popeman wrote:Peace RND. Ammo? Ammo is the word you used not me. Since I shoot and have military experience with the Marines, “ammo” is analogous to guns and violence. Maybe you could have chosen a better word to signify a little more kindness.
It was meant metaphorically, not literally. Sorry you took it that way.
You are also the one that quotes the validly of scripture alone ( you are correct, I do not rely on scripture-alone because it is not in scripture…your very premise for discussion), yet you continue to quote an atheist for his philosophic validity on truth? One that was also a defendant to a murder case of an old woman.
It's part of my "siggy" (signature line) Popeman. Atheist are not immune from having truth revealed to them and that's what I love most about the A.S. quote. Remember, "A blind squirrel...."
Yet you think I am leaving to “mere insults”….who’s insults, yours? So we have a forum author that does not believe in the divinity of the NT, quotes a murder defendant atheist for his definition of truth, throws insults, and believes in a non-scriptural premise of “scripture alone” and really expects a rational discussion?
Man, you really need to take a chill-pill. You are reading way too much into things. I'd just prefer that you attempt to defend the comments you make about Mary than get into a strawman sideshow that really has no basis in fact. Look, if you truly believe Mary is the arch typical "Ark of the Covenant" show me from the Torah and Tanakh that's all I ask. All the other stuff is simply minutia.
I have tried to bring the earliest Christian writing into this discussion as to what it was to be like as such a Christian and you continue to berate me as if I am not “open”? You dissuade the forum readership in your writings that the early Christians had nothing valid to say about their faith/worship, yet you want all the readers on this forum to believe that you (a modern day Christian) express validity to scripture interpretation? What is so paramount, so valid about “your” modern day Christian/scripture interpretation compared to the earliest Christians interpretation? Again, since it appears that you place no divine credibility to the NT I can only assume you may not be a Christian (or maybe a splinter Protestant group?).
Brother, just because something was written long ago doesn't make the viewpoint correct. Remember, just a relatively short time ago it was thought that the world was flat and Galileo was imprisoned for the audacity of suggesting the earth revolved around the sun! My how things have changed!
You appear to place your opinion on some pedestal above other faithful. I have actually been trying to defer my opinion from my already known scriptural opinion about OT Ark/NT Mary Ark (explained and in agreement with Tom’s scriptural discussion) to now other Christian opinions. I have asked the forum to basically do what you have been doing (giving us your “modern” sense of Christian faith interpretation), but now I am simply asking for “other” Christians (earliest Christians) input, not just yours.
You're asking for those that have a different opinion than you do to make your argument for you. Is that even logical? Darin has pointed out essentially the same thing. Look, if you are going to make any statements, whether they be true or not, at least be prepared to present material to support your position.
I have heard what many modern day interpretative Christians have to say on this forum as to what they believe is correct or not, but I wanted to know what the earliest Christians had to say.
Great, no problem there! But I think your doing a disservice to your own argument in asking others to support it with proof-texts (whatever the source) that you should be providing. Then when Darin actually produces a text from an "early Christian writer" that is clearly contrary to your POV it's Darin's fault for producing it.
It does appear that darinhouston is looking for some citations. I commented that his use of his initial citation by Hippolytus was improperly used as I still believe so.
It's as plain as the nose on my face.
First, he could have gone to an original fragment source rather than using a second party quote. If I thought you wrote something incorrect, I would go to your writings, not to the editorial section of my local paper to hear what you said/meant unless I wanted the editor’s opinion, too.
My dad, who's been dead for close to twenty years used to say to me sometimes, "You'd cry if someone was about to hang you with a "new" rope."
I copied the same quote from the New Advent web site:
On Psalm XXII. Or XXIII. From the Commentary by the Holy Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus, on "The Lord is My Shepherd."
And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: "My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness." But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm
Is that better?
I brought this citation quote up (ON DANIEL, Section II.6)….
“…the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the “ark” made manifest.”, because in the paragraph just prior Section II.5, "For He says to him, “And thou shalt make the ark of imperishable wood…” says several things…
Here's the whole section from the New Advent web site (there appears to be some confusion):
"6. At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin,
who was the "ark overlaid with pure gold," with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the "ark" made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be.
And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: "Now it was the sixth hour," he says, intimating by that, one-half of the day. But a day with the Lord is 10000 years; and the half of that, therefore, is 500 years. For it was not meet that He should appear earlier, for the burden of thelaw still endured, nor yet when the sixth day was fulfilled (for the baptism is changed), but on the fifth and half, in order that in the remaining half time the gospel might be preached to the whole world, and that when the sixth day was completed He might end the present life."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm
It appears, clearly to me at least, that Hippolytus was comparing Christ to the Ark of the Covenant, not Mary.
1.The Savior was born from a virgin (we know this to be Mary).
Indeed.
2. The sentence then states that the virgin was the “ark overlaid with pure gold” [The sentence does not read “The Savior appeared and showed His own body to the world, who was the ark overlaid with pure gold, born of a virgin”.]
I would obviously disagree with you. If we take out "...(born) of the Virgin..." it does nothing to change the context of his quote.
"At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, who was the "ark overlaid with pure gold," with the Word within (on the inside) and the Holy Spirit without (on the outside); so that the truth is demonstrated, and the "ark" made manifest."
3. The sentence relates the Ark (being overlaid with pure gold signifying vessel purity) to Mary. We know that the OT Ark was pure to contain God (Aaron’s staff, Commandments, Manna) just as Mary had to be pure to contain Jesus.
Obviously I disagree.
4. The words “imperishable wood” is a description of wood that will resist rot and/or literally means it stands today as it was made back in OT times, but was never burned up by some conquering army or is buried away someplace. It is a discussion usage as to the venerable context that the Ark was held to.
"And that
the Saviour appeared in the world,
bearing the imperishable ark,
His own body, at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares:"
Jesus, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body.... Seems rather unmistakable to me.
