Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

[tom]

RND,

"I've responded directly to you Tom. If you want to compare Mary's womb to the Ark of the Covenant that is certainly your right and privilege to believe such a notion. I on the other hand am more apt to ask for and seek after actual Biblical proof text that could point me down the road to accepting such an assertion.

Are you suggesting that if one asks for clear-cut evidence of a stated position we're being "dishonest?" To make such an assumption is, well, dishonest."

You are right, I do see it that way. So did the early Church! If you say that scripture has to be have more proof than what the Holy Spirit has already shown us, then we have a real problem. Jesus is nowhere in scripture absolutely shown to be God. For every one you can show me that He is God, I can show you he is not God. That's using scripture! Remember you want clear-cut evidence!

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that Jesus is God but if you want absolute Biblical proof then you have the burden of proof. Mary is shown, in many ways as I've shown, to be the new Ark of the Covenant. You are not taking the most logical interpretation first. Ask any child 'who the mother of the Man Child is? Without doubt they will tell you it is Mary!

2Sam 6:2 -14 compared to Luke 1:39-56 is one heck of a coincidence! I can see one or two coincidental parallels but that many? This and knowing Mary carried all that the Ark of the Covenant did, it's no coincidence! You know as well as I do that the Scriptures are like peeling an onion. The Holy Spirit keeps showing us more and more deeper and deeper!

You seem so scared to admit that Mary could be the Ark because you think that somehow that will take away from your worship of God. That could not be further from the truth. I hold everyone that brings me closer to God in the highest regard. You should too.

Tom
[edited by darinhouston to format quoted text]

[RND]

You are right, I do see it that way. So did the early Church! If you say that scripture has to be have more proof than what the Holy Spirit has already shown us, then we have a real problem. Jesus is nowhere in scripture absolutely shown to be God. For every one you can show me that He is God, I can show you he is not God. That's using scripture! Remember you want clear-cut evidence!

I have absolutely no problem if you want to use scripture to prove Jesus isn't God, that is certainly your prerogative. I would honestly have less of a problem with that type of conviction than not using scripture at all.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that Jesus is God but if you want absolute Biblical proof then you have the burden of proof.

I don't believe that is where the course of this conversation was headed but if that's a topic you'd like to explore then by all means, start a new thread.

Mary is shown, in many ways as I've shown, to be the new Ark of the Covenant. You are not taking the most logical interpretation first. Ask any child 'who the mother of the Man Child is? Without doubt they will tell you it is Mary!

You've managed to show many similarities between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary, there is little doubt of that. But when the veil was rent in twain and access to the Holy of the Hollies was revealed signifying the misconceptions of the character of God have been defeated that did not point to Mary, that pointed to Christ.

2Sam 6:2 -14 compared to Luke 1:39-56 is one heck of a coincidence!

In my mind they are completely unrelated.

I can see one or two coincidental parallels but that many? This and knowing Mary carried all that the Ark of the Covenant did, it's no coincidence! You know as well as I do that the Scriptures are like peeling an onion. The Holy Spirit keeps showing us more and more deeper and deeper!

I don't know I'd use "peeling an onion" as an analogy here frankly.

You seem so scared to admit that Mary could be the Ark because you think that somehow that will take away from your worship of God.

Why, because I asked for something from scripture to verify your assertions? If that's being scare then I am indeed shaking in my boots.

That could not be further from the truth. I hold everyone that brings me closer to God in the highest regard. You should too.

I don't see how insisting Mary is the Ark of the Covenant brings me closer to the truth about the character and nature of God and His goodness. Actually, I feel sad for you that you are so ready to cast aside the truth of the scriptures as told to us by Jesus Himself in favor of an unprovable wife's tale.

I started this thread the other day that discusses the many elements in the courtyard and tabernacle in the sanctuary service and as I recall none seemingly point to Mary.

The Symbolism of the Sanctuary

Most Holy Place

Most Holy Place = Contained the Ark of the Covenant. The Most Holy Place represents heaven and the believer in full unity and “oneness” of God and His creation. The Shekinah presence represents God the Father. Isaiah 9:2. The angels on the lid of the Ark represent the angelic host watching all the things that transpire between God and man.

Elements in the Ark = 1) The Manna represents the word of God, Jesus Christ. John 6:48-51. 2) The Ten Commandments are symbolic of the character and nature of Christ. The law of love. Matthew 22:37-40. Jesus came to “fulfill” or more properly “Fill Full” the law and the prophets. Matthew 5:17. 3) Aaron’s rod that Budded which represented Christ and His character that takes that which is dead (the Rod) and brings new life into it (the budding).

The Ark or Box = Represents the heart and mind of the converted believer. The heart of the regenerated believer that has Christ’s law and character now written in the heart. Hebrews 8:10 – Law in the old system was in the box, law in the new system is in the heart. The Ark of the Covenant is also symbolic of the throne of God. The Kingdom of God is in the heart of each and every believer and thus God sits on His throne in our hearts.

First thing the heart receives is the manna, or the word, which dispels the lies of Satan. When trust is restored we can open our hearts to Him writing His law on our hearts. Thus we which were “once dead” in sin and trespasses are changed and converted and made “alive” in Him through His word and His truth. We are now walking in the newness of life. Romans 6:13

The Lid or Mercy Seat = Represents Jesus Christ which connects the heart of the believer (Ark) and the Shekinah Glory of the Father (Between the Cherubim) Ephesians 1:9-10 Brings together the sinner and God – At-one-ment/Atonement
Col 1:16-20

[popeman]

Hey Tom,

careful, I think you may be argueing with someone who is not a Christian. Not that this is bad, but it will get you no where because if he is an agnostic (worse an atheist) then you may be pounding on sand. Have you looked into some of the Jews that believed that Jesus was creating miarcles which may have given rise to why so many Jews began accepting Jesus as the Messiah returned? Since our Christian roots are buried deep in Judiasm it may be interesting to look at these early Christians who were, in fact, Jews that merely accepted that the Messiah had come. I may have an extra book if you email with your address I can send it to you. Bringing it up here will throw everyone into a tizzy. Give it a thought. I continue to pray for you. Popeman

[RND]

careful, I think you may be argueing with someone who is not a Christian.

Based on disagreeing with you? Of course, in that I'm not a Catholic I'm already condemned! Be careful Tom! BTW there's no "e" in arguing.

“He is a heretic who does not believe what the Roman Hierarchy teaches.” The American Textbook of Popery, p 164 (quoting from the “Directory for the Inquisitors”).

"Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines. "Any baptized person who...obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic." Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

“He is a heretic who deviates from any article of faith.” The American Textbook of Popery, p 143, (quoting from the “Directory for the Inquisitors”).

"Whoever 'obstinately' denies these (Catholic) truths, the doctrinal commentary of Pope John Paul II says, falls under the censure of heresy." Our Sunday Visitor, Analysis, July 19, 1998.

"For it has been delivered to us, that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one (Catholic) Church, and one baptism ordained only in the one Church, from which unity whosoever will depart must needs be found with heretics." St. Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXIII, #11.

"So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic-the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member." St. Augustine, Sermon cclxvii., # 4 (Quoted by Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church), Encyclical promulgated on June 29, 1896, #5.

"Heretics (those who are not members of the Catholic Church or who do not hold to Catholic doctrine) worship a God who is a liar, and a Christ who is a liar." St. Augustine, (quoted in "Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graca", by Fr. J. P. Migne, Paris: 1866, 42:207).

[tom]

RND,

I don't want to misunderstand what you wrote and how I respond to it. What you wrote was:

"I've responded directly to you Tom. If you want to compare Mary's womb to the Ark of the Covenant that is certainly your right and privilege to believe such a notion. I on the other hand am more apt to ask for and seek after actual Biblical proof text that could point me down the road to accepting such an assertion.

Are you suggesting that if one asks for clear-cut evidence of a stated position we're being "dishonest?" To make such an assumption is, well, dishonest."


I take it, you won't follow or preach what is not clear-cut in scripture? Am I right or am I not on the same page?

Thanks,

Tom

[RND]

RND,

I don't want to misunderstand what you wrote and how I respond to it. What you wrote was:

"I've responded directly to you Tom. If you want to compare Mary's womb to the Ark of the Covenant that is certainly your right and privilege to believe such a notion. I on the other hand am more apt to ask for and seek after actual Biblical proof text that could point me down the road to accepting such an assertion.

Are you suggesting that if one asks for clear-cut evidence of a stated position we're being "dishonest?" To make such an assumption is, well, dishonest."


I take it, you won't follow or preach what is not clear-cut in scripture? Am I right or am I not on the same page?

Thanks,

Tom

Well Tom, that depends frankly. If it isn't of the law or the testimony I would agree with you. If it is outside of the law and/or testimony then yes, I won't follow or preach it. For example, you've done a great job linking scriptures with the Ark of the Covenant. But those scriptures or passages you quoted allude to Jesus, not to Mary, and it is Jesus that says the law and the prophets testify of Him.

BTW, I hope you don't think I am against you in some way, that I don't like you, or God forbid, am an "unbeliever" as it has been suggested by your buddy "Popeman." I am none of those things. I am simply looking to draw from the word of God. If that can't be done then I am extremely suspicious of any teaching or doctrine, including that of my own church.

[tom]

RND,

Alright, now I'm more confused then when I wrote for an explanation of 'clear-cut evidence'. Do you mean that it has to be shown explicitly in scripture for you to believe it? I'm still not clear. I don't know what, "If it isn't of the law or the testimony I would agree with you. If it is outside of the law and/or testimony then yes, I won't follow or preach it.", means?


Forgive me if I'm not getting what you're saying. You just say that Mary as the Ark is not 'clear-cut' so you can not accept it. Is this correct? or am I still missing something?



Tom

[tom]

Popeman,

Did you have a hard time with Mary? I know when I came back to the Catholic Church after going to a non-denominational church and then a Calvary Chapel I had a new zeal for Christ. I had a bit of a hard time with Mary.

Now it's so clear! It's almost as if the scales fell from my eyes!

You're right, we as Catholics are steeped in Judaism. Which makes sense when you see all the parallel fulfillment's.



Tom

[RND]

RND,

Alright, now I'm more confused then when I wrote for an explanation of 'clear-cut evidence'. Do you mean that it has to be shown explicitly in scripture for you to believe it? I'm still not clear. I don't know what, "If it isn't of the law or the testimony I would agree with you. If it is outside of the law and/or testimony then yes, I won't follow or preach it.", means?

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

Tom, if a teaching is inconsistent or outside of the scope of the above then I won't follow it or preach it.

Forgive me if I'm not getting what you're saying. You just say that Mary as the Ark is not 'clear-cut' so you can not accept it. Is this correct? or am I still missing something?

I think you're missing something, I said:

"For example, you've done a great job linking scriptures with the Ark of the Covenant. But those scriptures or passages you quoted allude to Jesus, not to Mary, and it is Jesus that says the law and the prophets testify of Him."

Mary can't be the Ark of the Covenant because 'everything' testifies of Jesus.

[popeman]

Hello Tom,

I hope all finds you well. Before I forget, if you get frustrated with some of this circular dialogue you may go to the Catholic Answers forum site [http://forums.catholic.com/] for a small discussion of your Mary points. I think you have been right on the money but it may give you some insight as to what some these Protestant hang-ups are. They demand evidence from the Catholic Christians but when we ask Protestant Christians for evidence its one of those things “show me first, or I won’t play”. I believe that one is not even a Christian so I can see why he does not answer the questions from a Christian perspective…because he’s not a Christian!

Mary was never a big hang-up to me. Protestants (which I was an Evangelical for some 8-9 years) have some great insight which I forever will be indebted to. Had it not been for my Protestant friends I would not be Catholic today, therefore I can not forsake them for lack of knowledge because I was there, too. These debates can be interesting but also frustratingly distracting from my walk. I do not claim to know everything, nor have I found that in any Protestant I have met. What I have found is that this is like a major theological league debate and when it is all said and done, the Catholic Christian argument is far more supportable theologically, historically and reasonably than the Protestant perspective. Like I said if you want to take a break from this “bosom of my chest” (no malice intended to my LDS friends) feeling discussion you might try the Catholic Answers site for a moment.

One thing that I find extremely interesting is the Jewish tradition a Rabbi told me about related to Jesus’ crucifixion. When the eldest son dies, the next eldest son takes care of the parent’s (ie, Mary, since we do not know where Joseph is). Yet, when Jesus (eldest son) dies on the cross none of his alleged brothers/sisters are there in Scripture. To top that off, as Jesus dies who does he give the care to his mother, Mary? Bang, its right there in big letters “James, my brother take care of Mom!”…No way! It says John 19:26-27: “When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved [John] standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.” Jesus could have told John to take Mary to his brother James, Jospeh…etc for care, but does not.

To give your mother to another for care when you had other sons/daughters would be tantamount to a grave Jewish sin, yet here, Jesus, a Jew, gives his mother to a non-family member, John! Either his brothers/sisters hated Jesus, missed the crucifixion time or did not care about Jewish tradition even though they knew he was God (unless Mary, their mother, kept it a secret from them even though all of Judea was talking about the miracles that Jesus was performing…his brother/sisters would have had to been living under a rock!)

That is what caught my attention about Mary and Jesus. Mary being the NT Ark? Yep, there is just too much scriptural OT/NT parallelism to deny it. Well, take care until we talk again. Popeman