The Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament

[GaryTaylor]

Even if we are consider St Hippolytus and his works which are similiar in many different areas. It still needs to be viewed in its context, and together with tradition, the early church fathers and scripture and history.

“Tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption” through this Grace of the Holy Spirit was able to generate “He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood.”

I can’t see how this relation equates to the human condition of today or since Adam and Eve either. I understand the theology in Jesus being in a Human/Divine condition, that the Humanity being the weak Flesh was the Ark of the Divinity, tough there was no spot of stain in neither Jesus nor Mary.

Or how this relates to mankind today in particular. If we are to think “The Spirit gives life to the Spirit” then yes at the end of the life of the Saints we can see this reality.

Even to view Bona Fide Saints for example Padre Pio, St Faustyna, St Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine of Siena and even today Bl JP-II. These Souls attended confession and reconciliation weekly, Prayer/church/eucharist constantly. Then, even though there is no doubt these Souls were Touched by God. They were subjected to the human condition. Until their death the perfection of Jesus in sinless could not be and was not obtained. Though some came very close and at different periods than others.

The more these souls moved toward the infinate of the Lord the more clearly they understood their inferior condition of the finite. Theresa of Avila called herself a “wicked sinner” so many times in her works, many of these statements were deleted through translation, as the point was well established and became redundant. 140X in one of her works she called herself a wicked sinner. And this was a Mother Superior of a Carmelite order, and one of the most gifted Mystics known to modern man.

To add the point of the previous post also…the Ark is in Heaven.

Who then is “Tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption” who is as Mary in this state of Grace given to Mary?

No-one, the point being there must have been the Ark of Covenant for God to dwell within obviously “before” he chose to dwell at all, no different than the OT or the NT. When the Holy Spirit dwelled within the Ark of the OT, the Ark was not the Holy Spirit. It was exempt from defilement and corruption as to hold the Holy Spirit. No different than Mary as we read “Tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption”

I see a closer relationship here between the OT-Ark and NT Ark-Mary.

I see a “similiar” connection in humans being the Ark though the process of Grace in life. As we see it with many Saints who were touched by the Lord and Grace flowed, no different that St Paul and his vision of Jesus. Nevertheless St Paul was very open to admit, this was just the start of his trial to know what it was to suffer on the Cross as Jesus did. Same with the majority of the Apostles and those who immediately followed, hundreds of years of the Blood of Gods Holy People sanctified the ground.

But to say we are the Ark, this would indicate “A Tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption”

This would bring more clarity as to our state of being, which is the physical world, which there are many concepts in definition; plague, the East used the word disease, evil, sin, fallen state of mankind, however, we choose to define this? We have it, we are in it, while Baptism brings us the Supernatural imposed Virtue of Grace/Faith we have responsibility to preserve this state. Which is an on-going state, in the chase or seeking Gods Kingdom.

Adam and Eve were created free of this state, Mary was preserved in time from it, and Jesus generated by conception through the HS were preserved from this state. There are no other Souls to date, known to mankind who fall into this catagory and none in the Bible.

To me this logic presents two different concepts both very different, and I see not where either is more relevant than the proposed being Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, be it history, tradition, or scripture.

Just Saying.

Peace

 

[LittleSoldier]

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])

Yeah, it is a long thread but although I have read about this on a site (I posted the link already - if you want me to I can find it again) I don’t remember discussing this specifically.

The concept of Jesus being the Ark of the Covenant is a well-known objection to the concept of Mary being the Ark of the Covenant. However, it would mean that God carries God. The original Ark of the Covenant contained the Word of God (which is God Himself), along with a symbol of the high priest, and manna. The Word of God is Jesus and so then you would have Jesus carrying God within Himself, which is true but rather roundabout and circular. Jesus is the High Priest and the Bread of Life. So, again, you would end up with Jesus carrying Himself, Himself, and Himself. Why would He need a vessel in which to carry Himself? The Ark is a vessel. Remember how God gave specific instructions for how the original Ark would be built? It must have been beautiful. It was a vessel which carried holy, sacred items.

Mary carried Jesus, not only in her womb, but His cells mixed with hers as hers mixed with His. Mary carried more than a symbol of the high priest but the High Priest Himself. And Mary carried Jesus - the Bread of Life. She carried all these items within her body - spiritually and physically.

Mary is the vessel. Jesus is the contents. And the two are intertwined in a mysterious and sacred way. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant - she carries Jesus. Although the Ark itself is of tremendous importance, that importance pales in comparison to what the Ark *contains. * Mary carried (and still carries) God within her. She is of tremendous importance but her importance pales in comparison to what she carried (carries) within her - Jesus, the Word, the High Priest, and the Bread of Life.

 

[LittleSoldier]

ADDENDUM TO ABOVE POST:

The following is a list of objections to the concept of Mary being the Ark of the Covenant and rebuttals to those objections. It comes from the website I posted before (post #550):

maryimmaculate.tripod.com/marian2.html

(1) Jesus is the new Ark of the Covenant (Romans 3:25), not Mary.

That passage states that Jesus is a propitiatory sacrifice, not the Propitiatory itself (the cover of the ark, also called the “mercy seat”). Though some early Christians speculated that the old ark could be a type of Christ, the Bible does not state that Jesus is the Ark of the New Covenant. Nor does it deny that Mary is the New Ark; in fact it strongly insinuates that she is.

The ark was a created thing, a mere vessel which carried the presence of God. Jesus is not just a vessel carrying God’s presence, He is God Incarnate. There’s a big difference! Mary, on the other hand, is a mere creature, a living vessel who carried the presence of God. She is to the New Covenant what the ark was to the Old Covenant. Though the Bible never portrays Jesus as the New Ark, we saw above that II Samuel 6:2-11 clearly parallels the Visitation thus indicating that Mary is the New Ark.

(2) John 1:14 says “the word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory.” In the Greek the word dwelt is “skeinoo” from the Hebrew word “shekinah” which was the word for “God residing in the Tabernacle.” Jesus clothed himself in human flesh (Phil 2:5-8) the ark was His body as it had carried the creator of the universe. It was not Mary who was the ark, but Jesus Christ’s body that was the Tabernacle.

Again, this passage does not state that Jesus is the Ark of the New Covenant. We have seen above that Mary is compared to the Ark twice in St. Luke’s Gospel.

(3) The Ark was made of acacia wood and gold; the wood signified Jesus’ humanity and the gold His Deity.

Why should part of the Ark “symbolize” Deity when it bore the Deity Himself? It seems repetitious and unnecessary. The gold may just as well symbolize royalty, since Mary is the queen mother…or perhaps grace, with which Mary is filled.

(4) The contents of the Ark prove that it is a type of Christ, since they are all types of the Messiah.

The tablets containing the Ten Commandments, the Manna and Aaron’s budded staff all do signify Christ, Who is the living Word of God, the Bread of Life and the High Priest. But the Ark is the vessel meant to hold these things, even as Mary is the Vessel who bore Jesus.

(5) But the Jews worshiped the Ark; and we’re not supposed to worship Mary.

The Jews were not supposed to worship the Ark, only the Shekhinah Glory enthroned upon it. If any Jews did worship the box itself (which is doubtful) then they were committing idolatry, as would anyone who worships Mary, the New Ark.

(6) If Mary were the New Ark of the Covenant, then all the things which happened to the old Ark would have to have happened to her. So Mary would have to have been stolen by pagans and gone into exile as the Ark did (I Samuel 4:11).

This argument only backfires on the user, since most Evangelicals believe the Ark to be a type of Christ, but He wasn’t kidnapped by pagans and carried off to a foreign land either! A New Testament character need not experience everything which his or her Old Testament type did: King David was a type of Christ, but Jesus never committed adultery as David did; the prophet Jonah was a type of Christ, but Jesus never disobeyed God, etc… Thus Mary also did not have to experience everything which happened to the Ark of the Old Covenant.

---

Mary is the Ark. She is not the Covenant. Remember that it is the Ark of the Covenant. As I stated in the above post, the importance of the Ark pales in comparison to what the Ark carries. If Jesus were the Ark of the Covenant He would be a mere vessel which contains Himself.

 

[stewstew03]

LOL!
…
I stated that God is consistent…

If God is consistent, how is it that the canon of scripture changed in the 16th century? It seems, from the protestant perspective, that God changed His mind about what was divinely inspired…

I compared the Bible to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the US…

Oh, I see. So, God made some “amendments” to what was divinely inspired. Okay!

Any other amendments on the horizon? Anything being debated in conference? Are there enough committee votes to put it up for debate on the floor of the House/Senate?

 

[LittleSoldier]

If God is consistent, how is it that the canon of scripture changed in the 16th century? It seems, from the protestant perspective, that God changed His mind about what was divinely inspired…

Oh, I see. So, God made some “amendments” to what was divinely inspired. Okay!

Any other amendments on the horizon? Anything being debated in conference? Are there enough committee votes to put it up for debate on the floor of the House/Senate?

God has a Supreme Court, made up of I-don’t-know-whats and they argue all day about what constitutes Truth and Divine Law. Like some jurists on the U.S. Supreme Court who do not believe the Constitution is a living document, they don’t believe that Divine Law is a “living document” and so they change it to fit their needs. There are twelve of these I-don’t-know-whats and they know that Truth can be changed by consensus. That’s why the analogy of the Constitution works so well.

Or - is it that the analogy doesn’t work well at all?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Early church father’s are some of the most imtelligent individuals who came throught the church. Their writings come from different countries, cultures and centuries. As many are Saints they also argued, squabbled and brawled with each other.

Tertullian slipped gradually into the heresy of Montanism whom thought they were spiritually elite, charged by the HS with the purification of “the” church, since but one existed. Jerome, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphaius and others came tpgether to set the record set. Similiar situation occured with particular works of Origen.

On matters of faith and morals the Fathers speak with almost miraculous unanimity, bearing witness to the Tradition. It was up tp them to refute all the heresies that cropped up during the early centuries of the Church. In fact most of the heresies which are here today have already been dealt with through the Church and early fathers/councils.

Some say Christ came as a visable Spirit to teach humans the difference of the Kingdom of Light and Dark. Manicheanism, was defeated by Augustine. Arianism assets Christ was not truly God but only a creature. Nestorianism teachs Christ had two seperate personalities, the divine joining the human “after” his birth. Obviously these reduce the Office of Mary. Monophysism holds that Christ had only one nature. Antinomianism teachs now listen …that Salvation is by Faith Alone. Gnosticism believed in secret “underground church” which keeps all of Christs “real” teachings. All the “real teachings” btw are kept in “Rome”. Where the “real” church of Christ has always existed. Albigensianism denies the “Sacramants” of the church and is hierarchy, sound familiar it should it very prevalent in the USA today and you see it daily here at CAF. Probly more out of ignorance that anything yet it is real.

Point of course there is one is this why we don’t take “one” early church father and claim well “so and so said this”. We take a “look” at all the works which give a general consensus to the thinking. Then at all the owrks such as with Origen or Tertullian to see where the thinking strays from the beaten path so to speak.

It was through ecclesiastical…“Tradition” that the Bible was put together. Without referrence to “Tradition” Bible passages are taken out of context or the entire Bible is taken out of context as we see. To their own destruction as St Peter states in 2 Peter 1:20 Acts 8:30-31 records and earlier instance.

The third phase of Tradition reside as I have been discussing here in the living voice of the Church through its Bishops, successors of the Apostles who entrusted these souls to preserve and spread the teachings of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit to protect them from error.

From the last few posts I wanted to touch on the Early Church Fathers which I dabbled with earlier in this thread yet didn’t expand enough on apparently. We use a gereral consensus of the early church fathers to shine a light on there general thinking on a particular topic. Not state well “Augustine” said this and thats how it I believe it ought to be. Adding or Deleting to the Deposit of Faith is directly opposed. The Hierarchy is set-up to do just the opposite, to keep innovation from slipping in or any percept from slipping out. Tradition does not and cannot change nevertheless our knowledge of it CAN GROW. That is what ecclesiastical Tradition is for. Tradition unfolds as the Church faces new situations. Tradition is the Living presence of thr HS in the Living Church. Tradition articulates good/bad, right/wrong, truth/heresy. The Chruch has done this since the Apostles. And so too continues to do so “today”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Tradition, should not be surprizing there would be written and unwritten parts of Christianity. This is how revelation has worked since Genesis.

Revelation of the Jews embodied in Torah, came to us in two forms also. The written aspect as we know is the first five books of the Bible. Nevertheless, there is the Oral Tradition handed down by the priests and rabbis that was “never” written in Torah. However, it is referred to in other Jewish writings. The “Talmud” is a great body of rabbinical works on Torah which spells out more that 40 definite precepts given to Moses on Sinai, not included in Torah.

So too is the New Testament which doesn’t embody all of Christ revelation. It does embody and indispensable amount.

Evangelists and disciples who wrote the Gospels and Epistles make it very clear they were not writing down everything.

Luke 1:1-11 and 10:16
John 16:12-13 and 21:35
Heb 13:22
2 John 12
3 John 13 and 14 etc

St Paul would “never” have viewed Christianity as a “book” religion . For he knew many direct quotations from Jesus not written in the Gospels, such as Acts 20:35 for example.

The Gospels and Epistles “assume” you are familiar with Sacred Tradition.

Whichever way you view this you cannot view one without the other. Tradition is the only source of information about fundemental ideas as we have described such as the “Trinity” not explicit in the Bible. Same is true with the OT with immoratality, resurrection of the dead which come from Jewish Oral Tradition.

Tradition sets the framework for many basics in Christianity, the commemoration of Easter, church of Sunday not out of the Bible. Salvation through Mary resides in this realm. Often Protestants propose well if not Mary than another, no biggie. However there is a complete lack of depth in thought in such comments. For so then Abraham, Moses, David etc would come to question, if not them than who? Its to reduce Divine Providence to lacking human logic.

No such thing as Bible Alone. As has been explained in every possible way to individuals on this thread. Its Tradition which is the Mystical body of Christ along with Sacred Scripture and the 3rd aspect is the Early Chruch Fathers again “Tradition”. Whom need to be read as a body, a whole of the one. Least we have ideas as Luther which takes Catholicism, Augustine and Aquinas and we have a new “Christianity” and as mentioned above Faith Alone which today is taken to the extreme by evangelicals

Without Tradition the Bible becomes its tradition which is almost impossible to escape heresy at this point. In fact as I mentioned the entire Bible can and has been taken out of context.

Peace.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Tradition, should not be surprizing there would be written and unwritten parts of Christianity. This is how revelation has worked since Genesis.

Revelation of the Jews embodied in Torah, came to us in two forms also. The written aspect as we know is the first five books of the Bible. Nevertheless, there is the Oral Tradition handed down by the priests and rabbis that was “never” written in Torah. However, it is referred to in other Jewish writings. The “Talmud” is a great body of rabbinical works on Torah which spells out more that 40 definite precepts given to Moses on Sinai, not included in Torah.

So too is the New Testament which doesn’t embody all of Christ revelation. It does embody and indispensable amount.

Evangelists and disciples who wrote the Gospels and Epistles make it very clear they were not writing down everything.

Luke 1:1-11 and 10:16
John 16:12-13 and 21:35
Heb 13:22
2 John 12
3 John 13 and 14 etc

St Paul would “never” have viewed Christianity as a “book” religion . For he knew many direct quotations from Jesus not written in the Gospels, such as Acts 20:35 for example.

The Gospels and Epistles “assume” you are familiar with Sacred Tradition.

Whichever way you view this you cannot view one without the other. Tradition is the only source of information about fundemental ideas as we have described such as the “Trinity” not explicit in the Bible. Same is true with the OT with immoratality, resurrection of the dead which come from Jewish Oral Tradition.

Tradition sets the framework for many basics in Christianity, the commemoration of Easter, church of Sunday not out of the Bible. Salvation through Mary resides in this realm. Often Protestants propose well if not Mary than another, no biggie. However there is a complete lack of depth in thought in such comments. For so then Abraham, Moses, David etc would come to question, if not them than who? Its to reduce Divine Providence to lacking human logic.

No such thing as Bible Alone. As has been explained in every possible way to individuals on this thread. Its Tradition which is the Mystical body of Christ along with Sacred Scripture and the 3rd aspect is the Early Chruch Fathers again “Tradition”. Whom need to be read as a body, a whole of the one. Least we have ideas as Luther which takes Catholicism, Augustine and Aquinas and we have a new “Christianity” and as mentioned above Faith Alone which today is taken to the extreme by evangelicals

Without Tradition the Bible becomes its tradition which is almost impossible to escape heresy at this point. In fact as I mentioned the entire Bible can and has been taken out of context.

Peace.

Great post, Gary. I am learning a lot from you.

 

[Wandile]

Hey guys I just want to alert you that I have started another thread to specifically tackle or discuss the issues of protestantism as this thread has clearly enticed discussion on both catholic and protestant theology. The thread is called : Is Protestantism, in it’s nature, a heresy??

Please click on the link and check it out?

God Bless

 

[JonathonofOhio]

For our Sola Scriptura enthusists who haven’t been “closely” following along there seems to be Key passage “missed” from scripture.

REVELATION 11:19

Then Gods temple in heaven opened and in the temple could be seen the Ark of the Covenant. There were flashes of lightning and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

Point being; You are not in Heaven, thus “you” are “not” the Ark of the Covenant.

This is what I was looking for when I started to read this thread…wondered if anyone brought this up. He describes the Ark in heaven, and immediately at the start of the next chapter describes the woman who represents Mary, the one giving birth to Jesus. Seems quite obvious to me that John was trying to convey that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant…and it makes sense too.

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is what I was looking for when I started to read this thread…wondered if anyone brought this up. He describes the Ark in heaven, and immediately at the start of the next chapter describes the woman who represents Mary, the one giving birth to Jesus. Seems quite obvious to me that John was trying to convey that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant…and it makes sense too.

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

It makes a lot of sense because he didn’t write it as chapters. He just wrote it all down and when the Church put the Bible together it was necessary to split it up into books, chapters, and verses. The break here was probably a poor choice that has lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion. He was referring to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. There is no doubt. There were no chapters. It was just one piece of text.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Here is more, from a post I just read in another thread:

Quote:
…
In Matthew 1:20, Joseph is told by the angel Gabriel to “not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home” (paralambano gunaika). This wording is VERY different from what the angel told Mary, i.e., that “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”. Taking a woman into your house is not language that describes marital intercourse, whereas “to overshadow” or “to lay one’s power over” a woman was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and there is ample Jewish rabbinic literature to support this. Furthermore, the Greek for “overshadow”, episkiasei, is used in Matthew 17:5 to describe what the bright cloud does at the Transfiguration, which is used to indicate God’s Presence like in Exodus 24:15-16; 40:34-8 and 1 Kings 8:4-11. In other words, God’s Presence overshadowed Mary’s womb before Joseph could have marital relations with her. This is why Catholics believe that Mary already belonged to God, not Joseph.
…
The parallels between Luke’s account of the Visitation between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant continue. Once such connection is seen by comparing 2 Samuel 6:15 with Luke 1:44:

“So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn.” (2 Sam 6:15)

“For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:44)

James Akin has pointed out that the term used here is anephonesen, which means “shouts of joy”. It is not a commonly-used word; in fact, it is only used in the context of a liturgical celebration and even then only when the Ark of the Covenant is present. Literally translated “to cry aloud, to proclaim, or to intone”. Therefore, if this powerful witness is reserved only in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, and the same word is used regarding Mary, then Mary must be the Ark of the New Covenant.
…
Now, if God’s presence “overshadowed” Mary, why did Joseph refrain from intercourse at all? The answer is that even he recognized her special consecration as God’s living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. Note that because God’s presence overshadowed the tabernacle, Moses was not able to enter:
“Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the the Lord filled the tabernacle.” (Ex 40:34-35)
Just as Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle due to God’s presence, Joseph was not able to have marital relations with Mary because God’s presence, in the same way as in Exodus 40:34-35, had overshadowed her. Another example is seen in Uz’zah, who aroused the anger of God simply for touching the Ark:

“And when they came to Na’chon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uz’zah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the Ark of God.” (2 Sam 6:6-7)

Don’t think that Joseph wasn’t aware of this story - the fact that Uz’zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen. He knew that Mary, as the New Ark of the Covenant, was not to be touched, either. This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, Catholics believe that Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44:

“This gate shall remain shut: it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered it; THEREFORE, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord.” (Ez 44:1-3)

I’m not sure how to provide authorship but I’ll try. The poster in the other thread surely deserves the credit for this post and I’ll try to post a link to that post and a link to the quote. I added the bolding and underlining.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9221995#post9221995

The poster is Erich and the book cited is Mary, the Ark. The link is:

angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/saintbenedict/maryark.html

Thank you, Erich.

The same information is contained in another book and my friend is emailing me the citation. It’s not an online article.

I hope I did this correctly.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

It makes a lot of sense because he didn’t write it as chapters. He just wrote it all down and when the Church put the Bible together it was necessary to split it up into books, chapters, and verses. The break here was probably a poor choice that has lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion. He was referring to Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. There is no doubt. There were no chapters. It was just one piece of text.

I agree I saw someone else had already pointed that out. I find it also interesting that John seems to personify the church as a woman within the imagery of Mary (she flees into the desert, then he wages war against her and all her offspring).

Apocalyptic writings are like looking at a complex painting. You can look at one section for a long time and every time you look at it, you’ll discover something new that you didn’t see before, and each image that makes up the painting can represent different aspects of a message the author is trying to convey. John actually paints images into our minds in order to provide us with an exposition of the faith.

I think that breaking it up into chapters like they did really distracts the reader, because it actually messes up the flow for those who not know how to properly read it, but I understand the need of creating chapters and versus so that it’s easier to reference certain parts of the book.

 

[GaryTaylor]

This is what I was looking for when I started to read this thread…wondered if anyone brought this up. He describes the Ark in heaven, and immediately at the start of the next chapter describes the woman who represents Mary, the one giving birth to Jesus. Seems quite obvious to me that John was trying to convey that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant…and it makes sense too.

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

I didn’t see this but its interesting and a good addition. And no doubt when you view these chapers 11,12 as one which originally they were till KJV, the context certainly gives a different meaning to 12. However, yes it does make sense, It was touched on in this thread but not elaborated on in depth. Definately something to develope.

I get the impression from the early liturgy and works left, the church and early church fathers pretty much caught this also by the time John gave them Revelation. Yet there was a slightly different situation then. The dating is 70-AD. They were confronted which with a very different reality. Which of course was a full time career explaining Jesus was truly Divine while in the midst of persecution. Its difficult to place yourself in their situtation in Rome in this period. I would imagine it wouldn’t be much different then preaching Christianity in a country hostile to Christianity today. Not an easy task which no doubt even today would result in prison or death, persecution for sure, to remain free truly would be Gods hand.

Though there are patristics from early on, its not really a wonder that much of the writtings show up when Constantine finally stopped the persecution. Well no different then the Bible describes, the church was a home situation. Constantine gave them a chance to breath and build. Paul of course in the situation he was in much earlier with Rome, he was the only one who had any authority to move freely and preach, which is why he did and to his credit in Greece at the time of Octavia etc, he is really the turning point on a larger level with Christianity. I have no doubt it would have spread anyway, but much to his credit. Not really a great orator either. Intelligent no doubt, yet you read the conflict in Pauls mind with wanting to live up to the expectations of the Lord yet understanding he was subjected to the state of sin. Interesting conflict not much different that we all face. Also shows that everyone is called to be a Saint.

Nevertheless as a result I’m convinced Mary, Joseph the Holy Family took a back seat to the Divinity of Jesus without doubt, nomal under the conditions. Biblically its limited to a need to know situation with no elaboration. Which is no surprize in that period and rightfully so. However in this period the Apostolic Churchs and as they moved in time, they are correct in there understanding and teachings. No different than today as see the correct understanding of “mystery” continue to come foward. Or with the discussion of the function of the Trinity between the churchs. Many mysterys still unfolding from that period in history.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here is more, from a post I just read in another thread:

Quote:
…
In Matthew 1:20, Joseph is told by the angel Gabriel to “not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home” (paralambano gunaika). This wording is VERY different from what the angel told Mary, i.e., that “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”. Taking a woman into your house is not language that describes marital intercourse, whereas “to overshadow” or “to lay one’s power over” a woman was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and there is ample Jewish rabbinic literature to support this. Furthermore, the Greek for “overshadow”, episkiasei, is used in Matthew 17:5 to describe what the bright cloud does at the Transfiguration, which is used to indicate God’s Presence like in Exodus 24:15-16; 40:34-8 and 1 Kings 8:4-11. In other words, God’s Presence overshadowed Mary’s womb before Joseph could have marital relations with her. This is why Catholics believe that Mary already belonged to God, not Joseph.
…
The parallels between Luke’s account of the Visitation between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant continue. Once such connection is seen by comparing 2 Samuel 6:15 with Luke 1:44:

“So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn.” (2 Sam 6:15)

“For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:44)

James Akin has pointed out that the term used here is anephonesen, which means “shouts of joy”. It is not a commonly-used word; in fact, it is only used in the context of a liturgical celebration and even then only when the Ark of the Covenant is present. Literally translated “to cry aloud, to proclaim, or to intone”. Therefore, if this powerful witness is reserved only in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, and the same word is used regarding Mary, then Mary must be the Ark of the New Covenant.
…
Now, if God’s presence “overshadowed” Mary, why did Joseph refrain from intercourse at all? The answer is that even he recognized her special consecration as God’s living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. Note that because God’s presence overshadowed the tabernacle, Moses was not able to enter:
“Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the the Lord filled the tabernacle.” (Ex 40:34-35)
Just as Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle due to God’s presence, Joseph was not able to have marital relations with Mary because God’s presence, in the same way as in Exodus 40:34-35, had overshadowed her. Another example is seen in Uz’zah, who aroused the anger of God simply for touching the Ark:

“And when they came to Na’chon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uz’zah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the Ark of God.” (2 Sam 6:6-7)

Don’t think that Joseph wasn’t aware of this story - the fact that Uz’zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen. He knew that Mary, as the New Ark of the Covenant, was not to be touched, either. This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, Catholics believe that Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44:

“This gate shall remain shut: it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered it; THEREFORE, it shall remain shut. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord.” (Ez 44:1-3)

I’m not sure how to provide authorship but I’ll try. The poster in the other thread surely deserves the credit for this post and I’ll try to post a link to that post and a link to the quote. I added the bolding and underlining.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9221995#post9221995

The poster is Erich and the book cited is Mary, the Ark. The link is:

angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/saintbenedict/maryark.html

Thank you, Erich.

The same information is contained in another book and my friend is emailing me the citation. It’s not an online article.

I hope I did this correctly.

Interesting.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree I saw someone else had already pointed that out. I find it also interesting that John seems to personify the church as a woman within the imagery of Mary (she flees into the desert, then he wages war against her and all her offspring).

Apocalyptic writings are like looking at a complex painting. You can look at one section for a long time and every time you look at it, you’ll discover something new that you didn’t see before, and each image that makes up the painting can represent different aspects of a message the author is trying to convey. John actually paints images into our minds in order to provide us with an exposition of the faith.

I think that breaking it up into chapters like they did really distracts the reader, because it actually messes up the flow for those who not know how to properly read it, but I understand the need of creating chapters and versus so that it’s easier to reference certain parts of the book.

Really its exactly how Grace works through the Lord with visions. So. John took that vision and gave it to us, and to be seen as he witnessed.

Yes, and it does distract the reader and breaks the concentration and continuity. The object being is to see the whole picture as the Lord would have shown it to John, the vision is a message which unfolds through time in contemplation. Exactly why mystics of the church live in seclusion and are not running around talking about their visions, locutions etc. They are contemplating and watching in real time as aspects unfold. No different than the church does today. Aspects could unfold within 1,2,3 years others over a very long period of time.

Chapter 12 represents muliple realitys. Its a vision of Israel and the twelve tribes, its a vision of the Apostolic Church’s which correctly understood while being the Mystical Body of Christ is under Marys mantle, and the 12 Apostles through their Bishops, and its a vision of Mary with Jesus through time, through today and its persecution of Her and Christ in real time.

Its a reality, you see it here, you see it in the world. Its how evil works, its 95% truth and 5% lies to lead you away, half-truths. The church isn’t wrong nor were they 2000 years ago, its the father of lies which presents every possible counterproductive senerio. And all of then are here today.

What you can’t come to believe with Mary its best to leave it be and not speak on it IMHO, admit you do not know. To speak on something you do not know in Gods Kingdom in the negative is pure folly. You cannot err in over veneration of Mary its a proven fact by “many” of the greatest mystics to walk this earth since John. But you can most definately err in talking negative about what you do not know. Personally I believe its a grave error and understood it immediately as a child in Catholic School. Immediate red flag to me, and always has been.

Peace

 

[hartandhunter]

Yeah, it is a long thread but although I have read about this on a site (I posted the link already - if you want me to I can find it again) I don’t remember discussing this specifically.

The concept of Jesus being the Ark of the Covenant is a well-known objection to the concept of Mary being the Ark of the Covenant. However, it would mean that God carries God. The original Ark of the Covenant contained the Word of God (which is God Himself), along with a symbol of the high priest, and manna. The Word of God is Jesus and so then you would have Jesus carrying God within Himself, which is true but rather roundabout and circular. Jesus is the High Priest and the Bread of Life. So, again, you would end up with Jesus carrying Himself, Himself, and Himself. Why would He need a vessel in which to carry Himself? The Ark is a vessel. Remember how God gave specific instructions for how the original Ark would be built? It must have been beautiful. It was a vessel which carried holy, sacred items.

Mary carried Jesus, not only in her womb, but His cells mixed with hers as hers mixed with His. Mary carried more than a symbol of the high priest but the High Priest Himself. And Mary carried Jesus - the Bread of Life. She carried all these items within her body - spiritually and physically.

Mary is the vessel. Jesus is the contents. And the two are intertwined in a mysterious and sacred way. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant - she carries Jesus. Although the Ark itself is of tremendous importance, that importance pales in comparison to what the Ark *contains. * Mary carried (and still carries) God within her. She is of tremendous importance but her importance pales in comparison to what she carried (carries) within her - Jesus, the Word, the High Priest, and the Bread of Life.

I have been thinking about this a LOT lately because I was wondering WHY the holy family is nothing like what God has prescribed for other human families, insomuch as that Mary and Joseph did not have sex, and Jesus had no brothers nor sisters biologically. I mean, you can nullify a marriage today if the spouse refuses the marriage bed and children, right? I really struggled with this for a long time until I came upon the concept of Mary as the New Ark. It makes perfect sense to me now because no one was allowed to touch the ark of the covenant or they would die.
I don’t know if Joseph would have died if he had slept with Mary, I don’t think he would have even tried. But it has helped me understand why a barren couple can be an example, especially in this day and age of voluntarily barren families and “family” meaning anybody who lives in the same house, of what God wants for us all.

 

[adrift]

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])

Perhaps someone can clarify a confusion I have.

Hippolytus says that Jesus was the ark but is he referring to the ark of Noah? He only says ark. The Ark of the Covenant is a different ark. Why is is assumed which ark Hippolytus is comparing Jesus too?

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Really its exactly how Grace works through the Lord with visions. So. John took that vision and gave it to us, and to be seen as he witnessed.

Yes, and it does distract the reader and breaks the concentration and continuity. The object being is to see the whole picture as the Lord would have shown it to John, the vision is a message which unfolds through time in contemplation. Exactly why mystics of the church live in seclusion and are not running around talking about their visions, locutions etc. They are contemplating and watching in real time as aspects unfold. No different than the church does today. Aspects could unfold within 1,2,3 years others over a very long period of time.

Chapter 12 represents muliple realitys. Its a vision of Israel and the twelve tribes, its a vision of the Apostolic Church’s which correctly understood while being the Mystical Body of Christ is under Marys mantle, and the 12 Apostles through their Bishops, and its a vision of Mary with Jesus through time, through today and its persecution of Her and Christ in real time.

Its a reality, you see it here, you see it in the world. Its how evil works, its 95% truth and 5% lies to lead you away, half-truths. The church isn’t wrong nor were they 2000 years ago, its the father of lies which presents every possible counterproductive senerio. And all of then are here today.

What you can’t come to believe with Mary its best to leave it be and not speak on it IMHO, admit you do not know. To speak on something you do not know in Gods Kingdom in the negative is pure folly. You cannot err in over veneration of Mary its a proven fact by “many” of the greatest mystics to walk this earth since John. But you can most definately err in talking negative about what you do not know. Personally I believe its a grave error and understood it immediately as a child in Catholic School. Immediate red flag to me, and always has been.

Peace

Thank you for responding with such thoughtful comments. I agree with everything you said here.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Perhaps someone can clarify a confusion I have.

Hippolytus says that Jesus was the ark but is he referring to the ark of Noah? He only says ark. The Ark of the Covenant is a different ark. Why is is assumed which ark Hippolytus is comparing Jesus too?

Here is my opinion on this:

Similar to Adam and Eve, Jesus and Mary were of the same flesh. Therefore, it would be fine to refer to Jesus as the ark, all the while also referring to Mary as the Ark.

Mary carried Jesus in her womb. Jesus is the word of God. The Ark carried the ten commandments (the Word of God on stone). The contents of the Ark also made up the Ark, so Jesus being the ‘contents’ of the Ark also makes up the Ark (Mary).

So Hippolytus, if he is indeed referring to Jesus as the Ark of the Covenant, wouldn’t be wrong, he’s just offering another point of view to think about.