Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

[popeman]

Hello Tom,

I hope all is well. I think I heard you once on the radio show. Good going. I think there are a number of Christians listening and investigating some of the stuff you talk about. You might get one or both of these books 1. BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN AGAIN CATHOLIC /David Currie, 2. CROSSING THE TIBER, Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church / Stehpen Ray. The first is about a preacher who got degrees from Trinity International University and theirTrinity Evangelical Masters Divinity program. The other is about a Baptist Biblical studies teacher who converted to Catholicism. His book is great with almost as much footnoted refernces as there is text. Another book or two by Allister McGrath THE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY READER has some nice quick historical reference writings that will allow you to go to other sources for even more writings.

As you can see, not many Protestants will write back with a ton of the early Chritsian's writing things negative about Mary and such. Take care and listen for the angels around you, Popeman

[RND]

Without arguing back and forth about the relationship that Tom brings up, maybe one of the Protestant readers can reference their earliest Christian author who disagreed with this point…that Mary was in fact “not” the Ark who carried Jesus who was the Bread, Priesthood and the Law.

In that this is an exclusively Roman Catholic teaching I'm not too sure what would be gained by posting the writing of a mistaken author.

One of the interesting things about the Acacia tree or Shittim wood AKA Red acacia (Acacia seyal) is that it basically "bleeds" when cut, oozing out a reddish-orange hued sap that in a way resembles blood. It's bark is also a reddish hue. Also, it is most likely the source of the "crown of thorns" which was patted on the Jesus as His crown. Lastly, gold always represents the character and nature of God. Just from understanding the basics of Bible symbolism one can easily see that the Ark of the Covenant was a type of Christ, not Mary.

[popeman]

Wowwwwwww! You said "he writing of a mistaken author" . Hey, lets go there for a moment. It appears that maybe you have read some early Christian writings, so please enumerate on "mistaken author(s)". Can you please post for all of us those authors so we can read how they are "mistaken". Please post ASAP so we can resource and discuss....or maybe, this comment of a "mistaken author" was simply a feeling you had. If you do not post them, then we can all assume you have none. Thanks. Popeman

[RND]

Wowwwwwww! You said "he writing of a mistaken author" . Hey, lets go there for a moment. It appears that maybe you have read some early Christian writings, so please enumerate on "mistaken author(s)". Can you please post for all of us those authors so we can read how they are "mistaken". Please post ASAP so we can resource and discuss....or maybe, this comment of a "mistaken author" was simply a feeling you had. If you do not post them, then we can all assume you have none. Thanks. Popeman

I thought the thread was about does the Ark represent Jesus or Mary? Look, many, many of the "early Christian writers" that you put more faith into than the scriptures themselves have been wrong about alot of things, from Origen to Justinian, Clement to Justin Martyr. If you have a specific reference we can discuss otherwise I haven't the time to research every "early Christian writer" for mistakes (that's a lifetimes worth of work).

Now, I posted some interesting facts about the Acacia tree, the thorns it produces, the color of it's bark and sap, and what the color yellow (gold) represents. None are related to Mary. Time to burn your strawman argument and to move on to the things posted regarding Jesus and the Ark.

[darinhouston]

Hello Tom,
As you can see, not many Protestants will write back with a ton of the early Chritsian's writing things negative about Mary and such. Take care and listen for the angels around you, Popeman

I actually think this is a worthwhile point to address. I hope someone will have some such evidence -- to RND's point, though, I think what he was saying was there may not be first century writings on the subject because it was a doctrine only created much much later. If you could point to the earliest Roman Catholic writing suggesting such a thing, we could perhaps research the critical writings of others. When was this doctrine actually introduced in the extra-biblical writings of the "fathers," popeman?

The mere weight of something outweighs another, but they forget we are talking about “Godly” things where a feather in reference to God will far outweigh a vault of solid gold.

I actually don't think this is a fair criticism -- I think this point was raised (at least in my mind) only in response to Tom's suggestions (here and on the radio) that Mary was discussed throughout scripture. So, the affirmative use of such a line of argument was raised by Tom, I believe, and this was merely a counter-argument along the same lines.

[popeman]

Help me here folks. Prove to me your Protestant doctrine about Mary. You said "...there may not be first century writings on the subject because it was a doctrine only created much much later.". Well, please show me/others when/where/who created this doctrine "much, much" later. You can not throw out this verbiage without substantiating it. Popeman

[RND]

Help me here folks. Prove to me your Protestant doctrine about Mary. You said "...there may not be first century writings on the subject because it was a doctrine only created much much later.". Well, please show me/others when/where/who created this doctrine "much, much" later. You can not throw out this verbiage without substantiating it. Popeman

Popeman, I think the burden of proof is in your court, not the other way around. If you want "Protestant doctrine about Mary" read the Bible. As for doctrine created at later date it is your summation that "early Church writers" (the one's responsible for church doctrine I presume) wrote that Mary was the ark of the Covenant. You made the charge, you need to back it up. Shows us those some of those "early Church writers" references to Mary being the Ark. Would you do that?

BTW, Happy New Year!

[popeman]

Well, I can tell I will not last long here because your argument is simply circular … show me in the Bible … OK, here is the Chapter X Verse XX … sorry, I don’t believe you, show me in the Bible…etc, etc. This has simply been your own premise after Tom has already described the scriptural argument to Mary and the Ark. The continued common response has been to paraphrase… “no way, I don’t believe it, that is simply Catholic doctrine…etc”.

As I told you earlier, we know the argument about Mary and the Ark from both the Protestant and Catholic perspective. What I tried to do , but it appears to have failed miserably is to get past this and now show some learned Christian authorship to this very argument. I asked for authorship on the Protestant or Catholic side going back as close to the end of scripture formation and the last Apostle’s death, but get none.

Tom, this is only indicative of where this is going. If there is no effort to discuss early Christian support or negation then why talk further, huh? This would not be a forum to discuss things but rather an effort to slam others, something I would not want to involved in and I might suggest the same to you, Tom. Peace out, Popeman

[darinhouston]

Well, I can tell I will not last long here because your argument is simply circular … show me in the Bible … OK, here is the Chapter X Verse XX … sorry, I don’t believe you, show me in the Bible…etc, etc. This has simply been your own premise after Tom has already described the scriptural argument to Mary and the Ark. The continued common response has been to paraphrase… “no way, I don’t believe it, that is simply Catholic doctrine…etc”.

As I told you earlier, we know the argument about Mary and the Ark from both the Protestant and Catholic perspective. What I tried to do , but it appears to have failed miserably is to get past this and now show some learned Christian authorship to this very argument. I asked for authorship on the Protestant or Catholic side going back as close to the end of scripture formation and the last Apostle’s death, but get none.

Tom, this is only indicative of where this is going. If there is no effort to discuss early Christian support or negation then why talk further, huh? This would not be a forum to discuss things but rather an effort to slam others, something I would not want to involved in and I might suggest the same to you, Tom. Peace out, Popeman

No -- we are simply saying we have no significant doctrine of Mary -- it is you who have suggested a doctrine concerning her -- what we have done is to say you have a doctrine that departs from the bible, so you must bear some burden of showing when and how this doctrine was developed. After you do that, we would be happy to discuss further, but until you can do that we will remain simply referencing our foundational text -- this is not circular reasoning -- it is linear -- we're just stuck at an impass awaiting your proof. You can't simply ask for us to prove your doctrine is incorrect by asking for negations at a time we would suggest there was nothing to negate.

In an effort to educate myself (since popeman won't do it) on Catholic dogma in this regard, I started out with the New Advent site and I found this post questioning an article on the subject (raising a good point in this regard). I couldn't find it or anything discussing the evolution of this doctrine. I truly am interested in how RC doctrine evolves on these sort of subjects.

You published an article called "Mary, Ark of the Covenant," in which the writer attempted to convince his readers that Mary should be venerated. I'd like to draw your attention to 1 Samuel 4, where we see that the nation of Israel put their faith in the Ark of the Covenant (like Catholics do in Mary), instead of in the true and living God. This was the reason for their destruction. They had turned from God to idols. I believe that millions of Catholics worship Mary in the same way Israel worshiped the ark of the covenant. If, as you claim, Mary is the "ark of the new covenant," I'm not sure that's something you should be proud of.

This isn't a protestant with a burning in the bosom (an offensive caricature of Protestantism by the way), but a thoughtful question based on a plain reading of Scripture.

[darinhouston]

I've been digging through google and found what may be the genesis of this doctrine. From "Catholic Answers" it seems Athanasius of Alexandria and Gregory the Wonder Worker both had homilies in or around the 3rd century that used covenant and ark language which used the symbolism of the ark to describe Mary as wonderful and bearing Christ, etc.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: "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).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: "Let us chant the melody that 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" (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

It sounded like poetic license in a homily rather than a doctrinal suggestion that they actually believed this was a biblical typology. This is the sort of thing that tends to generate Catholic doctrines. I think the difference is that if a Protestant were to read something like that from an Apostle, we would gladly accept that as an indication of how to interpret the typology of the OT. However, when others (non-Apostles) do it, we don't give it that same effect, and Catholics do. (note that even in the Athanasius quote, the citation had to be edited to include [Ark of the] to make the point.)

I think the problem we may have is that a statement like this in the 3rd century wouldn't be likely to have been seen as a "doctrinal statement" needing correction. I could use the garden of eden to ascribe characteristics to someone I'm writing about (even a biblical figure). That doesn't mean (even if I'm inspired of God) that this is of doctrinal weight.

What we ask of popeman is to show us where the church began to see and write about this as a point of doctrine about the Ark and of Mary. It is from that point that we would expect some writing in opposition. The problem with Catholic doctrines like this seems to be that they evolve so slowly that it isn't until they are being dogmatized that you see writings against them.