Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

[darinhouston]

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.

This just can't be left unadressed. It is not the LDS who would consider this malice. They proudly proclaim the legitimacy of the burning bosom. But, you find no such thing among the Protestants here. I have heard NO ONE suggest in any way that the reason they hold a particular doctrine is that it just "feels" right. To suggest this is "not even wrong." It is malicious. What I find more analogous is the Catholic reliance on Tradition or church teaching. It is there that the "burning in the bosom" is more relevant. Like the LDS feeling about the authority of the teachings of Smith, they just "feel" that the parallels are meaningful or that the church is authoritative.

Your complaints that Protestants can't "prove" their point from Scripture is likewise ridiculous. You are comparing a request to prove an affirmative doctrinal position (what we've asked of you regarding Marian dogma) to your request of us to prove the negative. We don't need to prove that the church taught against every false doctrine for the doctrine to be false, particularly if the doctrine wasn't taught affirmatively as dogma during the period within which you are seeking our rebuttal. This criticism is also "not even wrong."

To your suggestion that our reasoning is "circular..." Please educate yourself on logical fallacies before using them so aggressively....

"Circular reasoning is the basing of two conclusions each upon the other (or possibly with more intermediate steps). For example, A causes B because A comes before B, therefore B is caused by A. While arguments made using circular reasoning can be considered valid , either side of the argument leans heavily upon the other under an assumed truth basis."

Can you point to the premises we have that rely upon each other in our argument?

I intend to respond to Tom's legitimate question about how we use scripture when I have some more time. It's a good question and deserves a good response.

[darinhouston]

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

I can’t speak for RND, but let me explain how at least one Protestant views these things.

I believe in the authority of Scripture and of Christ and the Apostles directly appointed by Christ (while on this Earth or at Damascus). We have in the OT, the Scripture as recognized by Christ. We have in the NT, the historically reliable teachings of Christ and His Apostles.

I believe that Scripture alone can be safely relied upon today to form the foundation of doctrines.

Tradition and extra-biblical writings are helpful to understand scripture even where a teaching is not “clear.” But, I do not believe that we can safely form new doctrines out of whole cloth outside of Scripture even if we can relate back to scripture to support those doctrines by parallelism or the like.

With respect to typology, I think it is dangerous and borders on the errors of the sort of the Gnostics, trying to seek “hidden meanings” etc. in otherwise ordinary teachings. We do find clear typologies being used in Scripture, and the only ones I find “safe” to rely upon are those recognized and pointed out by the Apostles themselves. Anything further in that regard is conjecture. Though there may be some devotional benefit in considering things like this to the extent they point to Christ, I think it’s dangerous to seek devotion to others in this way, and even as to Christ we risk ascribing attributes to Him that are not sound.

You point to the Trinity as an example of something not “clearly taught” in Scripture but which is accepted by orthodox Protestants. I would personally agree to some extent that to be consistent here, we Protestants should heed our own warnings in this area and retain a high degree of care and humility even with this sacred doctrine. You are correct that it is not clearly taught in scripture in any particular form and so a particular “view” of the Trinity should be held quite loosely, I think. But, there is a significant difference in the use of tradition and scripture to arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity from that of Mary. Most importantly, the doctrine of the Trinity (and others like it) generate from an attempt to understand and synthesize teachings that are themselves quite clear. While several teachings of attributes of God, for example, may be clear, they may not have a clear synthesis, and doctrines such as the Trinity are our attempt to synthesize these straightforward teachings. The Marian dogmas are different in that they appear to the Protestant to not be suggested overtly by the Apostles or to solve a particular “problem” with the text, but are generated independent from the Scripture out of devotion to an idea outside of Scripture or to expand a simple statement from Scripture without internal cause within Scripture.

Perhaps our difficulty lies in the non-shared premise of Apostolic Succession. If we felt the bishopric had a clear apostolic authority (another doctrine not found directly in Scripture), then one might recognize their right to point out typologies in the same way we recognize those of Paul and John and the like. So, we may be speaking past each other on this point considering we Protestant’s don’t believe anyone in the post-apostolic era has or has had sufficiently reliable inspiration from the Holy Spirit to create whole doctrines or recognize typologies in the way of the Apostles.

Therefore, we ask: show me where a doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture, or recognized or at least strongly “hinted” at by an Apostle, or reasonably can be relied upon without conjecture to synthesize multiple simple truths.

[tom]

RND,

It dawned on me today that you may be holding Mary and the Saints at arms length because we are to pray to Jesus directly. He is the one Mediator, The Man Christ Jesus! Am I getting where you're coming from now?

Thanks,

Tom

[RND]

RND,

It dawned on me today that you may be holding Mary and the Saints at arms length because we are to pray to Jesus directly. He is the one Mediator, The Man Christ Jesus! Am I getting where you're coming from now?

Thanks,

Tom

Tom, let me see if I can explain this in terms that you will easily understand. Mary was a great woman, one of greatest women named in the scriptures as were many of the people of the Bible we are familiar with - and they are all dead, in the grave, awaiting their change on the last day.

Jhn 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Mary isn't in heaven acting as our "mediatrix." Marilogy has nothing to do with my belief system. Period. Sorry to be so direct but no one has ever been requested to ask Mary for anything, nor bow down to an image of her.

Pagan Sun Worship and Catholicism - The Sunburst Image, the Queen of Heaven and Baal





One last thing. We are called to pray "directly" to the Father in Jesus' name.

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you.

John 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: (Indicates His role as "High Priest").

I bow to no man, and I worship no one but the Son of God:



Tom, I am extremely sorry if this doesn't sit well with you or some of the other Roman Catholics that may frequent this forum. Truth is truth. Also, please understand that I am not calling your faith in Jesus Christ in question, I have no reason to - nor am I suggesting because you are RCC that you are lost - that isn't my place, nor my job. Jesus Christ has disciples in every church, in every type of denomination and in every religion throughout the world.

My job is to point to Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice and current life as our High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary. This is your job as well. In fact, this is the job of everyone that calls on the Father in His name.

[mikew]

Hello Tom,

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. ...

Have you described this conversion somewhere? I'm somewhat interested in the possible trend to "return" to early roots of Christianity. Let me know if you address this -- probably as a different topic though.

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!)

Does this tradition trace to the era preceding Jesus' time? And certainly Jesus often went against traditions since they are often harmful -- for who could find fault for Jesus speaking gracious words of comfort for His mother and a disciple?

There certainly are other reasonable alternatives.
One may be that this tradition didn't exist, at least in a strict way so as to cause insult by Jesus speaking this. The request may not have been exclusionary of the actions and responsibilities of Mary's children. There certainly is a beautiful image of Jesus offering His mother sort of a substitute for Himself to her.

Another thought here is that Mary may have been the only one of Jesus' family that was a believer in Jesus as the Christ. So Jesus then would have been addressing comfort from among the disciples rather than among disbelievers. At least one passage describes the family as seen by Jesus:
Matt 12:47 One said to him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers stand outside, seeking to speak to you.” 12:48 But he answered him who spoke to him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” 12:49 He stretched out his hand towards his disciples, and said, “Behold, my mother and my brothers! 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.

= = =
On this topic in general and not a response to popeman...
Mary would not be represented in the temple. The earthly temple was designed after the heavenly original. Mary wasn't part of the heavenly temple.

[popeman]

Dear Tom,

Fascinating conversation going here but circular as usual (and then it simply gets boring again). Jewish history/tradition is refernced and it is denied, go figure. Tom, have you ever brought up Paul’s (Christian Jew) oral tradition that he relied upon that is nowhere in Scripture, Old or New? But that's OK for Paul because he's "Paul".

If you did, I can hear them now…”yes but, that is different because it is not contrary to scripture…you see just because there are no airplanes or jets in scripture they are OK because they are not contrary to Scripture…oh, and since Bigfoot, Sasquatch and the Yeti are not mentioned they too could also have been on the Ark (the boat, folks!)…also, since we see Scripture phrases that allude to spaceships/aliens then they are also a possibility, but Mary being a NT Scriptural Ark that carried Jesus, our Savior?! Absurd. Never is that even close to Scripture!

Tom, I will be camping next month so I will see if Bigfoot can help with this discussion or if I bump into an alien we can have a Bible study about the divinity of Jesus. Keep smilin’ Popeman

QUOTE: Guess who said this one, Tom. Per our friend here, it really does not matter the source of a quote, just its message. No and its not the Schillingbackerburgermiester guy.

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

[darinhouston]

Fascinating conversation going here but circular as usual (and then it simply gets boring again).

Again, I ask -- how is it circular ?

[tom]

RND wrote: One last thing. We are called to pray "directly" to the Father in Jesus' name.

I can understand how 'popeman' says he gets frustrated. I don't see how praying for one another takes away from God. I was given an analogy comparison between Protestants,(Evangelicals), and Catholics.

Catholics believe that Heaven is like this: We are greeted by many people that are beautiful. Beautifully adorned in great clothing glimmering and shinning. They bring us into a great hall full of beautiful paintings and tapestries on the walls. At our feet are beautiful rugs laced with gold and jewels. Floors of precious stones. Everyone is happy smiling, laughing and glade to see us. We are lead down a hall into the throne room of God. It is more glorious then what we have just seen. Dozens of beautiful people around the throne. The throne is unexplainable in it's beauty. Finally we see God on His throne. What a wonder!

The Protestant view of Heaven is like this: We come into a room stark and bare. We are lead down a hall into the throne room of God. The throne is of God is of drab concrete. Finally we see the glory of God. What a wonder!

Don't you see that the Saints are given by God to us to lead us to God? If God didn't want to show off His Saints why would he ask us to pray for each other? God loves us to come to each other when we need help.

When my son goes to his sister to ask for help when he could have come to me, I am not offended! I am honored that he feels confidant enough to go to her.

Tom

[darinhouston]

I'm sorry, tom, but we're not in heaven yet. We don't see any basis to believe we can commune with the dead in that way.

[tom]

Popeman,

You and I believe that Jesus is God. But I think the Bible is not very clear that Jesus is God. At best, using scripture alone, He is only the Son of God! Wasn't there a heresy in the early Church that believed that Jesus wasn't God? I know there was I just can't think of the name of the heresy. Can you help?

I keep getting, "it has to be clear-cut in scripture", but they seem to be picking and choosing! Not all they believe is clear-cut!

Thanks,

Tom