Posted on 02/03/2014 1:36:37 AM PST by markomalley
Unless you believe in the gnostic Gospels, you have already accepted that the Church has the authority to ratify scripture - to say what should be regarded as scripture and what should not.
For those who haven't investigated them - the stuff in some of those Gnostic gospels is pretty whacked out. It's 'scripture' - of a sort. But (oh boy) what scripture.
We must either accept that the Church indeed has authority to declare what is scripture and what is not - or we have no consistent basis for ruling out-of-bounds those weird 'Gospels' that depict Christ baking his friends in an oven, turning bread into birds or being suspended over Jerusalem by his hair.
So does that mean that the Quran is the spiritual equivalent of the Bible?
Well, no. The Bible is ratified by the Church. The Quran has no scriptural standing whatsoever.
Pope John Paul II famously kissed the Quran in an act of diplomacy. Misguided in my opinion, though it is my pious hope that perhaps that act helped bridge an emotional divide and brought some muslims to Christ.
But neither he nor any Catholic believes what Moslems believe. Our one shared concept is Monotheism, and they vehemently deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
But neither he nor any Catholic believes what Moslems believe.
.........................................................
The Pope seems to believe that the Bible and the Quran will both lead you to the same place:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlqgL-hAC-M#t=89
“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.”
>This seems likely to be the Ark referred to in the passage
>that he cited, as Mary appears elsewhere in Revelation
>(clothed with the sun and with the moon beneath her feet).
Now this gets interesting. There is a theory that I have come to believe is true, that the Conception occurred on June 17, 2 BC (Venus and Jupiter merged in the constellation Leo), an amazing conjunction. Virgo the Virgin follows Leo and just after the Conception, the Sun was near the head of Virgo while the crecent moon was at her feet, Aug. 27, 2 BC. Rick Larson has a great video about these astronomical events. I think that the Birth may have occured on April 3, 1 BC, ~nine months later, and the Magi visited later that year (my speculations). There is recent evidence that Herod died in 1 BC, not 4 BC, specifically Dec. 29, 1 BC (lunar ecplipse that night).
Another amazing sign was that on Friday, April 3, 33 AD (Passover), the moon rose that evening engulfed in a total lunar eclipse and appeared blood red. The moon was in the constellation Aries (the Ram), the perfect sacrifice. I find these events to be extremely interesting.
I have no expectation of changing minds who have been programmed to boast they are responsible for the Bible. And then to completely ignore what they claim they own. Why the need for God or His only Begotten Son when the whole doctrine is warped around Mary?
The conception of Christ was in December not the birth, so this date is way off base and Mary went dirty for several months.
That excerpt is rather encouraging.
You can’t see that he was exhorting Muslims to carry their cross and expel the illness within their hearts?
Islam is a rabid death cult. As we know: its members risk death if they become Christians. John-Paul’s message almost reads like a coded message to those many people trapped inside Islam.
It’s pretty obvious what their cross is. I thank God I’ve been spared from it.
>This seems likely to be the Ark referred to in the passage
>that he cited, as Mary appears elsewhere in Revelation
>(clothed with the sun and with the moon beneath her feet).
Oops, need to correct an error.
Now this gets interesting. There is a theory that I have come to believe is true, that the Conception occurred on June 17, 2 BC (Venus and Jupiter merged in the constellation Leo), an amazing conjunction. Virgo the Virgin follows Leo and just after the Conception, the Sun was near the head of Virgo while the crecent moon was at her feet, Aug. 27, 2 BC. Rick Larson has a great video about these astronomical events. I think that the Birth may have occured on April 3, 1 BC, ~nine months later, and the Magi visited later that year (my speculations). There is recent evidence that Herod died in 1 BC, not 4 BC, specifically Dec. 29, 1 BC (lunar ecplipse that night).
Another amazing sign was that on Friday, April 3, 33 AD (Passover), the moon rose that evening engulfed in a total lunar eclipse and appeared blood red. The sun (not moon) was in the constellation Aries (the Ram), the perfect sacrifice. I find these events to be extremely interesting. Larson says something about the alignment, don’t remember the details, sun in Aries, full moon opposite, in Virgo?, the moon blood red and full (it is finished), while the (Conception or Birth) was during a crescent moon (life begins). Pretty neat.
Nothing in Scripture teaches Mary as an ark.
The exaltation of Mary continually exceeds even what God says about her.
In the process, glory is stolen from God.
John the Baptist’s conception took place in June. And John was 6 months in the womb when Mary visited his mother, her cousin Elizabeth. It makes total and complete sense that the ‘light for this world’ would be sent to this earth on the shortest day of sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere.
Taxes and censuses were collected after the harvest, which would make the birth at the end of our September.
**God had returned to His Temple. He, and the Ark who carried him, were found. Mary the Ark, carrying Jesus in her arms. Jesus, very God, true God from True God. Yes, God and the Ark had been found and God was once again present among His people on the Temple Mount. Scripture says:
And the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? (Mal 3:1-2)**
Very moving!
That's odd. Most copies of the Bible mention who Jesus's mother was. Have a look in the New Testament. It should be there somewhere.
Mary is the Mother of God. She had a pivotal role in our salvation, just as Eve had a pivotal role in our near-destruction.
In perfect submission to God's word she brought God into the world.
Mary carried God for nine months in her womb and for many years in her arms.
She could indeed be called the Ark: carrying God across the weary desert of pre-Christian history. In that sense the Mosaic Ark pre-figured her, just as the Mosaic sacrifice prefigured Christ's holy and living sacrifice.
Mary is not God. Confused onlookers notwithstanding, no Catholic believes that she is God.
But she is greater than any other created being - above all angels and archangels. The titles we give to her - Ark of the Covenant, Virgin of Virgins, Theotokos and so forth - these all come from her God-given status as Mother of God.
The archangel Gabriel called Mary "Full of Grace". She is depicted in Revelation clothed in the Sun with the Moon beneath her feet. Clearly God wishes her to be treated with respect!
Hope this was helpful.
Clients need me. Good evening, and may God bless us all.
Good point. The Ark of the Covenant is, as the name implies, a vessel carrying the Covenant.
It’s contents were
1) Aaron’s Rod that budded,
2) A Pot of Manna, and
3) The Broken Tablets from Mt Sinai.
On top of the Ark is the Mercy Seat, upon which the blood is shed to atone for sin.
Atop the Ark of the Covenant, facing one another, are the 2 Cherubim, representing God’s Perfect Judgment and His Perfect Righteousness, both which comprise His Perfect Holiness.
His Perfect Righteousness, when faced with anything unrighteous (such as sin), demands Perfect Justice in Judgment of that before it. His Perfect Justice, demands Perfect Righteousness in the Judgment before them. They keep each other in check, always comprising His Perfect Holiness.
Those items in the Ark represent three cases of disobedience to His Plan. The Pot of Manna represents the rejection of His Providence. The rod that budded represents man’s disobedience to legitimate authority. The tablets represent man’s disobedience to His Law.
His Shed Blood atones for these items.
Mary doesn’t fulfill these elements, even if she is righteous.
Indeed. After all according her devotees of her, she shed her blood for our sins as well, and they have quicker recourse to Mary than to the Lord, whose power is all but unlimited, and whose prayers are like commands to Him. Etc .
Good evening? Where art thou?
We must either accept that the Church indeed has authority to declare what is scripture and what is not - or we have no consistent basis for ruling out-of-bounds those weird 'Gospels' that depict Christ baking his friends in an oven, turning bread into birds or being suspended over Jerusalem by his ha
I see: then let us examine your RC compelled logic.
1. So concurring with an entity on some of its judgments means you depend on and must affirm its authority and claims?
2. Presuming you hold Rome is that entity, thus you hold that an infallible magisterium is necessary to authoritatively recognize and establish what is of God and what is not, and so that what it rejects or affirms must be rejected or affirmed by the faithful, if they will be faithful?
And as with how Rome looks toward toward Mary (see above link), Israel looked more to the Ark than what is contained, and the Ark was later captured by the Philistines. (1Sam. 4-6)
And above the Ark was the mercy seat, representing Heaven, upon which two cherubim with raised wings and facing each other, covered the ark. From this place between the two cherubim God would to speak to Moses. (Ex. 25:17-22)
And thus rather than Mary, the Ark best represents Christ, gold representing His glory, as Christ is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person, (Heb. 1:3) and who contained the law and the words of life, and the rod of God as did the Ark. (Heb. 9:4) And by whom God spoke to man, as the word was made flesh, taking on the common “wooden” body of man, but as John said, “we have beheld his glory His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Jn. 1:14)
But being judged according to outward appearance, He was taken by the enemy and crowned with thorns, only to return to His own, and will return, crowned as Lord and Savior. (Rv. 19:12)
And it is in Christ that believers have direct access to commune with God. Heb. 10:19) The fact that Christ came through Mary does not justify the focus being on her with its aforementioned type of exaltation any more than on Israel, of whom Christ came. (Rm. 9:5)
In addition, as for a place of gold, the Ark can be said to represent the New Jerusalem, which city will be pure gold, and is decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls. (Rv. 18:16; 21:8,21)
As for a women so bestowed with gold, the only women in the N.T. covered with gold is “the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth:” "And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: " (Revelation 17:4)
“Good point. The Ark of the Covenant is, as the name implies, a vessel carrying the Covenant.
It’s contents were
1) Aaron’s Rod that budded,
2) A Pot of Manna, and
3) The Broken Tablets from Mt Sinai.
“
.................
EXCELLENT explanation why the simplistic and false adoration of Mary is wrong in this context. You did a great job in few words.
It was not only not helpful, it is false.
First I commend to you the simple explanation here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3118659/posts?page=34#34 as to what the Ark was and why Mary was not those things.
Mary was not the “mother of God”. Mary provided the human dna for the Son of God.
Mary did not “bring God into the world”. God has always been everywhere by nature. God the Father brought His Son into the world. He used Mary.
“She could indeed be called the Ark:” - you could call her a garage too, but that would not make her a garage.
“In that sense the Mosaic Ark pre-figured her, just as the Mosaic sacrifice prefigured Christ’s holy and living sacrifice. “ - No where does Scripture call her a pre-figurement or type. You can look at clouds and see a horsey, but the cloud is not a horsey.
“But she is greater than any other created being - above all angels and archangels. The titles we give to her - Ark of the Covenant, Virgin of Virgins, Theotokos and so forth - these all come from her God-given status as Mother of God. “
1. She is not greater than any other created being. God does not say so.
2. You spoke correctly when you wrote, “The titles we give to her” because humans have perverted what God said to make it say more. God never gave her those titles.
3. God never even called her Mother of God.
“The archangel Gabriel called Mary “Full of Grace”. She is depicted in Revelation clothed in the Sun with the Moon beneath her feet. Clearly God wishes her to be treated with respect! “
He didn’t call her “Full of Grace” as a title. He stated she was highly favored as a recipient of God’s grace.
Revelation does not reveal Mary as clothed with the Sun and the Moon beneath her feet. This is not Mary.
God treated Mary with Grace.
Catholics and Orthodox make too much of what God said. Protestants often make too little.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.