Posted on 09/21/2004 7:43:13 AM PDT by Tantumergo
Respectfully, I'd suggest Jesus fits the typology of what was *in* the Ark rather than the Ark itself. The following were kept in the Ark of the covenant according to Jewish tradition: the tables of the Law, and a portion of manna from the desert. Christ is the perfect fulfillment of these Old Testament types. The Word made Flesh more excellent than the Law, the Bread of Life more excellent than the manna of Moses (as Catholics we have a very literal view of that passage too, but I don't think you have to: Christ Himself made the equation in John 6)
And it follows naturally, that as Mary was the vessel of Christ's Incarnation, she is the typological fulfillment of the Ark. And since it would be strange indeed that an OT typological predecessor be *more* excellent than the NT thing it was pointing toward, it is a good bet that Mary surpassed her Old Testament archetype in purity and perfection. Is it a proof of the doctrine? Not really--but it makes the most sense of all of Scripture when read this way.
Plus, as people have already pointed out, Mary as the New Eve and as the Ark was a common equation made in the early church, and is implicitly taught in the Revelation of St. John. If Mary as the Ark takes away from the glory of Jesus, why didn't the golden Ark itself take away from the Law which it housed? I think Moses would argue that the Ark was made beautiful *because* of what it was to contain. And Mary was made beautiful (by her own Son!) for the same reason. Mary's light, like the Ark's, is only reflected--she merits all her honor through her Son.
Going by that idea, I could make up a tradition that says Jesus was a one-legged homosexual vegetarian, practice it for a while, and then say it's true based solely on the fact that some people believe it- regardless of what the new testament says.
Furthermore, it was tradition for thousands of years that said the Earth was flat. Boy, were they wrong.
Because Mary was the Mother of God.
I'm sorry, I don't understand?
Mary was immaculately conceived, and remained sinless her whole life. She was assumed bodily into heaven. Such is the Catholic doctrine, and was also Luther's doctrine.
I am just wondering what the explanation for her death would be. I have never heard it given.
That she went "the way of all flesh" is true: according to Tradition she was assumed bodily into heaven after her death, not while still living (like Enoch, Elijah or the resurrected Jesus were). But "the way of all flesh" was that "way" only because of the sin of Adam, the punishment of which brought death into the world not just for man, but for all of the animals and plants too (they too were immortal prior to The Fall, according to Genesis). But Mary was exempted from the sin of Adam. She did not carry original sin.
Was she condemned by God to die anyway, WITHOUT sin?
Was the wages of her sinlessness death anyway?
WHY?
There has to be a theological explanation for this.
But I have never heard it given.
Ping
The Bible is not ambiguous about it. The Bible even names some of his brothers.
Even Christ Died yet he was sinless.
Why couldn't it have been his half-brothers?
Yes!
First of all, it is useless for us to argue, seeing that you believe that tradition has as much weight as scripture. I also am assuming that you believe the apostles handed down their authority in an unbroken line of succession through time, which I deny. For two people with such differing points of view, it is useless to argue unless we come together on the subject of Authority, which we will probably never do.
This is actually a good point for Catholics to use. Thanks.
Actually, this has proved to be a legend made of whole cloth. A reputable scholar investigated this and found that virtually no one from the time of the ancient Greeks on beleived in a flat earth...if you'd like I can find the refs.
And as far as the traditions you can invent, you're exactly right. Traditions can be invented and are every day. That's why we go back to the earliest documents we can find and determine what was believed 2000, 1500, 100, 500 years ago. If we see an unchanging, rock-solid consistency from the beginning of Christianity right on up to the present, it's a clue we're not dealing with some fad of the moment. Our argument is that right from the start there's a consistency of Christian writing about Mary's perfect holiness...even among churches that haven't seen eye to eye for thousands of years (Catholic, Orthodox, Monophysite).
Most Lutheran churches hold that it was Joseph's children from a previous marriage. The reason given for John being tasked by Jesus to take care of Mary was that His other brothers didn't follow Him at that time.
I suppose by definition they WERE his half-brothers, seeing that Joseph was their father. What is your point ? That Joseph had sons by someone other than Mary ??
Many thanks. Sometimes I feel like reading about this stuff in a Catechism or "guide to the Faith" raises as many questions as it answers, but I guess that's natural.
"Going by that idea, I could make up a tradition that says Jesus was a one-legged homosexual vegetarian, practice it for a while, and then say it's true based solely on the fact that some people believe it- regardless of what the new testament says."
The Anglicans already have, haven't they? Or maybe that was just bishops?
No, the Catholic understanding of Tradition as binding doctrine (as opposed to traditions) is that it must always have been believed by Christians - "always and everywhere" or ordinary and universal.
This is the same rationale that the Church applied to the Scriptures to determine which books were canonical.
"Furthermore, it was tradition for thousands of years that said the Earth was flat. Boy, were they wrong."
This kind of tradition did not have Christ's promise about it, that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead His Apostles into all truth about it.
Then most Lutheran churches would be wrong. There are no previous marriages mentioned in the Bible. The Bible plainly says that Jesus had brothers. Read the Bible the natural way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.