Posted on 12/11/2014 2:16:41 PM PST by NYer
In Part 1 (see below) of my defense of the Immaculate Conception, I presented Mary as the “woman” from Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 who is at enmity with the devil. I would like to turn now to the scriptural evidence that points to Mary as the “Ark of the New Covenant.”
The Ark of the Covenant
Another indication of Mary’s sinlessness can be found in the parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant from the Old Testament:
If that weren’t enough to establish Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, there is a very interesting word from Luke 1:42 that further confirms this. Notice that when Elizabeth saw Mary for the first time, Elizabeth “exclaimed” with a loud cry. This seems hardly worth noting until you look at the Greek word that Luke decided to use here. ἀναφωνέω (transliterated: anaphōneō), is used only once in the entire New Testament and it’s right here in Luke 1:42. Its presence in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) is likewise sparse, appearing only five times. Why is this important? Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch explain:
[E]very time the expression is used in the Old Testament, it forms part of the stories surrounding the Ark of the Covenant. In particular, it refers to the melodic sounds made by Levitical singers and musicians when they glorify the Lord in song. It thus describes the “exulting” voice of instruments that were played before the Ark as David carried it in procession to Jerusalem (1 Chron 15:28; 16:4-5) and as Solomon transferred the Ark to its final resting place in the Temple (2 Chron 5:13). Alluding to these episodes, Luke connects this same expression with the melodic cry of another Levitical descendant, the aged Elizabeth (Lk 1:5). She too lifts up her voice in liturgical praise, not before the golden chest, but before Mary. (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “The Gospel of Luke,” pg. 21).
But what does “Mary as Ark” have to do with her sinlessness, her immaculate conception? Don’t forget: the tablets, the manna, and the priestly rod that were contained in the Ark were the holiest of all Jewish relics and represented the very presence of God to the Jewish people. As such, the container or “ark” that held them had to be made of the purest and most perfect materials. The ark itself was considered so holy that no one was allowed to even touch it, lest they die (cf. 2 Samuel 6:7; 1 Chronicles 13:9-10).
Just as the contents of the old covenant ark demanded a perfectly pure container, so does Christ, not as a matter of strict necessity (God could have took on human flesh from any woman) but because His holiness demands and deserves it. By preserving Mary from sin, God has prepared her to be the pure Ark of the New Covenant.
In Part 3, I will examine the salutation of Gabriel and what it means that Mary is “full of grace.”
Pax Christi,
If Mary was sinless, wouldn’t that also require HER mother to be sinless? And HER mother?
Turtles all the way down.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Ephesians 3:14-19 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
I am a house of the Lord as well.
He dwells in my heart and I am His temple.
That makes me holy, too.
What would be enough would be it being recorded in Scripture.
It isn't. But that never stopped the Catholic church from claiming it as fact anyway.
Who died from touching Mary?
By "zinged" do you mean you were disagreed with? Tell me, why do you RCs post these kinds of threads in OPEN Religion Forum formats if you don't want discussion? Your experience here would have already prepared you for others comments and their reason why they don't believe as you do. I don't think Jesus had anonymous Internet forum debates in mind when He spoke of persecution. Perhaps a thicker hide is all that is needed?
Why would Mary have to be sinless in order for Jesus to be born as a real human, born in sin, born under the law, tempted in all points as we are, yet HE was without sin? What God required was a VIRGIN, a human virgin, in the line of David. For Mary to have been born sinless, would mean SHE was conceived without a sin nature, so how did that happen when she had a human mother AND father? Sorry, but Scripture is clear, ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. He made no exception for Mary.
No, this dogma was not ALWAYS believed - no Apostle ever taught it, not even John, who cared for Mary after Christ was crucified. It developed over a long time and didn't become an "infallible truth" until the nineteenth century!
I wouldn’t count on it. Gotta keep the pot stirred! ;o)
lol
There will be Congressional hearings once they learn of this torturing of logic.
Poking someone in the eye with a sharp stick and getting a reaction isn’t *persecution*.
Good for you! And great advice! God bless you!
No. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has nothing to do with biology. It does not mean that she was conceived miraculously in the physical sense. She was normally conceived and born of her parents, Joachim and Ann. But in her very conception her soul was preserved immaculate in the sense that she inherited no stain of original sin, derived from our first parents.
Mormon missionaries the world over agree.
It can be upsetting to people's feeeelings when they have doors shut in their faces ---in rejection of their cult. (and don't try to tell me there is not a cult of Mary)
Calling it persecution, then citing Scripture which refers to persecution suffered for the sake of Christ, that same not referring to later, long-after true apostolic age arising Marian doctrine and dogma --- and most certainly not concerning Joseph Smithisms--- is not the same as suffering for sake of the Gospel, itself.
When waiting for the waabulance any 'ol blankie will do for the poor-little-me pity party cry-babies, specially the blankies that say "Jesus" on them, whereby they can cloak themselves with self-reassurance of their own (self?) righteousness, while standing on the street-corner announcing to passerby just how persecuted for Christ they are (even when they are not being criticized for speaking truly of Him, but just some alleged-to-be-true aspect or another, claimed to be associated with Him (Jesus Christ), instead...)
Mormons (by which I mean the Mormon Church-- not each Mormon individual, so-called Latter Day Saint) here of late have gone whole hog in this grabbing of the blankie (even as they have the waiting for the waabulance act thingy, down to a fine & subtle art, featured as a near-central portion of their unique theology, itself) as towards that [ahem] Church's having had changed their name from Mormon --- to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
See?
They even have "Jesus" in the name of their own church.
Dispute, disagreement, with them, in fact all opposition to their theology = dispute with Jesus Christ = they are being persecuted for Christ's own sake, being caused to suffer for Him, Jesus Christ himself (instead of Smith's religious mind-trip concocted "religion" whereby that man attracted followers to himself) in the minds of those who are zealous for that.
Guess they haven't read Romans 3:23...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Their disconnect with the Scripture is astounding.
So with this disclaimer that this cannot be found in Scripture or supported by Scripture they attempt to.
**Who died from touching Mary?**
I don’t know about dying from touching Mary, but I do believe a few of her faithful followers would smite you for disagreeing with their ‘tradition’, if this was,....say....about 900A.D.
So I’ve seen.....
Does that mean that we can look forward to the cessation of these pointless, indefensible threads?
It means except for those persky "chapter and verse" Prots who avoid cults that teach the mere fact that their church teaches something as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.
“The ark itself was considered so holy that no one was allowed to even touch it, lest they die (cf. 2 Samuel 6:7; 1 Chronicles 13:9-10).
“Who died from touching Mary?
.............................
Maybe this explains Joseph’s early death...?
“No. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary has nothing to do with biology.”
...................
Or the New Testament. It isn’t there.
Or the Old Testament. It isn’t there.
Or the Apostle’s tradition. Never recorded.
Or in any artworks before 100 ad. None.
Or in any Christian writings before 100 ad. Zip.
Or reported in any secular writings before 100 ad. Zilch.
Or in any UFO sighting reports.
It is a doctrine without basis - except to make dear Mary into a demigod - more than a human. Slightly less than full godhood.
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.