|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/8/2008 7:05:13 PM
|
|
|
Lynn_J
Posts: 67
Joined: 9/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: S.Benedict
If you read the bible it is very easy to see that just as Jesus is the new Adam, Mary is a type of the new Eve and is the new Ark. the question lies in your ability to read both the new and old testaments and put two and two together to see the likeness both have to each other.
Following that line of reasoning, because God is consistent when using types, Jesus and his mother Mary would be husband and wife.
Nah.
If Eve was made to be the bride of Adam, and Jesus is the "second Adam," then we the Church, as the "bride of Christ" are the "second Eve."
_____________________________
www.lynnjacobs-christianlifecoach.com
www.christianlifecoachingblog.blogspot.com
www.blogtalkradio.com/lynn-jacobs
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/9/2008 8:18:36 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Kelman,
quote:
This is clearly a theological supposition by a church. There is no evidence in Scripture for this position. Yes, the Ark is of "great purity". The reason it is portrayed as such is because it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ - never a mere human being such as Mary.
How were the eight souls saved by the Flood?....by seeking refuge in the Ark, the Lord Jesus - not by seeking refuge in a mere human being, Mary.
The Ark isn't the same as the Ark of the Covenant. No evidence that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant? Have you read 2 Sam 6 and looked at Luke 1 in light of it. David says of the Ark, "how can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth says "how is it that the ark of my Lord should come to me?". David leaps before the Ark OF THE COVENANT. John leaps before Mary. The Ark stays with Obemedon for 3 months, mary stays with elizabeth for 3 months. Both events happen in the hill country of Judah. All coincidence you say? No evidence that mary is the Ark of the New Covenant? Of course this is all because Jesus Christ is in Mary. We don't deny that in the slightest. I've read all about the Ark. I am quite well aware of all the passages that speak of it and it is amazing how much they tie in to Catholic theology on Mary (and Jesus). By the way I don't just limit the type of the Ark to Mary because anything true points to Christ as well. Catholicism does not have this one passage one understanding rule that is so common in evangelical Christians. We see Christ in EVERYTHING! Christ worked a great wonder through Mary to bring salvation to all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 5:57:49 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3855
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Geraldh
Kelman,
quote:
This is clearly a theological supposition by a church. There is no evidence in Scripture for this position. Yes, the Ark is of "great purity". The reason it is portrayed as such is because it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ - never a mere human being such as Mary.
How were the eight souls saved by the Flood?....by seeking refuge in the Ark, the Lord Jesus - not by seeking refuge in a mere human being, Mary.
The Ark isn't the same as the Ark of the Covenant. I didn't say that it was. I referenced both because both the Noachian Ark and the Ark of the Covenant are pictures or representations of the only place salvation can be found "in Christ". They both are representations of the Lord Jesus Christ. You miss the mark by a mile because it is the Lord Jesus being "typed" not Mary.
Noticeably absent is any effort on your part to respond to the scriptural evidence that the Ark is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ - not Mary. I, otoh, will respond to your "evidence".
quote:
No evidence that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant? That's correct, there is none. The Ark is a sign of God's presence and a type of Christ - not Mary.
quote:
Have you read 2 Sam 6 and looked at Luke 1 in light of it. David says of the Ark, "how can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth says "how is it that the ark of my Lord should come to me?". First, David was displeased with God and angry because God killed Uzzah - no resemblance to Luke 1.
David was afraid now to be near the Ark and would not bring it into the City of David so he left it with Obededom that's why he asked that question. Two totally difference responses from Elisabeth and David - no resemblance to Luke 1.
Elisabeth never said "how is it that the ark of my Lord should come to me?" Why change the words of Scripture? The word "ark" is not the word "mother".
quote:
David leaps before the Ark OF THE COVENANT. John leaps before Mary. This is frankly repugnant and so usurps the power and the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ. John leaped in the womb of Elisabeth because he recognized he was in the presence of his Savior, Jesus Christ - not Mary.
Besides, what David did was dance - John the Baptist did not dance in the womb. None of this forges any links between 2Sam and Luke 1.
quote:
I am quite well aware of all the passages that speak of it and it is amazing how much they tie in to Catholic theology on Mary (and Jesus). There is not the slightest bit of scriptural evidence for the Ark being a picture of Mary - not one. Thus far, you've simply changed the words of Scripture and compared a man dancing with a baby leaping in the womb.
It can only "tie into" your theology because you are uninterested in looking at passages which do not "tie into" your theology.
quote:
Catholicism does not have this one passage one understanding rule that is so common in evangelical Christians. Another indication why reason cannot be found. It matters not a whit that you've just read a post which belies your statement, a post which understands and speaks about types and figures. Still, you assert this to be nearly exclusive to your faith.
quote:
We see Christ in EVERYTHING! Not so. Scripture is clear the Lord Jesus is the Ark but you won't see Him as such. Just as God declares He is the only sinless one but you won't see Him as such, either.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 8:57:35 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
"Elisabeth never said "how is it that the ark of my Lord should come to me?" Why change the words of Scripture? The word "ark" is not the word "mother". "
This was an honest mistake. You don't get the connection. What you don't seem to get is I am in full agreement that the Ark is about Jesus. I also believe that it can be seen as a type of the Church. I don't limit my understandings as you do. What you fail to understand is that Christ works in and through those who love him. (eph 3:20-21). You think it has to be either Christ or Mary. Tell me, when Christ says that he is the light of the world in John's Gospel does he contradict himself when he says "you are the light of the world" referring to Christianity? Surely not. But is it a different light? NO! It is his light shining through us. Likewise it doesn't have to be Christ or Mary with regard to the Ark. Christ was in her just as he is in us. She was the holy vessel that carried him. The parallel is clear exspecially if you comper the passage misquoted above with David's "how can the Ark come to me". Mother of my Lord, vs. ark. Is Jesus the Mother of his Lord? It's silly isn't it. But this is a Catholic presenting all of this to you and you must evidently be hostile toward it. At least Zhi could see it and find truth in it. It never ceases to amaze me how non-catholics who claim to love the bible so much, deny this parallel. I think what some really love is their own understanding. See prov 3:5 which says "trust not your own understanding".
God bless
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 9:38:56 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
By the way kelman,
The focus of Luke 1 is in fact about Mary and what she did. This is not a denial of Jesus for Mary did what she did by God working in and through her. We don't need to deny God/Jesus by acknowledging what Mary did.
Matt.5
1. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 9:57:16 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Hey, now, hold on here.
I said I could see how you can make the parallels, and that particular statement of types and shadows does not bother me. But I did put quite a few limits on what that means in terms of the repercussions for Mary that disagree with your interpretation. Mary being a "God-bearer" in the general manner that the Ark was a God-bearer is reasonable, but claiming that that then means that Mary was sinless, holy, super-special beyond what is indicated in scripture, etc, is not. For instance, every single animal that was ever sacrificed at the Temple was a type and shadow of Jesus and His sacrifice, and there were a LOT of those... but that does not mean that every single animal was, say, born of a virgin, or divine, etc.
Jesus took the full presence of God with Him when He was born. Mary, like the rest of us, had to accept His sacrifice for our sins for His presence to come into her like His presence comes into all of us with that decision, to make her holy like He makes us all holy, to cover us with His righteousness as He covers us all. As such, we could say that we are all types of arks in this world, bearing God and His new Covenant in Jesus to a world in darkness... not a perfect Ark, not THE perfect and holy Ark, as He alone was, but yet a type and shadow of that spiritual reality that is the presence of God going forth dwelling upon a relatively humble vessel and changing the world. Not because of what we are, humble materials of this earth, but because of who He is who chooses to dwell in us.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 10:24:10 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
I never claimed you agreed with me as to what it all meant. Simply that you didn't deny that it was even there and that you could consider it. I didnt' say you agreed with my interpretation of it. No intent to misrepresent you. It just baffles me that something that is so obviously there in scripture can be denied as even being there. That has nothing to do with the interpretation of it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 10:39:13 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jesus took the full presence of God with Him when He was born.
What part of the passage forces this conclusion? Was Jesus not omnipresent while he was on earth? Are you saying in the rest of your post that Mary would have gone to hell before Jesus was concieved in her and after he was? What about during?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 11:27:47 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Well, it's obvious from Scripture that Jesus's sacrifice was retroactive to some extent for the faithful through the generations previous, if that's what you're asking.
I'm not sure what question you're asking regarding Mary. I do not think God would have let any harm come to her while she was bearing His Son.
God is omnipresent, always has been. This does not mean that God dwells in everyone in some new-age-y, dimorphous way. God dwells in those who have chosen to welcome Him to do so by accepting the sacrifice of His Son. God did not always dwell on Mary, as is obvious when you read what Gabriel tells her... "The Holy Spirit will come upon you". This is future tense, and is said in the context of *how* Mary will conceive and bear Jesus, so there's no indication there that it's a permanent state. We are promised that God dwells in us when we accept Jesus as our Savior, but that does not mean that we have the full, unmitigated presence of God... that would pretty much turn us to ash instantly. That's why we look toward a hope of eternity in Heaven, where we can truly be in the full presence of God.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 1:30:20 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Well, it's obvious from Scripture that Jesus's sacrifice was retroactive to some extent for the faithful through the generations previous, if that's what you're asking.
I'm not sure what question you're asking regarding Mary. I do not think God would have let any harm come to her while she was bearing His Son.
God is omnipresent, always has been. This does not mean that God dwells in everyone in some new-age-y, dimorphous way. God dwells in those who have chosen to welcome Him to do so by accepting the sacrifice of His Son. God did not always dwell on Mary, as is obvious when you read what Gabriel tells her... "The Holy Spirit will come upon you". This is future tense, and is said in the context of *how* Mary will conceive and bear Jesus, so there's no indication there that it's a permanent state. We are promised that God dwells in us when we accept Jesus as our Savior, but that does not mean that we have the full, unmitigated presence of God... that would pretty much turn us to ash instantly. That's why we look toward a hope of eternity in Heaven, where we can truly be in the full presence of God.
quote:
some new-age-y, dimorphous way.
What makes you think I believe Christ dwells in us in some new-age-y dimorphus way. You don't want me misrepresenting you but throughout this conversation you seem to like to exaggerate the Catholic position. I thought non-catholics thought that when the holy spirit indwelt us he would not leave. Now you are saying he does. When the scriptures say that the holy spirit would overshadow Mary, it was with regard to causing the conception of Jesus. This does not mean Mary did not have the Holy Spirit before or after that event that caused the conception. Mary already saw God as her savior "I rejoice in God my savior". So do you say "ya but the holy spirit didn't dwell in her and she said this on her own". I don't think so. For her to say this is an indication that she had the Holy Spirit already.
1Cor.12
1. [3] Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 2:03:10 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
What makes you think I believe Christ dwells in us in some new-age-y dimorphus way. You don't want me misrepresenting you but throughout this conversation you seem to like to exaggerate the Catholic position. I thought non-catholics thought that when the holy spirit indwelt us he would not leave. Now you are saying he does. When the scriptures say that the holy spirit would overshadow Mary, it was with regard to causing the conception of Jesus. This does not mean Mary did not have the Holy Spirit before or after that event that caused the conception. Mary already saw God as her savior "I rejoice in God my savior". So do you say "ya but the holy spirit didn't dwell in her and she said this on her own". I don't think so. For her to say this is an indication that she had the Holy Spirit already.
Well, you were asking about omnipresence as it applies. I was trying to make clear why it doesn't really.
There are plenty of examples, pre-Jesus's-sacrifice, of the Spirit of God coming upon a person and then leaving them. Take Samson, for instance, as a really obvious one.
Referring to God as He who saves is very common in the OT. In fact, it was one of the most popular names to give to male children. The name Jesus, Yahshua/Yeshua, is one of the varieties of that declaration. It does not make all those people Christians, other than in the sense that they were looking forward to God's salvation. They didn't know how He was going to do it exactly, but they were certainly looking forward to it, both in the temporal, "save me from my enemies" sense and in the eternal, "save me from unrighteousness" sense.
There is a difference in the New Testament due to the fact that God moves from identifying with a nation, to identifying with individual believers, and promises to indwell them in a permanent sense. This is the New Covenant, and it's a beautiful thing.
So, to clarify... I believe that Mary became a believer and accepted the sacrifice of her Son for her sins, as we all must. At that point, the Holy Spirit came to dwell in her as He does in all of us who believe. I do not believe that Mary was indwelt by the Holy Spirit her entire life. And, just as the fact that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not make us sinless except in the context that we are pure before God due to the covering of Jesus's blood, Mary was only sinless in the same context... she sinned, but like us, she was forgiven. Thus we can all say with Mary "I rejoice in God my savior". She needed a Savior just as much as the rest of us do, and for the same reason.
quote:
1Cor.12
1. [3] Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.
This is not the same thing as being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Look at Phillipians.
Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Now, we can discuss whether this is a confession forced by the Holy Spirit, or brought on in the awe of the full and undeniable presence of God (Spirit included), but the verse says EVERY tongue, which would require either everyone to be saved, or require those who are not saved to make the same confession... Christians with joy, non-Christians with fear. And, saying "Jesus is Lord" is not indicative of a sinless state.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 2:21:16 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
And, saying "Jesus is Lord" is not indicative of a sinless state.
Stop posting against arguements I never made. I didn't say it was.
quote:
Thus we can all say with Mary "I rejoice in God my savior". She needed a Savior just as much as the rest of us do, and for the same reason.
There are two ways of saving someone from falling in to a manhole. One can stop them from walking in to it or one can pull them out afterward. Mary was the former. Her words are not contradictory to this. God's grace cleanses us from sin. But it also keeps us from sinning. The Christian sins far less than the rest of the world and that is enough proof of that. In Mary's case God's grace, earned by her savior, kept her free from sin. She could not have remained free without the cross.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 2:57:35 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
Stop posting against arguements I never made. I didn't say it was.
I thought the thread topic had to do with whether Mary was sinless or not. As such, I kind of expected it to be relevant...
quote:
There are two ways of saving someone from falling in to a manhole. One can stop them from walking in to it or one can pull them out afterward. Mary was the former. Her words are not contradictory to this. God's grace cleanses us from sin. But it also keeps us from sinning. The Christian sins far less than the rest of the world and that is enough proof of that. In Mary's case God's grace, earned by her savior, kept her free from sin. She could not have remained free without the cross.
Her words also do not indicate this, so it's kind of a wash. So, we're stuck with looking at what the rest of scripture says.
If God, without violating His own precepts and designs that require us to be able to make choices, could completely preserve people from sin, why wouldn't He just do that for everyone? It would certainly make things easier on all of us, wouldn't it? It appears, then, that the only way God can truly preserve a person from sinning while preserving their free will is by He Himself *being* that person... in the person of Jesus Christ... and making those choices of His own free will. Don't you see how Mary just sort of kind of bumbling her way through managing to be sinless because God let her either violates her free will or violates His word when it comes to whether or not normal people can manage that?
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 5:15:54 PM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
It was relevant but not in your exagerrated manner. Let me make my own arguements please.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/10/2008 5:58:09 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
Well, I guess I'm not really sure where you're going with all the stuff about the Holy Spirit then. If those who have the Holy Spirit living in them are capable of sin (as should be obvious given that that is the state that the scriptures indicate that all Christians are in), then discussing whether and when Mary had the Holy Spirit living in her is kind of a moot point, right?
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/11/2008 6:06:22 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3855
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Geraldh
This was an honest mistake. You don't get the connection. What you don't seem to get is I am in full agreement that the Ark is about Jesus. I also believe that it can be seen as a type of the Church. No, it is not about Jesus it is a type of Jesus - not Mary and not the church. If you read about God's instructions for its construction, how it was portrayed and carried about, what it contained, its connection with salvation - there is no doubt it represents the presence of God and particularly the Lord Jesus.
quote:
I don't limit my understandings as you do. What you fail to understand is that Christ works in and through those who love him. (eph 3:20-21). Rather, I would suggest it is you who limits your undertanding to a church's doctrine - not to Scripture. That the Ark is a type of Christ has nothing to do with God working through people.
quote:
You think it has to be either Christ or Mary. It's not what I think, it's how Scripture describes the Ark that decides who it is a type of.
quote:
The parallel is clear exspecially if you comper the passage misquoted above with David's "how can the Ark come to me". Simply not true. In fact, they are diamentrically opposed statements. At that time, David didn't want the Ark anywhere near him because God had just killed Uzzah for the slightest of infractions done with the best of intentions.
quote:
But this is a Catholic presenting all of this to you and you must evidently be hostile toward it. I don't care who it is that's doing the presenting. When something is at total odds with Scripture, I'll point it out. It takes a simply reading of all references to the Ark to understand it can be a type only of Jesus Christ.
In the OT the Ark was virtually synonymous with God. The Ark's most full name can be found in 2Sam 6:2 and "the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims." Is this a picture of God or Mary?...God. To get a further biblical explanation of the Ark read Heb 9:3-11.
Who is credited with the crumbling walls of Jericho?....Mary?... No, it was the Ark as a symbol of Christ. It was here upon the mercy seat that blood was spilled for the atoning of sins. Who attones for sins?...Christ does - not Mary. It was the type of Christ which held back the waters of the Jordan River to bring Israel to heaven. It is Christ who brings us to heaven - not Mary - regardless of RC prayers to the contrary.
quote:
It never ceases to amaze me how non-catholics who claim to love the bible so much, deny this parallel. What's love got to do with it? There are no Marian parallels to be found, that's why they're not seen.
quote:
I think what some really love is their own understanding. Rather, what we have here in this supposed "parallel" is a church doctrine merely for the sake of elevating Mary to a status forbidden by Scripture. So, truly it is RC which loves its "own understanding"...which has nothing at all to do with Scripture.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/11/2008 10:59:40 AM
|
|
|
Mannamuncher
Posts: 2840
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Geraldh
This was an honest mistake. You don't get the connection. What you don't seem to get is I am in full agreement that the Ark is about Jesus. I also believe that it can be seen as a type of the Church. No, it is not about Jesus it is a type of Jesus - not Mary and not the church. If you read about God's instructions for its construction, how it was portrayed and carried about, what it contained, its connection with salvation - there is no doubt it represents the presence of God and particularly the Lord Jesus.
Amen Kelman !!!
Another problem in this...er, I don't even know what to call it ! Mary and the Holy Ark of God are somehow synonomous ? WOW ! I will however reference a blatant omission regarding the ark. If the zeal of some would value and include the full counsel of God, this type of teaching could not exist.
The pot of manna
The staff of Aaron
The law of the testimony
Where are these in the Mary "ark" model ?
Hebrews 9:4 (King James Version)
4Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
_____________________________
Coincidentally...both Obama & Oprah begin with a zero...
Yes, I have stolen your scissors...it's for your own good really. My loving action will prevent you from deleting those Bible passages that you find repugnant...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/11/2008 10:38:15 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 544
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Another problem in this...er, I don't even know what to call it ! Mary and the Holy Ark of God are somehow synonomous ? WOW ! I will however reference a blatant omission regarding the ark. If the zeal of some would value and include the full counsel of God, this type of teaching could not exist.
The pot of manna
The staff of Aaron
The law of the testimony
Where are these in the Mary "ark" model ?
Ummm....Mary carried "the true bread from heaven," the "eternal High Priest," and the One who "came to fulfill the law, not abolish it."
See John 6:32ff, Heb. 8, and Matt. 5:17.
Good questions, Mannamuncher. Not sure where the "problem" you imagine is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/12/2008 2:52:19 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3855
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mannamuncher
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
ORIGINAL: Geraldh
This was an honest mistake. You don't get the connection. What you don't seem to get is I am in full agreement that the Ark is about Jesus. I also believe that it can be seen as a type of the Church. No, it is not about Jesus it is a type of Jesus - not Mary and not the church. If you read about God's instructions for its construction, how it was portrayed and carried about, what it contained, its connection with salvation - there is no doubt it represents the presence of God and particularly the Lord Jesus.
Amen Kelman !!!
Another problem in this...er, I don't even know what to call it ! Mary and the Holy Ark of God are somehow synonomous ? WOW ! I will however reference a blatant omission regarding the ark. If the zeal of some would value and include the full counsel of God, this type of teaching could not exist. One need only unbiasedy read all the scriptural accounts of the Ark of the Covenant to understand it can only be a type of the Lord Jesus.
These are the various names the Israelites gave to it and not one of them can be mistaken for Mary....the ark of God, the ark of his strength, the glory of God, the face of God, the holy ark, the ark of the covenant, or testimony, yea, Jehovah, and God himself.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/12/2008 2:56:05 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3855
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Geraldh
By the way kelman,
The focus of Luke 1 is in fact about Mary and what she did. This is not a denial of Jesus for Mary did what she did by God working in and through her. We don't need to deny God/Jesus by acknowledging what Mary did.
Matt.5
1. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
I disagree that the focus of Luke 1 is Mary. The focus of all Scripture is the Lord Jesus Christ - not Mary - even in Luke 1. Rather, it is the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the Messiah, His misssion, who He is and where He was to be born. It also fulfills prophecy concerning John the Baptist; and yes, in Mary, it fulfills the prophecy of the virgin birth.
It's always more profitable to look on every page of the Bible for the Lord Jesus Christ - not Mary.
quote:
It just baffles me that something that is so obviously there in scripture can be denied as even being there. That has nothing to do with the interpretation of it. Equally as baffling to me that in order to find a parallel you must completely ignore the intent of David's words which were in total opposition to those of Elisabeth's.
Why remove from Jesus what is uniquely His? Do you not realize that your Marian doctrines deprive the incomparable, unparalleled incarnate God of His uniqueness?
quote:
In Mary's case God's grace, earned by her savior, kept her free from sin. She could not have remained free without the cross. There is no indication in Scripture that Mary was without sin - none. In fact, Scripture attest that only the Lord Jesus Christ was without sin. Mary stands on the same ground as everyone else because she was a sinner, she needed a Savior. God tells us His greatest evidence of grace to Mary was her salvation.
Luke 11:27-28 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/13/2008 8:43:54 AM
|
|
|
Geraldh
Posts: 48
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Kelmen,
You seem to love false dichotomy. I agree completely that all scripture is at its foundation about Christ. That does not mean it is about noone else or any less about Christ because Luke 1 speaks about Mary. You make arguements against me that you think I have. You seem to think you know what I think before I think it. But that's because you think like a man in false dichotomies and do not see that God wishes to rasie men up and glorify them. God raised Mary up out of her lowliness to become someone truly great. All glory be to him for doing this. Sounds like you see what I point out between luke 1 and 2 Sam 6 (which I in no way deny by pointing out ONE thing in it that is important, not to the denial of others as your false dichtomies force) is coincidence. I find that rather untendable. How is it in opposition? David was angry with God. That does not mean that Elizabeth has to be angry with God. You require everything to be exactly parallel. That is impossible since they are not the same event. Do you deny that the Jews used parallels as a literary form in scripture. I can show you some great ones about Moses and jesus and joshua and jesus in John's gospel if you can open your mind for a second. But my guess is you would have to deny them because a Catholic points them out. You are hostile toward anything Catholic. I think you would deny the trinity if I brought it up.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/14/2008 3:53:28 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3855
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Geraldh
You seem to love false dichotomy. I agree completely that all scripture is at its foundation about Christ. That does not mean it is about noone else or any less about Christ because Luke 1 speaks about Mary. Where's the "false dichotomy"? You said Luke 1 was about Mary. I pointed out that all Scripture is about the Lord Jesus Christ and that Luke 1 is also about Elisabeth, John the Baptist, etc.
quote:
You make arguements against me that you think I have. You seem to think you know what I think before I think it. You stated very clearly that Luke 1 was about Mary. I, therefore, pointed out it was about more than Mary. I responded to what you wrote not thought. I can only know what you think by what you write.
quote:
But that's because you think like a man in false dichotomies and do not see that God wishes to rasie men up and glorify them. Now, who seems to know what someone else thinks? In any event, you've got the Gospel completely backwards. God raises up people to glorify Him - not to glorify themselves or other people.
quote:
Sounds like you see what I point out between luke 1 and 2 Sam 6 (which I in no way deny by pointing out ONE thing in it that is important, not to the denial of others as your false dichtomies force) is coincidence. I find that rather untendable. How is it in opposition? David was angry with God. That does not mean that Elizabeth has to be angry with God. What is untenable is that you are attempting to prove a parallel between David's words and Elisabeth's when, in fact, they are diametrically opposed in their meanings. David essentially said: "Should I really take the sacred chest to my city?" And Elisabeth essentially said: "But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
And then make the absurd claim there need be no similarity for there to be a parallel. You simply change the definition of "parallel"....why?....because there is none between the two statements of David and Elisabeth? Therefore, 2Sam 6 cannot be used to bolster your argument.
It is you who present the classic "false dichotomy" when you insist that the two statements can only mean that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant.
quote:
You require everything to be exactly parallel. That is impossible since they are not the same event. Exactly parallel? You have no parallel. The words of David and Elisabeth are not similar in meaning. For there to be a true parallel between the words there must be something similar in essential respects and what the words actually mean would be an "essential respect".
quote:
Do you deny that the Jews used parallels as a literary form in scripture. I can show you some great ones about Moses and jesus and joshua and jesus in John's gospel if you can open your mind for a second.
Sure, I recognize parallels, types and representations in Scripture. That should be obvious since I've been writing about them in these posts....one in particular - the Ark of the Covenant is a type of the Lord Jesus Christ.
At times, we see Moses as a type of Christ. At other times he is a picture of the Law of God. And, of course, Joshua is presented as a type of Christ. So, no worries about my mind being open to the truths found in Scripture - but not to a church's traditions which are not found in Scripture.
quote:
But my guess is you would have to deny them because a Catholic points them out. Well, you guess wrong. If a Catholic brings up an actual truth from Scripture, obviously, I would not deny it. But, so far, I've seen few truths from Scripture brought up - only RC traditions.
quote:
You are hostile toward anything Catholic. Only as hostile as you are to anything Protestant.
quote:
I think you would deny the trinity if I brought it up. Nope, because that doctrine we can actually find in Scripture.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/20/2008 7:44:03 PM
|
|
|
wertttttttttt
Posts: 5
Joined: 10/20/2008
Status: offline
|
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Here I AM again to share with you all THE TRUTH OF GOD LOVE
Dear Friends,
GOD is GREATER than EVERYTHING, HE IS ALMIGHTY….In Exodus 33:20 GOD said to MOSES “YOU CANNOT SEE MY FACE BECAUSE MAN CANNOT SEE ME AND LIVE”. BUT NOT FOR MARY….WHY???
BECAUSE MARY IS PART GOD PLAN FOR SALVATION AND SHE REJOICES BECAUSE SHE WAS FULL OF GRACE AND THE LORD WAS WITH HER. (Luke1:28)
THE ANGEL SAID TO HER : “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU: THEREFORE, THE HOLY CHILD TO BE BORN SHALL CALLED SON OF GOD. (Luke 1:35)
If MARY is a sinner like us...SHE will die when the POWER OF THE MOST HIGH OVERSHADOW HER.
And again how can GOD choose a sinner for HIS PLAN FOR SALVATION.
MAY GOD BLESS
AMEN
WATT
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Perpetual Discussion on the Sinless Mary - 10/20/2008 7:51:35 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1433
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Here I AM again to share with you all THE TRUTH OF GOD LOVE
Dear Friends,
GOD is GREATER than EVERYTHING, HE IS ALMIGHTY….In Exodus 33:20 GOD said to MOSES “YOU CANNOT SEE MY FACE BECAUSE MAN CANNOT SEE ME AND LIVE”. BUT NOT FOR MARY….WHY???
BECAUSE MARY IS PART GOD PLAN FOR SALVATION AND SHE REJOICES BECAUSE SHE WAS FULL OF GRACE AND THE LORD WAS WITH HER. (Luke1:28)
A lot of people were part of God's plan for salvation, if you want to get technical about it. Including Abraham, who sinned, and Rahab, a prostitute, who is part of Jesus' lineage. Including David, who committed adultery and then killed the woman's husband. So, God most certainly does use sinful people as part of his salvation plan.
quote:
THE ANGEL SAID TO HER : “THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU AND THE POWER OF THE MOST HIGH WILL OVERSHADOW YOU: THEREFORE, THE HOLY CHILD TO BE BORN SHALL CALLED SON OF GOD. (Luke 1:35)
If MARY is a sinner like us...SHE will die when the POWER OF THE MOST HIGH OVERSHADOW HER.
No moreso than John the Baptist did. No moreso than Samson did. No moreso than the believers at Pentecost did. No moreso than we do, as the Holy Spirit comes upon all of us when we believe.
< | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
