-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Christian: Mary, Mother of God
- Thread starter Scott1
- Start date
i apologize Victor. That's how i took your
94 *MOD POST* PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS THREAD IS ON MARY
97 let's get back on topic.
92 some of these verses(but not all) I mentioned may have a political base. For example, Bathsheba was the Queen Mother to the Davidic throne as we see in 1 Kings 2:19-20.
A para in my pos 90 stands corrected. I pologize. 1 K 2:19-20's "the king rose up to meet her and bowed himself before her" isN'T governmental. It's jus Sol respectin his mom, who both r "royalty." Indeed, i was mistaken that Athan's post 75s below were political. Xcept the 1st, and the last includes it. Sorry
That is why Solomon gave her veneration and bowed to her. What this passage shows is that it is ok to give other human beings a type of veneration(glory and Honor) and even bow to them as long as we do not worship them.
"Gave her veneration," to my ear, sounds like a misleading or archaic way of talking. If it was ever used the way u seem to use it here. "Respect" is a more current, or accurate, word. "Veneration" carries more the tone of "worship." Also it seems unnecessarily complicated, which makes one like me suspicious that there would be some attempt at obscurity (not that i'm accusin anyone o' that, pleze don't think so). "Give...a type of veneration, glory, honor"-----do u mean "respect?" It's one word instead o' 7.
"R E S P E C T" sang that one singer
even bow to them as long as we do not worship them. This is what Catholic do with Mary. In fact if Mary was hear I would very reverently kneel or bow to her because we Catholics see her as a typological fulfillment of the Davidic Queen Mother.
That's what occurs to me. I bow, however deeply or not deeply, to many people at many times. Even unbelievers. And i also don't bow on occasion.
But Mary isn't here. She's deceased. She's not present. Statues 'n pictures of some female purportin to b her rn't her. In my limited understanding
typological fulfillment of the Davidic Queen Mother.
Queen of the Church and the Apostles and the new Davidic Queen mother as we Catholics believe and understand from typology and from (Rev 12:1) and from the fathers of the church in the lived tradition or oral word of God
Christ's church herself is His Bride, His Queen. Hence to single out Mary in this way, as necessarily above other believers in His Body, is contrary to the Body.
Paul also calls Jerusalem above "our mother," Gal 4:26. Meaning She, His Bride; not Mary uniquely; is "Queen mother." According to the Bible.
Same with Revelation 12. Mary's there only as part of the woman and, hopefully, the child. Since they are corporate figures. Not individual humans
75 "Hesekiah rested with his fathers , and they buried him in the upper tomb of the sons of David; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem GAVE HIM GLORY AND HONOR at his death.(2 Chron 32:33)
"And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the upper part of the tombs of David's sons; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem honored him when he died" i find to b a littl more accurate translation. No word "glory" in Hebrew. But in any case: that's called a funeral
And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for GLORY and for beauty.(Ex 28:2)
That's what alot, or most, proper clothing's for. In which case it's common. And here related to priesthood. Living Christ---in New Testament terms (Philip 1:21)
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of DOUBLE HONOR, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;(1 Tim 5:17)
Accordin to 1 Tim 5:18, the following, and explainin, sentence: this emphasizes material supply. In any case, it also carries with it "respect." And's for living people
He himself went on before them, BOWING himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother. (Gen 33:3)
Esau was also not dead. Nor in Hades. Nor in heaven. He was very present. And his brother was really scared of him, cuz of how he'd treated Esau (stealin his birthright etc). That may be why he bowed so much!
Judah, your brothers shall praise you(Gen 49:8)
"...Your father's sons will bow down before you." The name "Judah" (Gen 29:35) means "praise" in Hebrew. Since people praise one another for alot o' things. This too's not too unique. Nor is it worship. Except to the Lion of the tribe of Judah, Judah's descendant: Christ
92 We also see Paul instruct all members of that body to offer prayers and intercessions for one another(1 tim 2:1).
Thanks Athanasius. Is that why u wrote in 82:
Nor do we try to get information from dead saints
?
92 We believe that Mary has been assumed to heaven
One reason i wouldn't's cuz Paul wrote to Tim in 2 Tim 2 that Hymenaeus and Philetus misaimed concerning the truth by sayin that the resurrection's already taken place
This is something we find in the oral word of God in tradition explicitly and implicitly in scripture.
If by oral word of God u mean some apocrypha and fables from the early centuries, similar to the Gospel of Thomas, Protoevangelium of James, etc; then i must respond that's neither oral, nor the word of God. Nor supercedes Paul's word to Tim
Also this is something that we believe we have miraculous evidence on. The approved Marian apparitions of Lourdes and fatima seemed to prove this.
I, your fellow-brother, don't approve it. But in any case, speakin of "apparitions," although Samuel's was really Samuel from the dead in 1 Sam 28, thru divination;
he appeared from Hades. Not heaven
I hope that helps brother.
In my experience, these things don't help. They harm.
Thanks A for your patience and prayers
94 *MOD POST* PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS THREAD IS ON MARY
97 let's get back on topic.
92 some of these verses(but not all) I mentioned may have a political base. For example, Bathsheba was the Queen Mother to the Davidic throne as we see in 1 Kings 2:19-20.
A para in my pos 90 stands corrected. I pologize. 1 K 2:19-20's "the king rose up to meet her and bowed himself before her" isN'T governmental. It's jus Sol respectin his mom, who both r "royalty." Indeed, i was mistaken that Athan's post 75s below were political. Xcept the 1st, and the last includes it. Sorry
That is why Solomon gave her veneration and bowed to her. What this passage shows is that it is ok to give other human beings a type of veneration(glory and Honor) and even bow to them as long as we do not worship them.
"Gave her veneration," to my ear, sounds like a misleading or archaic way of talking. If it was ever used the way u seem to use it here. "Respect" is a more current, or accurate, word. "Veneration" carries more the tone of "worship." Also it seems unnecessarily complicated, which makes one like me suspicious that there would be some attempt at obscurity (not that i'm accusin anyone o' that, pleze don't think so). "Give...a type of veneration, glory, honor"-----do u mean "respect?" It's one word instead o' 7.
"R E S P E C T" sang that one singer
even bow to them as long as we do not worship them. This is what Catholic do with Mary. In fact if Mary was hear I would very reverently kneel or bow to her because we Catholics see her as a typological fulfillment of the Davidic Queen Mother.
That's what occurs to me. I bow, however deeply or not deeply, to many people at many times. Even unbelievers. And i also don't bow on occasion.
But Mary isn't here. She's deceased. She's not present. Statues 'n pictures of some female purportin to b her rn't her. In my limited understanding
typological fulfillment of the Davidic Queen Mother.
Queen of the Church and the Apostles and the new Davidic Queen mother as we Catholics believe and understand from typology and from (Rev 12:1) and from the fathers of the church in the lived tradition or oral word of God
Christ's church herself is His Bride, His Queen. Hence to single out Mary in this way, as necessarily above other believers in His Body, is contrary to the Body.
Paul also calls Jerusalem above "our mother," Gal 4:26. Meaning She, His Bride; not Mary uniquely; is "Queen mother." According to the Bible.
Same with Revelation 12. Mary's there only as part of the woman and, hopefully, the child. Since they are corporate figures. Not individual humans
75 "Hesekiah rested with his fathers , and they buried him in the upper tomb of the sons of David; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem GAVE HIM GLORY AND HONOR at his death.(2 Chron 32:33)
"And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the upper part of the tombs of David's sons; and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem honored him when he died" i find to b a littl more accurate translation. No word "glory" in Hebrew. But in any case: that's called a funeral
And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for GLORY and for beauty.(Ex 28:2)
That's what alot, or most, proper clothing's for. In which case it's common. And here related to priesthood. Living Christ---in New Testament terms (Philip 1:21)
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of DOUBLE HONOR, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;(1 Tim 5:17)
Accordin to 1 Tim 5:18, the following, and explainin, sentence: this emphasizes material supply. In any case, it also carries with it "respect." And's for living people
He himself went on before them, BOWING himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother. (Gen 33:3)
Esau was also not dead. Nor in Hades. Nor in heaven. He was very present. And his brother was really scared of him, cuz of how he'd treated Esau (stealin his birthright etc). That may be why he bowed so much!
Judah, your brothers shall praise you(Gen 49:8)
"...Your father's sons will bow down before you." The name "Judah" (Gen 29:35) means "praise" in Hebrew. Since people praise one another for alot o' things. This too's not too unique. Nor is it worship. Except to the Lion of the tribe of Judah, Judah's descendant: Christ
92 We also see Paul instruct all members of that body to offer prayers and intercessions for one another(1 tim 2:1).
Thanks Athanasius. Is that why u wrote in 82:
Nor do we try to get information from dead saints
?
92 We believe that Mary has been assumed to heaven
One reason i wouldn't's cuz Paul wrote to Tim in 2 Tim 2 that Hymenaeus and Philetus misaimed concerning the truth by sayin that the resurrection's already taken place
This is something we find in the oral word of God in tradition explicitly and implicitly in scripture.
If by oral word of God u mean some apocrypha and fables from the early centuries, similar to the Gospel of Thomas, Protoevangelium of James, etc; then i must respond that's neither oral, nor the word of God. Nor supercedes Paul's word to Tim
Also this is something that we believe we have miraculous evidence on. The approved Marian apparitions of Lourdes and fatima seemed to prove this.
I, your fellow-brother, don't approve it. But in any case, speakin of "apparitions," although Samuel's was really Samuel from the dead in 1 Sam 28, thru divination;
he appeared from Hades. Not heaven
I hope that helps brother.
In my experience, these things don't help. They harm.
Thanks A for your patience and prayers
athanasius
Well-Known Member
Dear in Christ Mr Writer
Thank you for your post. May Christ bless me in trying to explain to you his truth. And may Christ bless both of us who are in love with him and on fire for his truth. Amen!
You said:
It's jus Sol respectin his mom, who both r "royalty."
My answer
thank you for your kind thoughts Mr writer. I would agree it is sol respecting his mother. But remember he does bow to her. This again clearly show that we can give a form of veneration(Or glory and Honor) to other human beings without it being worship. This is exactly what Catholics do with Mary.
As a matter of fact, when God says Honor your Mother and father, the hebrew word literally means to “Glorify”. We Catholics believe Mary is the spiritual Mother of all the apostle and all Christians(Rev 12:17).
You said:
"Veneration" carries more the tone of "worship."
My answer:
Catholics make a distinction in our theology between the Glory and Honor we give to other human beings(Dulia) and the worship we give to God alone(Latria). These distinctions were talked about by such ancients as Augustine.
So when we use the term “Veneration” we do not mean Worship by our definition. I believe this may just be a example of a terminology problem. We Catholics use terminology in a different sense, a more broader than do most protestants. I hope that helps.
You said
But Mary isn't here. She's deceased. She's not present. Statues 'n pictures of some female purportin to b her rn't her. In my limited understanding
My response
Statues and Holy images are just reminders. What family doesn’t have pictures of their Mother in their house? We Catholics have images of saints in our churches as reminders of those witnesses who historically went before us in faith, our spiritual brothers and sisters and Mary our Spiritual Mother(rev 12;17). Amen!
When we venerate a picture of a saint, we are simply venerating the saint whom that image represents, not worshipping that image or that person.
You said;
Christ's church herself is His Bride, His Queen. Hence to single out Mary in this way, as necessarily above other believers in His Body, is contrary to the Body.
Paul also calls Jerusalem above "our mother," Gal 4:26. Meaning She, His Bride; not Mary uniquely; is "Queen mother." According to the Bible.
Same with Revelation 12. Mary's there only as part of the woman and, hopefully, the child. Since they are corporate figures. Not individual humans
My response:
Catholics would say amen to most of your response. Yes we Catholics do agree that the Church is the bride of Christ! Amen! we also agree that the Church is the women talked about in Rev 12. However, We Catholics believe that Scripture is Polyvalent(Has many levels of meaning).
On one level the Church is being described in Rev 12, and on another level we believe Mary is being talked about. It isn’t a “either or” situation, either the church or Mary. To us its a “both and” situation its both the Church and Mary being described. the Fathers of the Church talked about the women being both the Church and Mary. We believe that Protestants often times limit their understanding of scripture to only one interpretation. We see scripture as being polyvalent in Catholic circles.
Amen. However, Mary is definitely the fulfillment of the davidic Queen Mother. Jesus is the fulfillment of the King in Davids line(Matt 1:1) , hence he is our davidic King. Mary was his real Mother. Hence she is the New davidic queen Mother as typology reveals and (Rev 12:1) and the fathers of the Church saw.
You said:
Nor is it worship.
My answer
I never said it was worship, I said it was veneration or honor given to him.
You said:
One reason i wouldn't's cuz Paul wrote to Tim in 2 Tim 2 that Hymenaeus and Philetus misaimed concerning the truth by sayin that the resurrection's already taken place
My answer:
Ok. please forgive me. I do not know how to answer this one, because I am not sure what your saying? We catholics agree that the final Judgment has not happened yet. But this has nothing to do with Mary’s being assumed into heaven.
We believe that God assumed Mary Body and soul into heaven as a foretaste of what will happen to us at the final judgement. But just because he assumed her body and soul into heaven doesn’t mean we are teaching that final judgement has come.
God can and did assume other people into heaven with out it being final judgement like Elijah(2 Kings 2:1-13). I have never hear any protestant make the arguments that you make. I am a little confused. Are you a Seventh day Adventist? It sounds like adventist doctrine but I could be wrong.
your said:
if by oral word of God u mean some apocrypha and fables from the early centuries, similar to the Gospel of Thomas, Protoevangelium of James, etc; then i must respond that's neither oral, nor the word of God. Nor supercedes Paul's word to Tim
My response
No indeed I do not mean fables or Gnostic gospels(Like thomas which the Catholic church never considered to be the word of God and condemned). Nor did I mean revelation that would super-cede Pauls . God is the source of all revelation both Oral and written. And since Not all revelation comes down to us in scripture(2 thess 2:15) but some in oral traditions that were handed down by the apostles to the fathers from generation to generation, this is what I mean. And this is what you can find in the Oral traditions of the fathers. Amen. I hope that clarifies things a bit. Sorry Mr writer if I was not clear on such issues before
You said:
2 We also see Paul instruct all members of that body to offer prayers and intercessions for one another(1 tim 2:1).
Thanks Athanasius. Is that why u wrote in 82:
Nor do we try to get information from dead saints
?
My answer
Asking a departed saint to pray for your needs is not anything like the as trying to get info from them as we see in 1 Sam 28. Catholics do not say “Mary Mary tell me what my future holds”. We simply give her Honor(following Jesus example) and ask her to ”Pray for us sinners” . I hope that helps my brother.
You said
he appeared from Hades. Not heaven
Of coarse he appears from Sheol my brother. Heavens gates haven’t been opened yet in the Old testament. But Mary does appear to us from Heaven because she is in Christ Jesus(who opened the doors to heaven. Once again we do not divine like found in (1 Sam 28).
Well Mr writer, I appreciate your time and your good questions. I believe that the 3rd Person in the Trinity (The Holy Spirit) is blessing our conversations. If for nothing else, then so we can understand each other. It s always good talking to you my brother in Christ. Pray for me as I always remember you in my prayers.
May God bless you always mr writer.
Speaking the Truth of Jesus Church
In Jesus through Mary,
Your brother Athanasius
Thank you for your post. May Christ bless me in trying to explain to you his truth. And may Christ bless both of us who are in love with him and on fire for his truth. Amen!
You said:
It's jus Sol respectin his mom, who both r "royalty."
My answer
thank you for your kind thoughts Mr writer. I would agree it is sol respecting his mother. But remember he does bow to her. This again clearly show that we can give a form of veneration(Or glory and Honor) to other human beings without it being worship. This is exactly what Catholics do with Mary.
As a matter of fact, when God says Honor your Mother and father, the hebrew word literally means to “Glorify”. We Catholics believe Mary is the spiritual Mother of all the apostle and all Christians(Rev 12:17).
You said:
"Veneration" carries more the tone of "worship."
My answer:
Catholics make a distinction in our theology between the Glory and Honor we give to other human beings(Dulia) and the worship we give to God alone(Latria). These distinctions were talked about by such ancients as Augustine.
So when we use the term “Veneration” we do not mean Worship by our definition. I believe this may just be a example of a terminology problem. We Catholics use terminology in a different sense, a more broader than do most protestants. I hope that helps.
You said
But Mary isn't here. She's deceased. She's not present. Statues 'n pictures of some female purportin to b her rn't her. In my limited understanding
My response
Statues and Holy images are just reminders. What family doesn’t have pictures of their Mother in their house? We Catholics have images of saints in our churches as reminders of those witnesses who historically went before us in faith, our spiritual brothers and sisters and Mary our Spiritual Mother(rev 12;17). Amen!
When we venerate a picture of a saint, we are simply venerating the saint whom that image represents, not worshipping that image or that person.
You said;
Christ's church herself is His Bride, His Queen. Hence to single out Mary in this way, as necessarily above other believers in His Body, is contrary to the Body.
Paul also calls Jerusalem above "our mother," Gal 4:26. Meaning She, His Bride; not Mary uniquely; is "Queen mother." According to the Bible.
Same with Revelation 12. Mary's there only as part of the woman and, hopefully, the child. Since they are corporate figures. Not individual humans
My response:
Catholics would say amen to most of your response. Yes we Catholics do agree that the Church is the bride of Christ! Amen! we also agree that the Church is the women talked about in Rev 12. However, We Catholics believe that Scripture is Polyvalent(Has many levels of meaning).
On one level the Church is being described in Rev 12, and on another level we believe Mary is being talked about. It isn’t a “either or” situation, either the church or Mary. To us its a “both and” situation its both the Church and Mary being described. the Fathers of the Church talked about the women being both the Church and Mary. We believe that Protestants often times limit their understanding of scripture to only one interpretation. We see scripture as being polyvalent in Catholic circles.
Amen. However, Mary is definitely the fulfillment of the davidic Queen Mother. Jesus is the fulfillment of the King in Davids line(Matt 1:1) , hence he is our davidic King. Mary was his real Mother. Hence she is the New davidic queen Mother as typology reveals and (Rev 12:1) and the fathers of the Church saw.
You said:
Nor is it worship.
My answer
I never said it was worship, I said it was veneration or honor given to him.
You said:
One reason i wouldn't's cuz Paul wrote to Tim in 2 Tim 2 that Hymenaeus and Philetus misaimed concerning the truth by sayin that the resurrection's already taken place
My answer:
Ok. please forgive me. I do not know how to answer this one, because I am not sure what your saying? We catholics agree that the final Judgment has not happened yet. But this has nothing to do with Mary’s being assumed into heaven.
We believe that God assumed Mary Body and soul into heaven as a foretaste of what will happen to us at the final judgement. But just because he assumed her body and soul into heaven doesn’t mean we are teaching that final judgement has come.
God can and did assume other people into heaven with out it being final judgement like Elijah(2 Kings 2:1-13). I have never hear any protestant make the arguments that you make. I am a little confused. Are you a Seventh day Adventist? It sounds like adventist doctrine but I could be wrong.
your said:
if by oral word of God u mean some apocrypha and fables from the early centuries, similar to the Gospel of Thomas, Protoevangelium of James, etc; then i must respond that's neither oral, nor the word of God. Nor supercedes Paul's word to Tim
My response
No indeed I do not mean fables or Gnostic gospels(Like thomas which the Catholic church never considered to be the word of God and condemned). Nor did I mean revelation that would super-cede Pauls . God is the source of all revelation both Oral and written. And since Not all revelation comes down to us in scripture(2 thess 2:15) but some in oral traditions that were handed down by the apostles to the fathers from generation to generation, this is what I mean. And this is what you can find in the Oral traditions of the fathers. Amen. I hope that clarifies things a bit. Sorry Mr writer if I was not clear on such issues before
You said:
2 We also see Paul instruct all members of that body to offer prayers and intercessions for one another(1 tim 2:1).
Thanks Athanasius. Is that why u wrote in 82:
Nor do we try to get information from dead saints
?
My answer
Asking a departed saint to pray for your needs is not anything like the as trying to get info from them as we see in 1 Sam 28. Catholics do not say “Mary Mary tell me what my future holds”. We simply give her Honor(following Jesus example) and ask her to ”Pray for us sinners” . I hope that helps my brother.
You said
he appeared from Hades. Not heaven
Of coarse he appears from Sheol my brother. Heavens gates haven’t been opened yet in the Old testament. But Mary does appear to us from Heaven because she is in Christ Jesus(who opened the doors to heaven. Once again we do not divine like found in (1 Sam 28).
Well Mr writer, I appreciate your time and your good questions. I believe that the 3rd Person in the Trinity (The Holy Spirit) is blessing our conversations. If for nothing else, then so we can understand each other. It s always good talking to you my brother in Christ. Pray for me as I always remember you in my prayers.
May God bless you always mr writer.
Speaking the Truth of Jesus Church
In Jesus through Mary,
Your brother Athanasius
103 he does bow to her. This again clearly show that we can give a form of veneration(Or glory and Honor) to other human beings without it being worship.
In my understanding the word "veneration" connotes, and is closer to, worship; rather than "respect." If respect's what you're talkin about
This is exactly what Catholics do with Mary.
All Christians i'm aware of, and most unbelievers i know, respect Mary. If that's what you're talkin about
As a matter of fact, when God says Honor your Mother and father, the hebrew word literally means to Glorify.
I don't think that's accurate. But i'll try to check.
In any case, that's my point: we should honor everybody, and let God judge the unrighteous
We Catholics believe Mary is the spiritual Mother of all the apostle and all Christians(Rev 12:17).
U keep citing Rv 12 as if that supported your statements. Without deigning to show what makes u think it's about Mary individually, other than that there's a mother with child. All believers can, should be, and are spiritual mothers to one another. According to the Son's words. According to the apostle, the Jerusalem above is. The apostles are Mary's mother in this sense, and she theirs. To attempt to single her out for some kind of unique or highest "veneration" in this regard's both idolatrous, pointless, and contrary to Scripture and God's economy
Catholics make a distinction in our theology between the Glory and Honor we give to other human beings(Dulia) and the worship we give to God alone(Latria).
R your distinctions able to be put in common, ordinary English?
By "dulia" do u simply mean respect?
We Catholics use terminology in a different sense, a more broader than do most protestants.
Not really. If you feel yourself unable to be specific
Statues and Holy images are just reminders.
I'd say they're idols
When we venerate a picture of a saint, we are simply venerating the saint whom that image represents, not worshipping that image or that person.
"Venerate" a picture: "give glory and honor to" a picture?
Is the definition o' idolatry
we also agree that the Church is the women talked about in Rev 12. However, We Catholics believe that Scripture is Polyvalent(Has many levels of meaning).
To the contrary: the Scripture means what it means, and duzn't mean what it duzn't mean. It duzn't diminish from what it means by meaning somethin else or less.
Know whut i mean?
It isnt a either or situation, either the church or Mary.
Is precisely God's people. Which necessarily includes Mary, and u, and me. Consequently Rv 12's definitely not u singleley, me singleley, nor Mary singleley
the Fathers of the Church talked about the women being both the Church and Mary.
Your "Fathers of the Church" are in fact not because the church was begun with the apostles; and also spiritually includes many "fathers" in the past 2000 years.
In any case, talking about Rev 12's woman as Mary individually neither makes, nor made, her so
We see scripture as being polyvalent in Catholic circles.
It depends on the Scripture or context. That's not, and shouldn't be, a rule to prejustify perverting, distorting, or contradicting Scripture to fit preconceived or unsuited notions
Mary is definitely the fulfillment of the davidic Queen Mother.
Mary individually's definitely not the fulfillment of the davidic Queen Mother. Christ, her son's, kingdom's spiritual. Not natural or worldly or carnal
Jesus is the fulfillment of the King in Davids line(Matt 1:1) , hence he is our davidic King. Mary was his real Mother. Hence she is the New davidic queen Mother as typology reveals and (Rev 12:1)
To the contrary of your last sentence: Christ has many "mothers" in the church. As Christ said in Mark 3. And His spiritual supercedes, and's much more important, than His natural. His whole Bride's a mother. Christ calls Jerusalem above: His new creation. Thanks
In my understanding the word "veneration" connotes, and is closer to, worship; rather than "respect." If respect's what you're talkin about
This is exactly what Catholics do with Mary.
All Christians i'm aware of, and most unbelievers i know, respect Mary. If that's what you're talkin about
As a matter of fact, when God says Honor your Mother and father, the hebrew word literally means to Glorify.
I don't think that's accurate. But i'll try to check.
In any case, that's my point: we should honor everybody, and let God judge the unrighteous
We Catholics believe Mary is the spiritual Mother of all the apostle and all Christians(Rev 12:17).
U keep citing Rv 12 as if that supported your statements. Without deigning to show what makes u think it's about Mary individually, other than that there's a mother with child. All believers can, should be, and are spiritual mothers to one another. According to the Son's words. According to the apostle, the Jerusalem above is. The apostles are Mary's mother in this sense, and she theirs. To attempt to single her out for some kind of unique or highest "veneration" in this regard's both idolatrous, pointless, and contrary to Scripture and God's economy
Catholics make a distinction in our theology between the Glory and Honor we give to other human beings(Dulia) and the worship we give to God alone(Latria).
R your distinctions able to be put in common, ordinary English?
By "dulia" do u simply mean respect?
We Catholics use terminology in a different sense, a more broader than do most protestants.
Not really. If you feel yourself unable to be specific
Statues and Holy images are just reminders.
I'd say they're idols
When we venerate a picture of a saint, we are simply venerating the saint whom that image represents, not worshipping that image or that person.
"Venerate" a picture: "give glory and honor to" a picture?
Is the definition o' idolatry
we also agree that the Church is the women talked about in Rev 12. However, We Catholics believe that Scripture is Polyvalent(Has many levels of meaning).
To the contrary: the Scripture means what it means, and duzn't mean what it duzn't mean. It duzn't diminish from what it means by meaning somethin else or less.
Know whut i mean?
It isnt a either or situation, either the church or Mary.
Is precisely God's people. Which necessarily includes Mary, and u, and me. Consequently Rv 12's definitely not u singleley, me singleley, nor Mary singleley
the Fathers of the Church talked about the women being both the Church and Mary.
Your "Fathers of the Church" are in fact not because the church was begun with the apostles; and also spiritually includes many "fathers" in the past 2000 years.
In any case, talking about Rev 12's woman as Mary individually neither makes, nor made, her so
We see scripture as being polyvalent in Catholic circles.
It depends on the Scripture or context. That's not, and shouldn't be, a rule to prejustify perverting, distorting, or contradicting Scripture to fit preconceived or unsuited notions
Mary is definitely the fulfillment of the davidic Queen Mother.
Mary individually's definitely not the fulfillment of the davidic Queen Mother. Christ, her son's, kingdom's spiritual. Not natural or worldly or carnal
Jesus is the fulfillment of the King in Davids line(Matt 1:1) , hence he is our davidic King. Mary was his real Mother. Hence she is the New davidic queen Mother as typology reveals and (Rev 12:1)
To the contrary of your last sentence: Christ has many "mothers" in the church. As Christ said in Mark 3. And His spiritual supercedes, and's much more important, than His natural. His whole Bride's a mother. Christ calls Jerusalem above: His new creation. Thanks
athanasius
Well-Known Member
Dear in Christ Mr Writer
Thank you for sincerety and honesty. May our Lord bless this dialuge.
You said
In my understanding the word "veneration" connotes, and is closer to, worship; rather than "respect." If respect's what you're talkin about
My answer;
Ahh yes I think your understanding our position better now. The Holy Spirit is definatly at work. You are right. The Catholic understanding of veneration is a high form of respect(or glory and Honor) that we give to other human beings.
This is how the Catholics and the Catholic church uses the term. we do not give worship or adoration to Saints, only veneration. Here is what our Catechism ,the sure norm for Catholic teaching says about the respect and veneration we give to saints using their images.
“The christian Veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed the “Honor” rendered to a image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates the image venerates “the Person” who is portrayed in it. The honor paid to Sacred images is a “Respectful Veneration” , Not the adoration due to God alone” (Catechism of the Catholic church page 517 paragraph 2132)
So we Catholics as I have said earlier do not worship anyone but God alone. We do however give glory and Honor or “respectful veneration” to the saints. We honor them when looking at a image of them. But this is not idolatry because in a act of idolatry one gives worship or adoration to that image like the golden calf. Catholics do not give worship or adoration to Paintings, Icons or statues. That would be silly and sinful.
We simply use them to remember our family who went before us and give respect and honor to them, not worship. Like wise I kissed the feet of a crucifix today. I did not bow down and worship that piece of wood and metal as a God. I simply meditated on what Jesus did for me and gave him a sign of respect and thanksgiving.
Many Protestants do the same. Every year at the baptist church I used to attend they would have “Images” of the nativity scene. Many times people would be kneeling down and praying in front of the nativity scene. They were not worshipping the statues, they simply were recalling to memory what God has done for the world and they gave veneration to him.
Veneration is something that can be given to both God and humans beings. But only worship is given to God alone. So its not idolatry because we do not worship statues. I hope that helps. Bless you brother.
you said
U keep citing Rv 12 as if that supported your statements. Without deigning to show what makes u think it's about Mary individually, other than that there's a mother with child. All believers can, should be, and are spiritual mothers to one another. According to the Son's words. According to the apostle, the Jerusalem above is. The apostles are Mary's mother in this sense, and she theirs. To attempt to single her out for some kind of unique or highest "veneration" in this regard's both idolatrous, pointless, and contrary to Scripture and God's economy
My answer
We Catholics do not think it is Mary individually being talked about here. We think that this passage is talking about several things. One of them is definitely in a literal sense is the Church, the other is the Blessed Virgin Mary in a spiritual sense. We believe the scripture has literal and spiritual senses. Scripture is Polyvalent in our understanding.
Our connections with this come from looking and seeing how Mary fulfills the role of New Eve in scripture in Luke and John as I have mentioned the evidence for this in a earlier post. This is something that the Fathers of the Church taught.
So we get insight from the scripture itself, our best scripture scholars like Dr Scott Hahn, and the fathers of the Church who have the historical antiquity and witness of the christian Church for 2000 years. We catholics would politely disagree with our separated brethren on this.
I would say that Scripture is definitely polyvalent and the non-catholic s really limit themselves to just the literal interpretation and forget about the several different spiritual senses it has. I would also respectfully and charitably say that the non-Catholic really has the burden of proof.
We catholics at least have the testimony of the fathers from antiquity. So it would seem in history that Mary was always seen as the New eve and the queen in history. This made biblical sense for the Fathers and it makes biblical sense for modern day Catholics. I hope that helps. thank you for your time.
You said
By "dulia" do u simply mean respect?
My answer
Yes we do. we mean a respectful honor we give to saints, not worship.
You said
Venerate" a picture: "give glory and honor to" a picture?
Is the definition o' idolatry
My answer
I have already pointed out that we do not worship statues. We give glory and honor to whom that statues represents as it is ok in scripture to give glory and honor to other human beings(1 tim 5:17, 1 Kings 2:19-20) as our Catechism teaches. In our terminolgy when we say Venerate a picture we mean venerating the person whom that picture represents.
Well my separated brother I really appreciated talking to you again. My God richly bless you
Speaking the truth of Christ church in love,
In Jesus through Mary
Athanasius
Thank you for sincerety and honesty. May our Lord bless this dialuge.
You said
In my understanding the word "veneration" connotes, and is closer to, worship; rather than "respect." If respect's what you're talkin about
My answer;
Ahh yes I think your understanding our position better now. The Holy Spirit is definatly at work. You are right. The Catholic understanding of veneration is a high form of respect(or glory and Honor) that we give to other human beings.
This is how the Catholics and the Catholic church uses the term. we do not give worship or adoration to Saints, only veneration. Here is what our Catechism ,the sure norm for Catholic teaching says about the respect and veneration we give to saints using their images.
“The christian Veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed the “Honor” rendered to a image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates the image venerates “the Person” who is portrayed in it. The honor paid to Sacred images is a “Respectful Veneration” , Not the adoration due to God alone” (Catechism of the Catholic church page 517 paragraph 2132)
So we Catholics as I have said earlier do not worship anyone but God alone. We do however give glory and Honor or “respectful veneration” to the saints. We honor them when looking at a image of them. But this is not idolatry because in a act of idolatry one gives worship or adoration to that image like the golden calf. Catholics do not give worship or adoration to Paintings, Icons or statues. That would be silly and sinful.
We simply use them to remember our family who went before us and give respect and honor to them, not worship. Like wise I kissed the feet of a crucifix today. I did not bow down and worship that piece of wood and metal as a God. I simply meditated on what Jesus did for me and gave him a sign of respect and thanksgiving.
Many Protestants do the same. Every year at the baptist church I used to attend they would have “Images” of the nativity scene. Many times people would be kneeling down and praying in front of the nativity scene. They were not worshipping the statues, they simply were recalling to memory what God has done for the world and they gave veneration to him.
Veneration is something that can be given to both God and humans beings. But only worship is given to God alone. So its not idolatry because we do not worship statues. I hope that helps. Bless you brother.
you said
U keep citing Rv 12 as if that supported your statements. Without deigning to show what makes u think it's about Mary individually, other than that there's a mother with child. All believers can, should be, and are spiritual mothers to one another. According to the Son's words. According to the apostle, the Jerusalem above is. The apostles are Mary's mother in this sense, and she theirs. To attempt to single her out for some kind of unique or highest "veneration" in this regard's both idolatrous, pointless, and contrary to Scripture and God's economy
My answer
We Catholics do not think it is Mary individually being talked about here. We think that this passage is talking about several things. One of them is definitely in a literal sense is the Church, the other is the Blessed Virgin Mary in a spiritual sense. We believe the scripture has literal and spiritual senses. Scripture is Polyvalent in our understanding.
Our connections with this come from looking and seeing how Mary fulfills the role of New Eve in scripture in Luke and John as I have mentioned the evidence for this in a earlier post. This is something that the Fathers of the Church taught.
So we get insight from the scripture itself, our best scripture scholars like Dr Scott Hahn, and the fathers of the Church who have the historical antiquity and witness of the christian Church for 2000 years. We catholics would politely disagree with our separated brethren on this.
I would say that Scripture is definitely polyvalent and the non-catholic s really limit themselves to just the literal interpretation and forget about the several different spiritual senses it has. I would also respectfully and charitably say that the non-Catholic really has the burden of proof.
We catholics at least have the testimony of the fathers from antiquity. So it would seem in history that Mary was always seen as the New eve and the queen in history. This made biblical sense for the Fathers and it makes biblical sense for modern day Catholics. I hope that helps. thank you for your time.
You said
By "dulia" do u simply mean respect?
My answer
Yes we do. we mean a respectful honor we give to saints, not worship.
You said
Venerate" a picture: "give glory and honor to" a picture?
Is the definition o' idolatry
My answer
I have already pointed out that we do not worship statues. We give glory and honor to whom that statues represents as it is ok in scripture to give glory and honor to other human beings(1 tim 5:17, 1 Kings 2:19-20) as our Catechism teaches. In our terminolgy when we say Venerate a picture we mean venerating the person whom that picture represents.
Well my separated brother I really appreciated talking to you again. My God richly bless you
Speaking the truth of Christ church in love,
In Jesus through Mary
Athanasius
athanasius
Well-Known Member
Oh sorry just one more thing. Mr writer you said
To attempt to single her out for some kind of unique or highest "veneration" in this regard's both idolatrous, pointless, and contrary to Scripture and God's economy
my answer
Singling her out to give her a unique and high form of veneration(Hyper dulia) is not idolatry. Its not because we do not worship her like a goddess. It was actually Jesus himself who gave Mary “Glory and Honor” (the word for “honoring your Parents” in the ten commandments literally means to glorify).
The Scripture shows us he did this as “All generation will call her blessed(Luke 1:48), he Made her Immaculate(Luke 1:28) and Made her the Ark of the New covenant(Luke 1:39-36 fulfills 2 Sam 6) and making her the New Eve (Gen 3:15, Luke 1-3, John 2:4, 19:26, Rev 12:1-5) And Queen Mother(1 Kings 2:19-20; Rev 12:1).
It was her that he(Jesus) chose to reveal miracles through in Fatima in the 1900’s and Lourdes in the 1800’s and still does today. It was Mary that was always seen as being given a place of honor and veneration in the church in the catacombs and the church fathers and early christian Liturgies saw this honor that Jesus gave to her and imitated it in thier worship.
So we didn’t give glory and Honor to Mary first, Jesus did. We simply followed his example to honor or glorify Mary our spiritual Mother(rev 12:17)
May God bless you always Mr writer my brother
Speaking the truth of christ Catholic Church in Charity,
Athanasius
To attempt to single her out for some kind of unique or highest "veneration" in this regard's both idolatrous, pointless, and contrary to Scripture and God's economy
my answer
Singling her out to give her a unique and high form of veneration(Hyper dulia) is not idolatry. Its not because we do not worship her like a goddess. It was actually Jesus himself who gave Mary “Glory and Honor” (the word for “honoring your Parents” in the ten commandments literally means to glorify).
The Scripture shows us he did this as “All generation will call her blessed(Luke 1:48), he Made her Immaculate(Luke 1:28) and Made her the Ark of the New covenant(Luke 1:39-36 fulfills 2 Sam 6) and making her the New Eve (Gen 3:15, Luke 1-3, John 2:4, 19:26, Rev 12:1-5) And Queen Mother(1 Kings 2:19-20; Rev 12:1).
It was her that he(Jesus) chose to reveal miracles through in Fatima in the 1900’s and Lourdes in the 1800’s and still does today. It was Mary that was always seen as being given a place of honor and veneration in the church in the catacombs and the church fathers and early christian Liturgies saw this honor that Jesus gave to her and imitated it in thier worship.
So we didn’t give glory and Honor to Mary first, Jesus did. We simply followed his example to honor or glorify Mary our spiritual Mother(rev 12:17)
May God bless you always Mr writer my brother
Speaking the truth of christ Catholic Church in Charity,
Athanasius
103 the final Judgment has not happened yet. But this has nothing to do with Marys being assumed into heaven.
2 Tim 2 Hymenaeus and Philetus misaiming by sayin that the resurrection's already taken place means Mary, nor any believer,'s experienced yet that physical resurrection (Jn 5). Nor rapture. So that has 'everything' to do with Mary's assumption
just because he assumed her body and soul into heaven doesnt mean we are teaching that final judgement has come.
2 Tim 2:17-18 does not say "final judgment." It says two "misaimed saying that the resurrection's already taken place." Mary, like the rest of believers, is not "body and soul," nor spirit, in heaven. At least according to the Bible
God can and did assume other people into heaven with out it being final judgement like Elijah(2 Kings 2:1-13).
Enoch, Elijah, and Moses apparently, are Scriptural special cases. Not fables.
Additionally, Elijah and Moses haven't experienced the resurrection 2 Tim and Jn 5 address. Since they'll be His "two witnesses." Die, resurrect, and be assumed per Rv 11:3-12 at the end of this age
Are you a Seventh day Adventist?
No
oral traditions that were handed down by the apostles to the fathers from generation to generation,
The apostles never, and never would, handed down that Mary's already resurrected and raptured. Nor many of the other written "oral" fables to which u refer
find in the Oral traditions of the fathers.
If you're referring to things written by so-called "fathers," then we have them cuz they're written. Not "oral"
Asking a departed saint to pray for your needs is not anything like the as trying to get info from them as we see in 1 Sam 28.
What of info not as we c in 1 Sam 28?
Since u wrote:
We also see Paul instruct all members of that body to offer prayers and intercessions for one another(1 tim 2:1).
Heavens gates havent been opened yet in the Old testament.
I don't understand what exactly u mean by this
106 my separated brother
Why do u say "separated"? I wouldn't believe that. Christ's not divided.
Yours,
2 Tim 2 Hymenaeus and Philetus misaiming by sayin that the resurrection's already taken place means Mary, nor any believer,'s experienced yet that physical resurrection (Jn 5). Nor rapture. So that has 'everything' to do with Mary's assumption
just because he assumed her body and soul into heaven doesnt mean we are teaching that final judgement has come.
2 Tim 2:17-18 does not say "final judgment." It says two "misaimed saying that the resurrection's already taken place." Mary, like the rest of believers, is not "body and soul," nor spirit, in heaven. At least according to the Bible
God can and did assume other people into heaven with out it being final judgement like Elijah(2 Kings 2:1-13).
Enoch, Elijah, and Moses apparently, are Scriptural special cases. Not fables.
Additionally, Elijah and Moses haven't experienced the resurrection 2 Tim and Jn 5 address. Since they'll be His "two witnesses." Die, resurrect, and be assumed per Rv 11:3-12 at the end of this age
Are you a Seventh day Adventist?
No
oral traditions that were handed down by the apostles to the fathers from generation to generation,
The apostles never, and never would, handed down that Mary's already resurrected and raptured. Nor many of the other written "oral" fables to which u refer
find in the Oral traditions of the fathers.
If you're referring to things written by so-called "fathers," then we have them cuz they're written. Not "oral"
Asking a departed saint to pray for your needs is not anything like the as trying to get info from them as we see in 1 Sam 28.
What of info not as we c in 1 Sam 28?
Since u wrote:
We also see Paul instruct all members of that body to offer prayers and intercessions for one another(1 tim 2:1).
Heavens gates havent been opened yet in the Old testament.
I don't understand what exactly u mean by this
106 my separated brother
Why do u say "separated"? I wouldn't believe that. Christ's not divided.
Yours,
athanasius
Well-Known Member
Dear in Christ Mr Writer.
Thank you for having responded to my letters. I appreciate your passion and good heart. But I must say that on the last latter you sounded a little uncharitable and attacking. I know how this gets As have been guilty myself of this. I think we may just need to recoup our thoughts and open our hearts to Jesus and ask him to give us true Charity.
I will pray with you and for you as well as for myself. I really do appreciate you as a fellow Brother in Christ. May Jesus open open our dialogue with respect and charity on our hearts . God bless you Mr writer my fellow Christian friend.
You said:
Hymenaeus and Philetus misaiming by sayin that the resurrection's already taken place means Mary, nor any believer,'s experienced that physical resurrection (Jn 5).
My response:
Thank you brother. I appreciate your thoughts on this. Again this is something that I pointed out earlier, that God can and does physically assume other peoples bodies and souls into heaven Like Elijah (2 Kings 2:1-13) , Moses(Jude 9), and Enoch(Gen 5:24) before the final resurrection of the Body, as we also call that the final judgement.
Mary didn't resurrect like Jesus did. We Catholics and the early christians believed she was assumed by Christ body and soul into heaven, a foretaste of what will come for us. You seemed to admit in your own words that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses apparently, are Scriptural special cases. Not fables..
Good I am glad you admit that enoch and the rest are special cases I think the Holy Spirit is at work here. Then you should have no problem seeing Mary to be a special case either. As God does have special cases of bodily assumption before the final resurrection.
The Christian Church has believed since the earliest times that Mary would be a special case and would not rot in the ground, but rather would have her body assumed into heaven. Why? Because Christ made her the New Ark of the Covenant(Luke 1:39-46. Rev 11:19-12:1), completely sanctified, sinless(Luke 1:28), she is also the New Eve(rev 12:1, John 2:4, 19:26) and as the New sanctified ark, her body would not rot typologically because the old Ark was made from Incorruptible acacia wood, then how much more would the new ark be free from corruption and decay giving that all typological fulfillment's are better and more powerful than their old testament types.
Especially since she carried the New covenant Jesus within her womb. Also we Catholics see a biblical fulfillment and implicit hint of Marys assumption in (Psalm 132:8) Which says Arise O Lord and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might. Catholics view this verse as polyvalent and referring to not only the original ark in the literal sense, but pointing beyond itself and talking about Mary in the spiritual(allegorical and anagogical senses of Scripture).
We believe that the Gospel writers Luke and John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit clearly reveal Mary to be the new Ark of the covenant and as such Jesus and her typologically fulfill this verse in Psalms. Hence Jesus arose(at easter) and went up to his resting place(Heaven the ascension), him and the ark that carried him. The New Ark as Luke and John clearly reveals is Mary.
So we se this as a implicit hint in scripture and we find this explicit in the tradition of the fathers(The oral word of God not in scripture). Here are some example s
St. Proclus (died 446 or 447)
Let the woman haste hither, for the woman shows not the tree of death, but brings forth the tree of life: the virgins...the mothers also, for the Virgin Mother has amended the tree of disobedience by the tree of life. The female sex is no longer in execration, for it has obtained whereby it shall surpass even the angels in glory. Eve has been healed...and Mary is venerated (adored), because she has become mother and handmaid, cloud and chamber, and ARK of the Lord....For this cause let us say to her: Blessed art thou amongst women, who alone hast healed the grief of EVE; who alone hast borne the worlds price (Orat.iv.and v. In Natal. Dom. P.G. Tom. 65, p.710) (Blessed Virgin, p. 58).
St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib [i.e., Mary], a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon(Rev 12 referenced). For in that ARK [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror. There was then a mystery revealed, in that Dagon(Rev 12) was brought low in his own place of refuge.
St Epipahnius(377 Panarion against all hersesies)
How will holy Mary Not possess the kingdom of heaven with her flesh, since she was not unchaste, nor dissolute,....she never did anything wrong as for as fleshly actions are concerned but remained stainless(Immaculate)
Here we see that the early christian Church did teach her bodily assumption and her immaculate, spotless or stainless nature. It is important to realize that Epiphanius was well known bishop and was very well known for his expertise in Greek, he was NOT a heretic in this letter he was writing against all heresies.
It is also important to realize that no-one really contended this dogma in the early church, it just seems to be a believed and already established. Remember this was the early church that was very quick to point out heresies like the Arians or the Modalist. Yet we really have no any arguments against this Bodily assumption in history.
And more importantly we have no relics of Marys Body. The early church was quick to keep relics of all the saints but none are mentioned for her, which is a sign pointing towards this historical biblical doctrine and its reality. Here is just some of the historical evidence that we find that the early Christians did teach and preach on these Marian dogmas of faith. It was common in their liturgies to mention what God had done for Mary.
It is also very important to note that this teaching was present in 377 Ad. Thats five years before the Canon of the New testament would ever be offically recognized and formally declared. This is a ancient teaching, evenmore ancient than the new testament canon!!!
from the early ancient Liturgies we find a prayer from the Greek Catholic or Byzantine church
God, the King of the universe, has granted you(Mary) favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb." (Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus)
So we Catholics do see this as something completely implicitly biblical and explicitly taught in the tradition of the fathers. I hope that helps.
you said:
The apostles never, and never would, handed down that Mary's already resurrected and raptured. Nor many of the other written "oral" fables to which u refer
My answer:
I would politely disagree with you as we Catholics believe that the bible implicitly reveals Marys assumption and the Tradition of the Fathers and and common ancient liturgies reveals it explicitly. Amen.
You said:
?f you're referring to things written by so-called "fathers," then we have them cuz they're written. Not "oral"
My answer: Yes indeed Amen! Let me explain what a Catholic means when he says oral apostolic tradition. When I say tradition of the Fathers I am referring to apostolic teachings and customs that were not Necessarily(Although sometimes were implicit) in Sacred Scripture but rather were handed on orally to the next generation of Bishops.
Of coarse this tradition is reflected by the worship and teachings of the Fathers in the early church, such as their liturgies and common practice and teaching. Of Coarse these teachings were proclaimed by the fathers and eventually written down in their letters So we can see how the early church handed those things on. But the fathers letters are not considered scripture. We Catholics believe that these teachings were part of the oral word not written down that was handed down to us(2 thess 2:15). Just as their were canonical and non-canonical scriptures, there were also canonical and non-canonical traditions.
We Catholics go through he historical and biblical and miraculous evidence and listen to the voice of Christs Catholic Church on deciding these issue just like she decided what was canonical scripture and what wasnt. I hope that helps brother.
Oh one more thing you asked.
Why do u say "separated"? I wouldn't believe that. Christ's not divided.
Yours,
My answer: thank you brother we say you are our brother in Christ Jesus because you are united to us in the one common baptism. For there is only one baptism and one body(Eph 4:4-5). Amen!
However we refer to protestants as Separated brothers because in our view while protestants do share many of the truths of faith, they do not share what we Catholics would consider the fullness of revealed truth that Christ gave to his Catholic church. So they are separated painfully from a formal union with us(that they used to have until 1517) but they do have a spiritual union with us in baptism and faith in Christ. Amen!
Please forgive me for this but we Catholics teach that every non-catholic that has been baptized and believes in Christ has entered into a informal union with Christ's Catholic church. I know you may not agree but that is what we teach.
Blessing be with you and thank you my separated brother. I really feel The Spirit of God is working. Have a great day and a blessed one. I have alot of school work so I may try to answer your eucharist post late tomorrow night. thank you brother and god bless you
Speaking the truth of Jesus Catholic Church
In Jesus through Mary
Athansius
?
Thank you for having responded to my letters. I appreciate your passion and good heart. But I must say that on the last latter you sounded a little uncharitable and attacking. I know how this gets As have been guilty myself of this. I think we may just need to recoup our thoughts and open our hearts to Jesus and ask him to give us true Charity.
I will pray with you and for you as well as for myself. I really do appreciate you as a fellow Brother in Christ. May Jesus open open our dialogue with respect and charity on our hearts . God bless you Mr writer my fellow Christian friend.
You said:
Hymenaeus and Philetus misaiming by sayin that the resurrection's already taken place means Mary, nor any believer,'s experienced that physical resurrection (Jn 5).
My response:
Thank you brother. I appreciate your thoughts on this. Again this is something that I pointed out earlier, that God can and does physically assume other peoples bodies and souls into heaven Like Elijah (2 Kings 2:1-13) , Moses(Jude 9), and Enoch(Gen 5:24) before the final resurrection of the Body, as we also call that the final judgement.
Mary didn't resurrect like Jesus did. We Catholics and the early christians believed she was assumed by Christ body and soul into heaven, a foretaste of what will come for us. You seemed to admit in your own words that Enoch, Elijah, and Moses apparently, are Scriptural special cases. Not fables..
Good I am glad you admit that enoch and the rest are special cases I think the Holy Spirit is at work here. Then you should have no problem seeing Mary to be a special case either. As God does have special cases of bodily assumption before the final resurrection.
The Christian Church has believed since the earliest times that Mary would be a special case and would not rot in the ground, but rather would have her body assumed into heaven. Why? Because Christ made her the New Ark of the Covenant(Luke 1:39-46. Rev 11:19-12:1), completely sanctified, sinless(Luke 1:28), she is also the New Eve(rev 12:1, John 2:4, 19:26) and as the New sanctified ark, her body would not rot typologically because the old Ark was made from Incorruptible acacia wood, then how much more would the new ark be free from corruption and decay giving that all typological fulfillment's are better and more powerful than their old testament types.
Especially since she carried the New covenant Jesus within her womb. Also we Catholics see a biblical fulfillment and implicit hint of Marys assumption in (Psalm 132:8) Which says Arise O Lord and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might. Catholics view this verse as polyvalent and referring to not only the original ark in the literal sense, but pointing beyond itself and talking about Mary in the spiritual(allegorical and anagogical senses of Scripture).
We believe that the Gospel writers Luke and John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit clearly reveal Mary to be the new Ark of the covenant and as such Jesus and her typologically fulfill this verse in Psalms. Hence Jesus arose(at easter) and went up to his resting place(Heaven the ascension), him and the ark that carried him. The New Ark as Luke and John clearly reveals is Mary.
So we se this as a implicit hint in scripture and we find this explicit in the tradition of the fathers(The oral word of God not in scripture). Here are some example s
St. Proclus (died 446 or 447)
Let the woman haste hither, for the woman shows not the tree of death, but brings forth the tree of life: the virgins...the mothers also, for the Virgin Mother has amended the tree of disobedience by the tree of life. The female sex is no longer in execration, for it has obtained whereby it shall surpass even the angels in glory. Eve has been healed...and Mary is venerated (adored), because she has become mother and handmaid, cloud and chamber, and ARK of the Lord....For this cause let us say to her: Blessed art thou amongst women, who alone hast healed the grief of EVE; who alone hast borne the worlds price (Orat.iv.and v. In Natal. Dom. P.G. Tom. 65, p.710) (Blessed Virgin, p. 58).
St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib [i.e., Mary], a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon(Rev 12 referenced). For in that ARK [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror. There was then a mystery revealed, in that Dagon(Rev 12) was brought low in his own place of refuge.
St Epipahnius(377 Panarion against all hersesies)
How will holy Mary Not possess the kingdom of heaven with her flesh, since she was not unchaste, nor dissolute,....she never did anything wrong as for as fleshly actions are concerned but remained stainless(Immaculate)
Here we see that the early christian Church did teach her bodily assumption and her immaculate, spotless or stainless nature. It is important to realize that Epiphanius was well known bishop and was very well known for his expertise in Greek, he was NOT a heretic in this letter he was writing against all heresies.
It is also important to realize that no-one really contended this dogma in the early church, it just seems to be a believed and already established. Remember this was the early church that was very quick to point out heresies like the Arians or the Modalist. Yet we really have no any arguments against this Bodily assumption in history.
And more importantly we have no relics of Marys Body. The early church was quick to keep relics of all the saints but none are mentioned for her, which is a sign pointing towards this historical biblical doctrine and its reality. Here is just some of the historical evidence that we find that the early Christians did teach and preach on these Marian dogmas of faith. It was common in their liturgies to mention what God had done for Mary.
It is also very important to note that this teaching was present in 377 Ad. Thats five years before the Canon of the New testament would ever be offically recognized and formally declared. This is a ancient teaching, evenmore ancient than the new testament canon!!!
from the early ancient Liturgies we find a prayer from the Greek Catholic or Byzantine church
God, the King of the universe, has granted you(Mary) favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb." (Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus)
So we Catholics do see this as something completely implicitly biblical and explicitly taught in the tradition of the fathers. I hope that helps.
you said:
The apostles never, and never would, handed down that Mary's already resurrected and raptured. Nor many of the other written "oral" fables to which u refer
My answer:
I would politely disagree with you as we Catholics believe that the bible implicitly reveals Marys assumption and the Tradition of the Fathers and and common ancient liturgies reveals it explicitly. Amen.
You said:
?f you're referring to things written by so-called "fathers," then we have them cuz they're written. Not "oral"
My answer: Yes indeed Amen! Let me explain what a Catholic means when he says oral apostolic tradition. When I say tradition of the Fathers I am referring to apostolic teachings and customs that were not Necessarily(Although sometimes were implicit) in Sacred Scripture but rather were handed on orally to the next generation of Bishops.
Of coarse this tradition is reflected by the worship and teachings of the Fathers in the early church, such as their liturgies and common practice and teaching. Of Coarse these teachings were proclaimed by the fathers and eventually written down in their letters So we can see how the early church handed those things on. But the fathers letters are not considered scripture. We Catholics believe that these teachings were part of the oral word not written down that was handed down to us(2 thess 2:15). Just as their were canonical and non-canonical scriptures, there were also canonical and non-canonical traditions.
We Catholics go through he historical and biblical and miraculous evidence and listen to the voice of Christs Catholic Church on deciding these issue just like she decided what was canonical scripture and what wasnt. I hope that helps brother.
Oh one more thing you asked.
Why do u say "separated"? I wouldn't believe that. Christ's not divided.
Yours,
My answer: thank you brother we say you are our brother in Christ Jesus because you are united to us in the one common baptism. For there is only one baptism and one body(Eph 4:4-5). Amen!
However we refer to protestants as Separated brothers because in our view while protestants do share many of the truths of faith, they do not share what we Catholics would consider the fullness of revealed truth that Christ gave to his Catholic church. So they are separated painfully from a formal union with us(that they used to have until 1517) but they do have a spiritual union with us in baptism and faith in Christ. Amen!
Please forgive me for this but we Catholics teach that every non-catholic that has been baptized and believes in Christ has entered into a informal union with Christ's Catholic church. I know you may not agree but that is what we teach.
Blessing be with you and thank you my separated brother. I really feel The Spirit of God is working. Have a great day and a blessed one. I have alot of school work so I may try to answer your eucharist post late tomorrow night. thank you brother and god bless you
Speaking the truth of Jesus Catholic Church
In Jesus through Mary
Athansius
?
110 Thank you for having responded
you're welcome
the last latter you sounded a little uncharitable and attacking.
i'pologize if u feel so.
If u permit me to ask: How so?
open our hearts to Jesus and ask him to give us true Charity.
Amen
I will pray with you and for you as well as for myself.
Thank you. I'll too
I really do appreciate you as a fellow Brother in Christ.
Likewise. This transcends, and transcends practically, all our differences
God can and does physically assume other peoples bodies and souls into heaven Like Elijah (2 Kings 2:1-13) , Moses(Jude 9), and Enoch(Gen 5:24) before the final resurrection of the Body, as we also call that the final judgement.
To the contrary: the final resurrection of believers' bodies is not "the final judgment" of Rv 20. Believers and unbelievers r neither judged together, nor subject to the "same" judgment.
Additionally, this isn't Moses' nor Elijah's final death, resurrection, or assumption. Nor is Mary, nor would Mary be, for any reason one of these 3
early christians believed she was assumed by Christ body and soul into heaven
Mary certainly didn't. If yours is a blanket statement: that's also fable
you should have no problem seeing Mary to be a special case either.
since i'm limited to the apostles' teaching, that itself is my blessing. Not a problem.
Nor's Mary any reason to be raptured b4 others
The Christian Church has believed since the earliest times that Mary would be a special case and would not rot in the ground, but rather would have her body assumed into heaven.
The Christian church has not believed in the New Testament that Mary would be a special case and her corpse wouldn't disintegrate like all others or that she's been raptured
Especially since she carried the New covenant Jesus within her womb.
Since Christ as Spirit regenerates and renews His Body (Eph 5), merely touching Christ physically did not yet accomplish His purpose
biblical fulfillment and implicit hint of Marys assumption in (Psalm 132:8) Which says Arise O Lord and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.
The ark of the covenant in and throughout the Bible signifies Christ. God's container. Numbers 10:35. Christ includes His Body, of which you and i r members as well as sister Mary. She's definitely not God's unique ark. Because that is Christ. And we're members of Him.
She, like all His believers, has been "raised up together with Him and seated together with Him in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, that He might display in the ages to come the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:6-7). But not physically yet
Catholics view this verse as polyvalent and referring to not only the original ark in the literal sense, but pointing beyond itself and talking about Mary in the spiritual(allegorical and anagogical senses of Scripture).
Psalm 132:8, like 68:1 and Num 10:35 (the source of the quote), speaks of Christ. Not Mary individually. Nor Mary singlely. Nor Mary apart from any or all other members of Christ.
Jesus and her typologically fulfill this verse in Psalms. Hence Jesus arose(at easter) and went up to his resting place(Heaven the ascension), him and the ark that carried him. The New Ark...is Mary.
Jesus' resting place is His Body. In His Father's house are many abodes. He's also resting physically in heaven. But Mary was on earth after His ascension (Ac 1:14). "These all continued steadfastly with one accord in prayer together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers [Mary's other sons]." She wasn't in heaven and still's not. Nor is Joseph. Nor is Paul. Nor is Karol Wojtyla
71 A good example of Polyvalent scripture besides Rev 12 is (Isaiah 7:14) which initially prophesied the birth of King Hezekiah . The gospel writer Matthew(Matt 1:23) also saw this scripture as being polyvalent and believed it to be addressing not only King Hezekiah but also the birth of Christ through Marys virginal womb.
Revelation 12 is not "polyvalent."
"Behold the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel (Which is translated God with us)" (Matthew 1:23) does not refer to Hezekiah. It refers to Mary as a virgin conceiving and delivering her firstborn, Emmanuel, God's Son, Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold the damsel will conceive and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel," the source of Mt 1:23, addresses Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isaiah 8:3), and, of course, the Messiah. God's Son Jesus Christ (Mt 1:23; Isa 9:6).
Isa 7:14 does not refer to Hezekiah. "And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. And Jehovah said to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, for before this boy knows how to call, Father, and, Mother, they will carry off the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria (Isa 8:3-4; please read 7:15-8:8). Isaiah's boy, Maher..., himself typifies Christ.
This is valid "polyvalence," where the first subject himself also represents the 2nd, or most important, fulfillment. Thus Isaiah's wife is also a representative of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Which is interesting too how later, before Christ, the Jewish Septuagint translated "damsel" by Isaiah as "virgin" in Greek.
But neitgher Christ nor Mary r addressed individually in Rv 12.
So scripture can have many levels of meaning and one of them for Rev 12 is clearly our Blessed Lady as the Fathers historically taught.
To the contrary: Methodius (260-312), overseer in Olympus and Patara in Lycia, later of Tyre in Phoenicia; and martyred at Chalcis in Greece probably; wrote in his The Banquet Of The Ten Virgins discourse 8, chapter 7: "The child of the woman in the Apocalypse not Christ, but the faithful...Long before the Apocalypse, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word was fulfilled." This explicitly denies Mr A here's "polyvalence" of Rv 12. "She who brings forth...is, as we have explained, our mother the Church" (chapter 11).
Is Methodius one of "the Fathers" u refer to, dear Mr A?
Is Hippolytus (170-236; from Rome, Portus, and Lyons; also martyred)?
In his Treatise On Christ And Antichrist section (paragraph) 61 he wrote "By the 'woman then clothed with the sun,' he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun." Hipp never applied her to Mary, singleley. Hipp interpreted Rv 12's child as Christ. Spiritually. Not directly in Incarnation
In Rev 12 we see this women (clearly Mary as Jesus hints to ) give birth to a son(Jesus) who will crush Satan (the dragon).
Jesus doesn't hint that the woman in Rv 12 is Mary. He doesn't say that she is. In fact, He clearly indicates she is not. As Methodius pointed out, Christ's incarnation [and His crucifixion in which He crushed Satan] transpired long before Revelation, and John's not writing of the past in Rv 12.
I asked you previously and i believe u never answered, Mr A, if u or your organization teaches that the woman in Rv 12's Mary, then (please teach me): into which wilderness did Mary flee after Christ ascended, for 1260 days to be nourished (12:6)?
To the contrary of that: Acts 1:14 states that she was neither in heaven nor any wilderness. She was in Jerusalem with the disciples then the church in Jerusalem. "These all continued steadfastly with one accord in prayer together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers [her other sons]"
Hence Mary fulfills this Prophecy in Genesis and since Jesus is Considered the New Adam, then Mary is the New Eve as the early Fathers of the Church all Spoke of.
Of course Mary "fulfilled" the prophecy in Genesis 3:15. Christ was born of the woman. And Mary can be called a new Eve. But to call her, individually, THE new Eve is blasphemous and wrong and antiapostolic. Since Christ did not marry an individual, only. But His new Eve, the church, collectively. "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church," Ephesians 5:31-32. Thanks
you're welcome
the last latter you sounded a little uncharitable and attacking.
i'pologize if u feel so.
If u permit me to ask: How so?
open our hearts to Jesus and ask him to give us true Charity.
Amen
I will pray with you and for you as well as for myself.
Thank you. I'll too
I really do appreciate you as a fellow Brother in Christ.
Likewise. This transcends, and transcends practically, all our differences
God can and does physically assume other peoples bodies and souls into heaven Like Elijah (2 Kings 2:1-13) , Moses(Jude 9), and Enoch(Gen 5:24) before the final resurrection of the Body, as we also call that the final judgement.
To the contrary: the final resurrection of believers' bodies is not "the final judgment" of Rv 20. Believers and unbelievers r neither judged together, nor subject to the "same" judgment.
Additionally, this isn't Moses' nor Elijah's final death, resurrection, or assumption. Nor is Mary, nor would Mary be, for any reason one of these 3
early christians believed she was assumed by Christ body and soul into heaven
Mary certainly didn't. If yours is a blanket statement: that's also fable
you should have no problem seeing Mary to be a special case either.
since i'm limited to the apostles' teaching, that itself is my blessing. Not a problem.
Nor's Mary any reason to be raptured b4 others
The Christian Church has believed since the earliest times that Mary would be a special case and would not rot in the ground, but rather would have her body assumed into heaven.
The Christian church has not believed in the New Testament that Mary would be a special case and her corpse wouldn't disintegrate like all others or that she's been raptured
Especially since she carried the New covenant Jesus within her womb.
Since Christ as Spirit regenerates and renews His Body (Eph 5), merely touching Christ physically did not yet accomplish His purpose
biblical fulfillment and implicit hint of Marys assumption in (Psalm 132:8) Which says Arise O Lord and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.
The ark of the covenant in and throughout the Bible signifies Christ. God's container. Numbers 10:35. Christ includes His Body, of which you and i r members as well as sister Mary. She's definitely not God's unique ark. Because that is Christ. And we're members of Him.
She, like all His believers, has been "raised up together with Him and seated together with Him in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, that He might display in the ages to come the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:6-7). But not physically yet
Catholics view this verse as polyvalent and referring to not only the original ark in the literal sense, but pointing beyond itself and talking about Mary in the spiritual(allegorical and anagogical senses of Scripture).
Psalm 132:8, like 68:1 and Num 10:35 (the source of the quote), speaks of Christ. Not Mary individually. Nor Mary singlely. Nor Mary apart from any or all other members of Christ.
Jesus and her typologically fulfill this verse in Psalms. Hence Jesus arose(at easter) and went up to his resting place(Heaven the ascension), him and the ark that carried him. The New Ark...is Mary.
Jesus' resting place is His Body. In His Father's house are many abodes. He's also resting physically in heaven. But Mary was on earth after His ascension (Ac 1:14). "These all continued steadfastly with one accord in prayer together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers [Mary's other sons]." She wasn't in heaven and still's not. Nor is Joseph. Nor is Paul. Nor is Karol Wojtyla
71 A good example of Polyvalent scripture besides Rev 12 is (Isaiah 7:14) which initially prophesied the birth of King Hezekiah . The gospel writer Matthew(Matt 1:23) also saw this scripture as being polyvalent and believed it to be addressing not only King Hezekiah but also the birth of Christ through Marys virginal womb.
Revelation 12 is not "polyvalent."
"Behold the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel (Which is translated God with us)" (Matthew 1:23) does not refer to Hezekiah. It refers to Mary as a virgin conceiving and delivering her firstborn, Emmanuel, God's Son, Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold the damsel will conceive and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel," the source of Mt 1:23, addresses Isaiah's son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Isaiah 8:3), and, of course, the Messiah. God's Son Jesus Christ (Mt 1:23; Isa 9:6).
Isa 7:14 does not refer to Hezekiah. "And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. And Jehovah said to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, for before this boy knows how to call, Father, and, Mother, they will carry off the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria (Isa 8:3-4; please read 7:15-8:8). Isaiah's boy, Maher..., himself typifies Christ.
This is valid "polyvalence," where the first subject himself also represents the 2nd, or most important, fulfillment. Thus Isaiah's wife is also a representative of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Which is interesting too how later, before Christ, the Jewish Septuagint translated "damsel" by Isaiah as "virgin" in Greek.
But neitgher Christ nor Mary r addressed individually in Rv 12.
So scripture can have many levels of meaning and one of them for Rev 12 is clearly our Blessed Lady as the Fathers historically taught.
To the contrary: Methodius (260-312), overseer in Olympus and Patara in Lycia, later of Tyre in Phoenicia; and martyred at Chalcis in Greece probably; wrote in his The Banquet Of The Ten Virgins discourse 8, chapter 7: "The child of the woman in the Apocalypse not Christ, but the faithful...Long before the Apocalypse, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word was fulfilled." This explicitly denies Mr A here's "polyvalence" of Rv 12. "She who brings forth...is, as we have explained, our mother the Church" (chapter 11).
Is Methodius one of "the Fathers" u refer to, dear Mr A?
Is Hippolytus (170-236; from Rome, Portus, and Lyons; also martyred)?
In his Treatise On Christ And Antichrist section (paragraph) 61 he wrote "By the 'woman then clothed with the sun,' he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father's word, whose brightness is above the sun." Hipp never applied her to Mary, singleley. Hipp interpreted Rv 12's child as Christ. Spiritually. Not directly in Incarnation
In Rev 12 we see this women (clearly Mary as Jesus hints to ) give birth to a son(Jesus) who will crush Satan (the dragon).
Jesus doesn't hint that the woman in Rv 12 is Mary. He doesn't say that she is. In fact, He clearly indicates she is not. As Methodius pointed out, Christ's incarnation [and His crucifixion in which He crushed Satan] transpired long before Revelation, and John's not writing of the past in Rv 12.
I asked you previously and i believe u never answered, Mr A, if u or your organization teaches that the woman in Rv 12's Mary, then (please teach me): into which wilderness did Mary flee after Christ ascended, for 1260 days to be nourished (12:6)?
To the contrary of that: Acts 1:14 states that she was neither in heaven nor any wilderness. She was in Jerusalem with the disciples then the church in Jerusalem. "These all continued steadfastly with one accord in prayer together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers [her other sons]"
Hence Mary fulfills this Prophecy in Genesis and since Jesus is Considered the New Adam, then Mary is the New Eve as the early Fathers of the Church all Spoke of.
Of course Mary "fulfilled" the prophecy in Genesis 3:15. Christ was born of the woman. And Mary can be called a new Eve. But to call her, individually, THE new Eve is blasphemous and wrong and antiapostolic. Since Christ did not marry an individual, only. But His new Eve, the church, collectively. "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This mystery is great, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church," Ephesians 5:31-32. Thanks
athanasius
Well-Known Member
Dear In Christ Mr Writer
Thank you for your response. I ask the Lord to bless this dialogue between you and me. May he grant us both peace and understanding. Its great to talk to you Mr Writer my brother. This dialgue may come in several post as I have alot of evidence to show so please be patient with me.
Speaking of the Blessed Virgin Mary You said:
“She's definitely not God's unique ark....Psalm 132:8, like 68:1 and Num 10:35 (the source of the quote), speaks of Christ. Not Mary individually. Nor Mary singlely. Nor Mary apart from any or all other members of Christ.
My answer:
Dear Brother writer I and the Catholic church must humbly disagree with you over this. Sacred Scripture and Sacred tradition make it very plain and clear †hat Mary is indeed the New Ark of God’s covenant. I shall once again demonstrate from the Gospel Writers Luke and John and the fathers of the Church how this is.
Biblically this is obvious. The old Ark carried 3 things. The manna, the rod of Aaron. and the Word of God or ten words(Ten commandments). Jesus is the Word of God incarnate(Jn 1:1), the New Manna(Jn 6:48-49), and Jesus rules with the Rod of Iron (rev 12:5). Naturally Mary carried Jesus in her womb for 9 months. Mary would be the ark of the new covenant.
The Gospel Writer Luke shows us how Mary is a fulfillment of the Old testament ark:
For example Luke Makes direct parallels between Mary and the ark in his Gospel.
Compare 2 Sam 6 to Luke 1
David arose and went to Judah(2 Sam 6:2)
Mary arose and went to the hill country Judah(Lk 1:39)*
How can the Ark of the Lord come to me(2 sam 6:9)
Why is this Granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me(LK 1:43almost verbatim language)
The ARK remained on the hill country for 3 months(2 Sam 6:11)
Mary stays 3 months with Elisabeth (LK 1:56)
David rejoices (2 Sam 6 :12)
Mary’s Spirit rejoices (Lk 1:47)
leaping and dancing(2 Sam 6:16)
The babe leaps in Elisabeth's womb(Lk 1:41)
The Spirit of God would overshadow and rest on the ark(Ex 40:34)
The Holy Spirit of God would come upon Mary and overshadow her(Lk 1:35)
Clearly and unambiguously we see the Gospel writer Luke himself drwing direct parallels comparing Mary to the ark of the covenant and using similar language to reflect it. Luke is showing us she is the new ark. This is why many Bible scholar and fathers of the Church had no problem with calling he “Ark of the Covenant”, she clearly filled that role.
In fact this is why we find such titles for Mary such as “Ark Gilded by the Holy Ghost” in the early Christian Akathist hymns in the 5th century. We also see the Gospel writer John clearly show her as the new Ark. Consider also this:
“John explicitly shows Mary to be the new ark in Revelation. In Rev 11:19 we see the Ark of God’’s covenant appear. Who was this Ark?
The next verse tell us it was Mary(Rev 12:1). Remember when the scriptures were written there were no chapters and verses. This would have read immediately in context. Thus showing Mary to be the new Ark. Mr writer wrongly thinks that Mary’s arkness was just temporary for 9 months.
Even though Mary did have Jesus after 9 months, She was still considered the new ark. Remember Mary is depicted as the New ark in the book of Revelation which shows the future of the heavenly liturgy. She is even in the future in heaven still considered the ark. This is why the Fathers of the church called her the new ark.
Mr writer the next post I will reveal how hte early fathers of rthe Church didi teach that Mary was the ark of the covenant and assumed into heaven. I will also show how the Father taught that both Mary and the church were the women of revelation 12.
Peace be with you always and God bless you my Brother
Thank you for your response. I ask the Lord to bless this dialogue between you and me. May he grant us both peace and understanding. Its great to talk to you Mr Writer my brother. This dialgue may come in several post as I have alot of evidence to show so please be patient with me.
Speaking of the Blessed Virgin Mary You said:
“She's definitely not God's unique ark....Psalm 132:8, like 68:1 and Num 10:35 (the source of the quote), speaks of Christ. Not Mary individually. Nor Mary singlely. Nor Mary apart from any or all other members of Christ.
My answer:
Dear Brother writer I and the Catholic church must humbly disagree with you over this. Sacred Scripture and Sacred tradition make it very plain and clear †hat Mary is indeed the New Ark of God’s covenant. I shall once again demonstrate from the Gospel Writers Luke and John and the fathers of the Church how this is.
Biblically this is obvious. The old Ark carried 3 things. The manna, the rod of Aaron. and the Word of God or ten words(Ten commandments). Jesus is the Word of God incarnate(Jn 1:1), the New Manna(Jn 6:48-49), and Jesus rules with the Rod of Iron (rev 12:5). Naturally Mary carried Jesus in her womb for 9 months. Mary would be the ark of the new covenant.
The Gospel Writer Luke shows us how Mary is a fulfillment of the Old testament ark:
For example Luke Makes direct parallels between Mary and the ark in his Gospel.
Compare 2 Sam 6 to Luke 1
David arose and went to Judah(2 Sam 6:2)
Mary arose and went to the hill country Judah(Lk 1:39)*
How can the Ark of the Lord come to me(2 sam 6:9)
Why is this Granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me(LK 1:43almost verbatim language)
The ARK remained on the hill country for 3 months(2 Sam 6:11)
Mary stays 3 months with Elisabeth (LK 1:56)
David rejoices (2 Sam 6 :12)
Mary’s Spirit rejoices (Lk 1:47)
leaping and dancing(2 Sam 6:16)
The babe leaps in Elisabeth's womb(Lk 1:41)
The Spirit of God would overshadow and rest on the ark(Ex 40:34)
The Holy Spirit of God would come upon Mary and overshadow her(Lk 1:35)
Clearly and unambiguously we see the Gospel writer Luke himself drwing direct parallels comparing Mary to the ark of the covenant and using similar language to reflect it. Luke is showing us she is the new ark. This is why many Bible scholar and fathers of the Church had no problem with calling he “Ark of the Covenant”, she clearly filled that role.
In fact this is why we find such titles for Mary such as “Ark Gilded by the Holy Ghost” in the early Christian Akathist hymns in the 5th century. We also see the Gospel writer John clearly show her as the new Ark. Consider also this:
“John explicitly shows Mary to be the new ark in Revelation. In Rev 11:19 we see the Ark of God’’s covenant appear. Who was this Ark?
The next verse tell us it was Mary(Rev 12:1). Remember when the scriptures were written there were no chapters and verses. This would have read immediately in context. Thus showing Mary to be the new Ark. Mr writer wrongly thinks that Mary’s arkness was just temporary for 9 months.
Even though Mary did have Jesus after 9 months, She was still considered the new ark. Remember Mary is depicted as the New ark in the book of Revelation which shows the future of the heavenly liturgy. She is even in the future in heaven still considered the ark. This is why the Fathers of the church called her the new ark.
Mr writer the next post I will reveal how hte early fathers of rthe Church didi teach that Mary was the ark of the covenant and assumed into heaven. I will also show how the Father taught that both Mary and the church were the women of revelation 12.
Peace be with you always and God bless you my Brother
athanasius
Well-Known Member
Mr writer you denied that Mary is the one being discussed in Psalm 132:8, which states:
“Go up to they resting place O Lord thou and the Ark of they might.”
But The Fathers saw Mary as fulfilling this passage and they believed she was the New ark being assumed into heaven. For example:
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)
“Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary.” For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary. (Orat. in Deip. Annunciat. Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaumaturg) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).
1
St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
“With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib [i.e., Mary], a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon. For in that ark [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror. There was then a mystery revealed, in that Dagon was brought low in his own place of refuge. The accomplishment came after the type, in that the wicked one was brought low wherein he trusted....Fulfilled was the mystery. Blessed is He who by the true Lamb
Chrysippus
“An ark truly royal, an ark most precious is the ever-Virgin Mother of God, an ark which received the treasure of entire sanctification (Chrysippus, Orat. de laudib. Deip. (Blessed Virgin, p. 74).
St. Ambrose (c. 339-397)
“The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly” (Serm. xlii. 6, Int. Opp., S. Ambrosii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).
St. Athanasius (c. 296-373)
“Be mindful of us, most holy virgin, who after childbirth didst remain virgin; and grant to us for these small words great gifts from the riches of they graces, O thou full of grace. Accept them as though they were true and adequate praises in they honor; and if there is in them any virtue and any praise, we offer them as a hymn from ourselves and from all creatures to thee, full of grace, Lady, Queen, Mistress, Mother of God, and Ark of sanctification” (Orat. In Deip. Annuntiat, nn. 13, 14. Int. Opp. S. Athanasii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 80).
St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373; the main defender of the Trinity and the deity of Christ against the 2nd century Arian heretics.)
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.
Hesychius (lived c. 300)
“The ark is without doubt the Virgin Mother of God. For if Thou art the gem, with reason is she the (Hesychius, Orat. De Virginis laudib. Biblioth. PP. Græco-Lat. Tom. ii. p. 423) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).
St. Methodius (815-885)
verily, is the mystery connected with thee, O Mother Virgin, thou spiritual throne, glorified and made worthy of God. . . . And the lintels of the doors, says the prophet, were raised at the voice of them that cried. By which is signified the veil of the temple overshadowing before the ark of the Covenant which typified thee.... For if to the ark, which was the image and type of thy sanctity, such honor was paid by God, that to no one but to the priestly order was the access to it open, or ingress allowed to behold it-the veil separating it off, and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen—how great, and what sort of veneration is due to thee from us, who are of all the least, to thee who art indeed a Queen ; to thee who art in truth the living Ark of God (St. Methodius, Orat. de Simeone et Anna ii. Patr. Graec. Tom. 18, p. 332. (Blessed Virgin, p. 153).
St. Jerome (c. 345-420)
“Behold one in truth, the handmaid of the Lord. Holy she is, in whom is no guile, all simplicity....The spouse of Christ is the ark of the covenant, within and without overlaid with gold, a keeper of the law of the Lord. As in the ark there was nothing but the tables of the Testament, so too in thee no one from outside should be thought of. Over this propitiatory, as though upon the Cherubim, the Lord is pleased to sit....The Apostle thus defines a virgin, that she should be holy in body and in spirit... (Epist. Xxii., Ad Eustoch. Nn. 18, 19, 21, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 216).
Now consider the truth of the Assumption as believed by the early Church;
St Epipahnius (377 Panarion against all hersesies)
“How will holy Mary Not possess the kingdom of heaven with her flesh, since she was not unchaste, nor dissolute,....she never did anything wrong as for as fleshly actions are concerned but remained stainless(Immaculate)”
St Gregory of tours;
“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..."
Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles,1:4(inter A.D. 575-593),in JUR,III:306
As the most glorious Mother of Christ,our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."
(Modestus of Jerusalem,Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae(PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634) from Munificentis simus Deu)
Theoteknos
“It was fitting ... that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ... should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God."
Theoteknos of Livias,Homily on the Assumption(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,57 
Germanus of Constantinople
"You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dewlling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissoultion into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."
Germanus of Constantinople,Sermon I(PG 98,346),(ante A.D. 733),from Munificentis simus Deus
St .John of Damascene,
"It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God"
John of Damascene,Dormition of Mary(PG 96,741),(ante A.D. 749) from Munificentis simus Deus
St John Damascene
'St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.' "
John of Damascene,PG(96:1)(A.D. 747-751)
[A]n effable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin's Assumption is something unique among men."
Gallican Sacramentary, from Munificentis simus Deus
God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb." Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus
Timotheus of Jerusalem
"[T]he virgin is up to now immortal, as He who lived, translated her into the place of reception"
Timotheus of Jerusalem(6th-8th century),in OTT,208
St Ambrose believed that the women of rev 12 was polyvalent, both referring to the Church and to Mary. Speaking on this he said
St. Ambrose of Milan
“She(Mary) is a type of the church who is also married but remains immaculate(Exposito in Lucam 2, 7 A,D, 397)
St Ephrem also reached the same conclsuion fearing no contradiction
St Ephrem the syrian
The virgin Mary is a symbol of the Church.....we call the church by the Name Mary for she desevees a double name(Sermo ad Noct A.D. 370)
Many other Church fatehrs(such as St Augustine) alsop saw the Mary as a type of the church and viewed the women of revelation to be both Mary and the Church. Thus showiing that the fathers taught both Mary and the Church are being talked about in Rev 12. Mary was clearly the biblcial and typological fullfillment of the ark of the covenant.
“Go up to they resting place O Lord thou and the Ark of they might.”
But The Fathers saw Mary as fulfilling this passage and they believed she was the New ark being assumed into heaven. For example:
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)
“Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary.” For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary. (Orat. in Deip. Annunciat. Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaumaturg) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).
1
St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
“With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib [i.e., Mary], a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon. For in that ark [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror. There was then a mystery revealed, in that Dagon was brought low in his own place of refuge. The accomplishment came after the type, in that the wicked one was brought low wherein he trusted....Fulfilled was the mystery. Blessed is He who by the true Lamb
Chrysippus
“An ark truly royal, an ark most precious is the ever-Virgin Mother of God, an ark which received the treasure of entire sanctification (Chrysippus, Orat. de laudib. Deip. (Blessed Virgin, p. 74).
St. Ambrose (c. 339-397)
“The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly” (Serm. xlii. 6, Int. Opp., S. Ambrosii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).
St. Athanasius (c. 296-373)
“Be mindful of us, most holy virgin, who after childbirth didst remain virgin; and grant to us for these small words great gifts from the riches of they graces, O thou full of grace. Accept them as though they were true and adequate praises in they honor; and if there is in them any virtue and any praise, we offer them as a hymn from ourselves and from all creatures to thee, full of grace, Lady, Queen, Mistress, Mother of God, and Ark of sanctification” (Orat. In Deip. Annuntiat, nn. 13, 14. Int. Opp. S. Athanasii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 80).
St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373; the main defender of the Trinity and the deity of Christ against the 2nd century Arian heretics.)
“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides.” Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.
Hesychius (lived c. 300)
“The ark is without doubt the Virgin Mother of God. For if Thou art the gem, with reason is she the (Hesychius, Orat. De Virginis laudib. Biblioth. PP. Græco-Lat. Tom. ii. p. 423) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).
St. Methodius (815-885)
verily, is the mystery connected with thee, O Mother Virgin, thou spiritual throne, glorified and made worthy of God. . . . And the lintels of the doors, says the prophet, were raised at the voice of them that cried. By which is signified the veil of the temple overshadowing before the ark of the Covenant which typified thee.... For if to the ark, which was the image and type of thy sanctity, such honor was paid by God, that to no one but to the priestly order was the access to it open, or ingress allowed to behold it-the veil separating it off, and keeping the vestibule as that of a queen—how great, and what sort of veneration is due to thee from us, who are of all the least, to thee who art indeed a Queen ; to thee who art in truth the living Ark of God (St. Methodius, Orat. de Simeone et Anna ii. Patr. Graec. Tom. 18, p. 332. (Blessed Virgin, p. 153).
St. Jerome (c. 345-420)
“Behold one in truth, the handmaid of the Lord. Holy she is, in whom is no guile, all simplicity....The spouse of Christ is the ark of the covenant, within and without overlaid with gold, a keeper of the law of the Lord. As in the ark there was nothing but the tables of the Testament, so too in thee no one from outside should be thought of. Over this propitiatory, as though upon the Cherubim, the Lord is pleased to sit....The Apostle thus defines a virgin, that she should be holy in body and in spirit... (Epist. Xxii., Ad Eustoch. Nn. 18, 19, 21, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 216).
Now consider the truth of the Assumption as believed by the early Church;
St Epipahnius (377 Panarion against all hersesies)
“How will holy Mary Not possess the kingdom of heaven with her flesh, since she was not unchaste, nor dissolute,....she never did anything wrong as for as fleshly actions are concerned but remained stainless(Immaculate)”
St Gregory of tours;
“[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..."
Gregory of Tours, Eight Books of Miracles,1:4(inter A.D. 575-593),in JUR,III:306
As the most glorious Mother of Christ,our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."
(Modestus of Jerusalem,Encomium in dormitionnem Sanctissimae Dominae nostrae Deiparae semperque Virginis Mariae(PG 86-II,3306),(ante A.D. 634) from Munificentis simus Deu)
Theoteknos
“It was fitting ... that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory ... should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God."
Theoteknos of Livias,Homily on the Assumption(ante A.D. 650),in THEO,57 
Germanus of Constantinople
"You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dewlling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissoultion into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."
Germanus of Constantinople,Sermon I(PG 98,346),(ante A.D. 733),from Munificentis simus Deus
St .John of Damascene,
"It was fitting that the she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped when giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father, It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God"
John of Damascene,Dormition of Mary(PG 96,741),(ante A.D. 749) from Munificentis simus Deus
St John Damascene
'St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.' "
John of Damascene,PG(96:1)(A.D. 747-751)
[A]n effable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin's Assumption is something unique among men."
Gallican Sacramentary, from Munificentis simus Deus
God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you virgin in childbirth, thus he kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb." Byzantine Liturgy, from Munificentis simus Deus
Timotheus of Jerusalem
"[T]he virgin is up to now immortal, as He who lived, translated her into the place of reception"
Timotheus of Jerusalem(6th-8th century),in OTT,208
St Ambrose believed that the women of rev 12 was polyvalent, both referring to the Church and to Mary. Speaking on this he said
St. Ambrose of Milan
“She(Mary) is a type of the church who is also married but remains immaculate(Exposito in Lucam 2, 7 A,D, 397)
St Ephrem also reached the same conclsuion fearing no contradiction
St Ephrem the syrian
The virgin Mary is a symbol of the Church.....we call the church by the Name Mary for she desevees a double name(Sermo ad Noct A.D. 370)
Many other Church fatehrs(such as St Augustine) alsop saw the Mary as a type of the church and viewed the women of revelation to be both Mary and the Church. Thus showiing that the fathers taught both Mary and the Church are being talked about in Rev 12. Mary was clearly the biblcial and typological fullfillment of the ark of the covenant.
athanasius
Well-Known Member
Dear In Christ Mr Writer,
again due to the way you treated me and my faith in my prior debates with you on the eucharist, I will not debate you anymore. I have already spoken to you about this on the other forum but wanted to let you know that I wil also apply this to this forum too. Please know that I will always pray for you and consider you my brother. God bless you always
Athansaius
again due to the way you treated me and my faith in my prior debates with you on the eucharist, I will not debate you anymore. I have already spoken to you about this on the other forum but wanted to let you know that I wil also apply this to this forum too. Please know that I will always pray for you and consider you my brother. God bless you always
Athansaius
I was born and raised in the Catholic Faith and lived through Vatican II just as a background to this discussion. Having thought carefully and looked into many things the Catholic Church is in error about the Blessed Virgin in many respects.
For starters how can you call Her the mother of God when God had no beginning ?
She is the mother of the flesh which God the Son took and absorbed into His Divine nature thus making Her the closest human being in relation to the Holy Trinity. She is the daughter of God the Father, the mother of the flesh of God the Son and spiuse of the God the Holy Ghost.
Full of grace is certainly descriptive of someone who was concieved with sin as per Her announcement at the apparitions at Lourdes.
The understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the design of God for our salvation is paramount. She is the path He took to come to us and if we want to follow His example then it seems an obvious thing to take the same path to Him.
The Ave I use for the Rosary is: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb.
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
I reject the repeated use of Our Lords' sacred name and that of Our Blessed Mother to avoid familiarity.
For starters how can you call Her the mother of God when God had no beginning ?
She is the mother of the flesh which God the Son took and absorbed into His Divine nature thus making Her the closest human being in relation to the Holy Trinity. She is the daughter of God the Father, the mother of the flesh of God the Son and spiuse of the God the Holy Ghost.
Full of grace is certainly descriptive of someone who was concieved with sin as per Her announcement at the apparitions at Lourdes.
The understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the design of God for our salvation is paramount. She is the path He took to come to us and if we want to follow His example then it seems an obvious thing to take the same path to Him.
The Ave I use for the Rosary is: Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb.
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
I reject the repeated use of Our Lords' sacred name and that of Our Blessed Mother to avoid familiarity.
how can you call Her the mother of God when God had no beginning ?
Cuz God w/o beginnin or end became flesh
Micah 5:2; Heb 7:3; Jn 1:1, 14; 8:58; Rv 1:5-8; 22:12-13; Dan 7:13, 22; Zech 14:3-4, 9; Ac 1:11-12; Isa 7:14-9:7; Mt 1:23; Lk 1:32-35
She is the mother of the flesh which God the Son took and absorbed into His Divine nature thus making Her the closest human being in relation to the Holy Trinity.
To the contrary: the closest r His members of His Body who fully contain Him
1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; 2 Cor 4:7; Rm 8:6; Mt 5:3; 25:2-4; Eph 3:14-17; 6:24; Philip 3:8-15; Gal 4:19
She is the daughter of God the Father,
So too, equally, r all female believers into the Son of God
2 Cor 6:18; Isa 43:6
the mother of the flesh of God the Son
uniquely
Mt 1:23; Lk 1:27-38, 41-49
and spouse of the God the Holy Ghost.
So too, equally, r all believers into the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:32; Jn 3:29; Cor 3:17; Jn 7:37-39; 20:22; Rv 22:17
She is the path He took to come to us and if we want to follow His example then it seems an obvious thing to take the same path to Him.
To the contrary: the Son of God said "I am the way, the reality, and the life"
Jn 14:6. For there's one God and one Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus
1 Tim 2:5. Who's approachable, and available, directly by faith
Jn 3:15; 6:35-37; 20:31; Rm 3:24-25; Heb 11:1, 6; Rm 10:12; Jn 4:10, 24; Lk 18:13-14
Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb.
it's good to pray His word
Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12
I reject the repeated use of Our Lords' sacred name to avoid familiarity.
i'd say His name a thousand times a day. Since everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. And familiarity w/ Him = salvation. "That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death. This's eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Him who You've sent, Jesus Christ. For all of them'll know Me, from the little one among them even to the great one among them, declares Jehovah, for I'll forgive their inequity, and their sin I'll remember no more"
Ac 2:21; Rm 10:9-13; Gen 4:26; Psa 116:12-13; Philip 3:8-10; Jn 17:3; Jer 31:34; 1 Jn 5:20. After all, the Triune God, He's our husband
Isa 54:5; Jn 1:1-4; Rm 7:4; 8:10, 6, 11, 23; Rv 22:17; 21:2; 19:7-9; Jn 3:29; Rv 2:4; Eph 6:24.
Thanx
Cuz God w/o beginnin or end became flesh
Micah 5:2; Heb 7:3; Jn 1:1, 14; 8:58; Rv 1:5-8; 22:12-13; Dan 7:13, 22; Zech 14:3-4, 9; Ac 1:11-12; Isa 7:14-9:7; Mt 1:23; Lk 1:32-35
She is the mother of the flesh which God the Son took and absorbed into His Divine nature thus making Her the closest human being in relation to the Holy Trinity.
To the contrary: the closest r His members of His Body who fully contain Him
1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; 2 Cor 4:7; Rm 8:6; Mt 5:3; 25:2-4; Eph 3:14-17; 6:24; Philip 3:8-15; Gal 4:19
She is the daughter of God the Father,
So too, equally, r all female believers into the Son of God
2 Cor 6:18; Isa 43:6
the mother of the flesh of God the Son
uniquely
Mt 1:23; Lk 1:27-38, 41-49
and spouse of the God the Holy Ghost.
So too, equally, r all believers into the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:32; Jn 3:29; Cor 3:17; Jn 7:37-39; 20:22; Rv 22:17
She is the path He took to come to us and if we want to follow His example then it seems an obvious thing to take the same path to Him.
To the contrary: the Son of God said "I am the way, the reality, and the life"
Jn 14:6. For there's one God and one Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus
1 Tim 2:5. Who's approachable, and available, directly by faith
Jn 3:15; 6:35-37; 20:31; Rm 3:24-25; Heb 11:1, 6; Rm 10:12; Jn 4:10, 24; Lk 18:13-14
Hail full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the
fruit of thy womb.
it's good to pray His word
Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12
I reject the repeated use of Our Lords' sacred name to avoid familiarity.
i'd say His name a thousand times a day. Since everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. And familiarity w/ Him = salvation. "That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death. This's eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Him who You've sent, Jesus Christ. For all of them'll know Me, from the little one among them even to the great one among them, declares Jehovah, for I'll forgive their inequity, and their sin I'll remember no more"
Ac 2:21; Rm 10:9-13; Gen 4:26; Psa 116:12-13; Philip 3:8-10; Jn 17:3; Jer 31:34; 1 Jn 5:20. After all, the Triune God, He's our husband
Isa 54:5; Jn 1:1-4; Rm 7:4; 8:10, 6, 11, 23; Rv 22:17; 21:2; 19:7-9; Jn 3:29; Rv 2:4; Eph 6:24.
Thanx
SB Habakuk
Active Member
Mary is an elect being -whose election was sure before the foundations of the earth-
In being elect - she was found to be VIRGIN- she reciprocated the First virginal being in producing without help a son
She is the husband of herself
In being elect - she was found to be VIRGIN- she reciprocated the First virginal being in producing without help a son
She is the husband of herself
rocka21
Brother Rock
a few questions.
how many times did Paul mention her in his letter to the churches?
how many times was mary mentioned after acts 1? ( she was in the upper room filled with the holy ghost speaking with other tounges.)
how are you sure revelations queen is talking about Mary?
how many times did Paul mention her in his letter to the churches?
how many times was mary mentioned after acts 1? ( she was in the upper room filled with the holy ghost speaking with other tounges.)
how are you sure revelations queen is talking about Mary?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Personally, I find that many RC's ascribe too much to Mary, and that many Protestants dismiss too much.
I ascribe worth to her as the mother of God and the ark or the New Covenant, in that she was faithful to God and bore Jesus. But the immaculate conception and bodily assumption? That's a stretch for me.
I ascribe worth to her as the mother of God and the ark or the New Covenant, in that she was faithful to God and bore Jesus. But the immaculate conception and bodily assumption? That's a stretch for me.
112 David arose and went to Judah(2 Sam 6:2) Mary arose and went to the hill country Judah(Lk 1:39)
Lotsa people arose and went to the hill country of Judah
How can the Ark of the Lord come to me(2 sam 6:9) Why is this Granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me(LK 1:43almost verbatim language)
The kind thoughtful poster misrepresents 2 Sam 6:9.
David was afraid of Jehovah that day; and he said, How shall the Ark of Jehovah come to me?
Becuz
Uzzah reached out for the Ark of God and took hold of it; for the oxen had stumbled. And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the Ark of God. And David was angry, 6:6-8
The ARK remained on the hill country for 3 months(2 Sam 6:11) Mary stays 3 months with Elisabeth (LK 1:56)
wonderful
David rejoices (2 Sam 6 :12)
Not in 6:8-10
Marys Spirit rejoices (Lk 1:47)
i rejoice. Praise the Lord for our Savior
leaping and dancing(2 Sam 6:16) The babe leaps in Elisabeth's womb(Lk 1:41)
You have turned my mourning into dancing for me, and girded me with gladness. To the end my glory may sing praise unto You and not be silent
The Spirit of God would overshadow and rest on the ark(Ex 40:34)
The Holy Spirit of God would come upon Mary and overshadow her(Lk 1:35)
amen. John will be clothed with the Holy Spirit of God, even from his mother's womb, Lk 1:15
Clearly and unambiguously we see the Gospel writer Luke himself drwing direct parallels comparing Mary to the ark of the covenant and using similar language to reflect it.
Clearly and unambiguously not all the gentleman's comments r clear and unambiguous
Luke is showing us she is the new ark.
no Luke's not
John explicitly shows Mary to be the new ark in Revelation.
To the contrary: Mary's not mentioned explicitly at all in Revelation. Nor's there any need for her to have been
In Rev 11:19 we see the Ark of Gods covenant appear.
Mary's not mentioned in 11
Who was this Ark?
Good question
The next verse tell us it was Mary(Rev 12:1).
To the contrary: 12:1 reads "And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon underneath her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." John was shown neither Mary nor a Roman Catholic idol
Remember when the scriptures were written there were no chapters and verses. This would have read immediately in context. Thus showing Mary to be the new Ark.
To the contrary: the section beginning at 12:1's a new section, a new vision. Indeed, based on 10:11 and 11:14-19, the section starting w/ 12:1 starts the 2nd half of the book
Mr writer wrongly thinks that Marys arkness was just temporary for 9 months.
If by "arkness" u mean containing: she, like all those born from above, bears and can bear Christ eternally as part of His eternal and blessed Body, His church (Gal 4:6, 19; Col 1:27; Eph 3:17; Philip 1:21; 2:16; John 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45; 6:17; Jn 17:21-23)
113 Psalm 132:8 Go up to they resting place O Lord thou and the Ark of they might.
The Scripture says, 'Having ascended to the height, He led captive those taken captive and gave gifts to men.' Now this , 'He ascended,' what is it except that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended, He's also the One who ascended far above all the heavens that He might fill all things, Eph 4:8-10
The Fathers saw Mary as fulfilling this passage
Any so-called "Father" who did so was blind as a bat in that respect. Since Psa 132:8; 68:1; Numbers 10:35-36s' ark; as interpreted by the apostle, bespeaks Jesus Christ, Eph 4:8-11. Not His mom individually
Lotsa people arose and went to the hill country of Judah
How can the Ark of the Lord come to me(2 sam 6:9) Why is this Granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me(LK 1:43almost verbatim language)
The kind thoughtful poster misrepresents 2 Sam 6:9.
David was afraid of Jehovah that day; and he said, How shall the Ark of Jehovah come to me?
Becuz
Uzzah reached out for the Ark of God and took hold of it; for the oxen had stumbled. And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his error; and he died there by the Ark of God. And David was angry, 6:6-8
The ARK remained on the hill country for 3 months(2 Sam 6:11) Mary stays 3 months with Elisabeth (LK 1:56)
wonderful
David rejoices (2 Sam 6 :12)
Not in 6:8-10
Marys Spirit rejoices (Lk 1:47)
i rejoice. Praise the Lord for our Savior
leaping and dancing(2 Sam 6:16) The babe leaps in Elisabeth's womb(Lk 1:41)
You have turned my mourning into dancing for me, and girded me with gladness. To the end my glory may sing praise unto You and not be silent
The Spirit of God would overshadow and rest on the ark(Ex 40:34)
The Holy Spirit of God would come upon Mary and overshadow her(Lk 1:35)
amen. John will be clothed with the Holy Spirit of God, even from his mother's womb, Lk 1:15
Clearly and unambiguously we see the Gospel writer Luke himself drwing direct parallels comparing Mary to the ark of the covenant and using similar language to reflect it.
Clearly and unambiguously not all the gentleman's comments r clear and unambiguous
Luke is showing us she is the new ark.
no Luke's not
John explicitly shows Mary to be the new ark in Revelation.
To the contrary: Mary's not mentioned explicitly at all in Revelation. Nor's there any need for her to have been
In Rev 11:19 we see the Ark of Gods covenant appear.
Mary's not mentioned in 11
Who was this Ark?
Good question
The next verse tell us it was Mary(Rev 12:1).
To the contrary: 12:1 reads "And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon underneath her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." John was shown neither Mary nor a Roman Catholic idol
Remember when the scriptures were written there were no chapters and verses. This would have read immediately in context. Thus showing Mary to be the new Ark.
To the contrary: the section beginning at 12:1's a new section, a new vision. Indeed, based on 10:11 and 11:14-19, the section starting w/ 12:1 starts the 2nd half of the book
Mr writer wrongly thinks that Marys arkness was just temporary for 9 months.
If by "arkness" u mean containing: she, like all those born from above, bears and can bear Christ eternally as part of His eternal and blessed Body, His church (Gal 4:6, 19; Col 1:27; Eph 3:17; Philip 1:21; 2:16; John 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45; 6:17; Jn 17:21-23)
113 Psalm 132:8 Go up to they resting place O Lord thou and the Ark of they might.
The Scripture says, 'Having ascended to the height, He led captive those taken captive and gave gifts to men.' Now this , 'He ascended,' what is it except that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended, He's also the One who ascended far above all the heavens that He might fill all things, Eph 4:8-10
The Fathers saw Mary as fulfilling this passage
Any so-called "Father" who did so was blind as a bat in that respect. Since Psa 132:8; 68:1; Numbers 10:35-36s' ark; as interpreted by the apostle, bespeaks Jesus Christ, Eph 4:8-11. Not His mom individually