more sublime?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think what would make this even more picturesque is adding to your image a dove carrying the ribbon in his golden beak. Wouldn’t that make it more sublime?

Oh yeah! I love that! And the dove has a golden aura around it - like a halo.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh yeah! I love that! And the dove has a golden aura around it - like a halo.

And an angelic choir singing Handel’s Messiah.

Or, do you think a golden harp would be more appropriate?

 

[Woody87]

I am new to this site, but I thought that if no one has already quoted this for you that you might want to read it. Hippolytus was a important theologian of the third century. He states that Jesus not Mary is the ark. Which is interesting and something I think I believe. Though I do like the point of the guy on the first page who was saying that we also have become the ark through the grace of God. I am sorry if this has already been brought up, but this thread is wicked long.

Hippolytus says “He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption” (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235])

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am new to this site, but I thought that if no one has already quoted this for you that you might want to read it. Hippolytus was a important theologian of the third century. He states that Jesus not Mary is the ark. Which is interesting and something I think I believe. Though I do like the point of the guy on the first page who was saying that we also have become the ark through the grace of God. I am sorry if this has already been brought up, but this thread is wicked long.

Hippolytus says “He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption” (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235])

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/&sa=U&ei=-CuVT_-PL9CN6QHKxvmHBA&ved=0CBEQFjAA&sig2=kFk2Wt-dD00uoBHratWNyA&usg=AFQjCNGXK3DZuDrfFs7liV38BnqPnMm3sw

Why would you choose to believe his quote and disregard “all” the others?

The Ark in Revelations 11 is in Heaven last verse. Followed by 12 “Woman” which before the KJV there were no seperation of Chapters.