Posted on 12/14/2010 10:40:33 AM PST by Mighty_Quinn
God performs miracles by the operation of the Holy Spirit, although not at the level we see in the NT Scriptures since the apostles were still alive and the canon of Scripture was not yet complete. Most NT miracles were office confirming.
Also one pentecostals are the non trinity types?
But that's a narrow minded statement, isn't it?
There are no apostles today. One qualification of an apostle was to know Christ face to face and be a witness of the resurrection (Acts 1:21-23).
So sad to think that you view yourself not as an apostle spreading the word of the Lord.
We ARE Christ’s hands and feet today. Perhaps it would be easier for us to call ourselves disciples — proclaiming the Lord and calling non-believers to conversion.
Have a good week.
There are lots of things I'm not, according to the Bible. But the Bible is my standard, not any appeal to sympathy.
disciples
That's one of the things I am.
The Truth About Mary and Scripture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA
It would be nice if people would actually take just a few moments to watch this.
Answers many questions.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my Catholic Apologetics and the Defense of the Faith ping list:
Please ping me to Catholic threads where I can help defend our common faith!
Already asked for the ping.
Read your mail. LOL
Curious interpretative approach.
Actually, not curious at all. And I'm not a Roman Catholic trying to defend this scholar. However, the original Greek New Testament had no chapter or verse numbers, nor even paragraph divisions (nor often even punctuation)...these are all things added by later editors--who weren't necessarily correct in their division of things (as it is not part of the original inspired text). Direct proximity in a text often usually does connect things, or else why would the John and the Holy Spirit have written it this way?
Here's the passage in question, as written, without the added chapter and verse divisions:
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. (Rev 11:19-12:1,2)One should not be quick to dismiss observations of the early Church Fathers--they discerned from Scripture and clarified basically all the fundamentals all Christians of all stripes call essential.
One should also not dismiss Old Testament imagery in place in the (historically true) New Testament stories--as the New Testament writers knew the Old Testament like the back of their hand, and expected their readers to as well--and while reconting history, could well recount true events that have eerie Old Testament historic precedents. I think many solid evangelical Protestant scholars would agree with this scholar's take on this...
Did Mary bear Jesus in a similar way that God chose to be especially present in the Ark? Yes. Does that mean we should pray to her, no. Does that mean she deserves our highest respect as a godly woman and the one chosen to be the mother of our Lord? Absolutely.
Great post, narses. Very interesting study in typology.
No, it doesn’t make me want to be Roman Catholic, but, it does help me appreciate the depth and quality of the Gospel of Luke, and the great honor given to the humble mother of our Lord.
I tried to make the point here that the claim of the Mary/ark view among the early church fathers is questionable. Many of the works cited are considered "Dubious and Spurious". E.g., regarding the Gregory the Wonderworker quotes, Philip Schaff states, “But even [Alexius Aurelius] Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work.”
I also view the imagery of the woman in the wilderness as not primarily about Mary, but rather it is a picture of the Church. After Christ’s ascension, she is said to be protected for a period of “one thousand two hundred and sixty days.” This harkens back to the timing of the two witnesses in Rev. 11:3. It seems clear that is time period is associated with Christ’s Church. The image here is of the church in the wilderness being nourished by the gospel.
We also see the parallel in imagery between this righteous woman and the woman of Revelation 17. She is described as “that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.” I believe this is reference to apostate Jerusalem of that day, also called “the great city” in Rev. 11:8. The contrast here would be between the earthly city and the heavenly one (Heb. 12:22ff; Gal. 4:26; Rev. 21:2).
As the Ark of the Covenant contained the commandments, the “written Word of God”, so Mary, for nine months contained the Son of the living God- the “Word made flesh”.
The title “Ark of the New Covenant” makes sense to me!
Answering in the negative, Aquinas quotes Augustine, "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain." (Summa Theologica, III Question 35 Art. 6). Aquinas goes on to state:
I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (Q[28], A[2], Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according toIsa. 35:1, 2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise."
Yet in the description of the woman in Rev. 12 we read, "Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth."
It’s simple really: the Ark carried the Words of God. We are told by St. John that Christ is the Word of God made flesh. Mary carried Christ in her body. Therefore, Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.
Thank you for honoring Mary with this post on Christmas Eve. Sad that some feel the need to denigrate her even on this night. At the very least, she was Christ’s longest and most faithful follower, who endured uncertainty, hardship and exile on His behalf, before anyone else believed in Him. Surely she deserves honor for that alone.
Except that she’s so much more.
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.