Proof "Queen of Heaven" IS actually Pagan. And Mary was NOT sinless.

[bbbbbbb]

Is it appropriate to describe Mary as a Second Tabernacle, after Luke's Gospel? And as a Second, better Sarah?

Not at all. I would never describe somebody as a big tent.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Not at all. I would never describe somebody as a big tent.

I mean symbolically. Christ has many titles for Himself, many of which sound a bit unusual if taken literally. But just as the Tabernacle of Meeting was overshadowed and filled with the Spirit, so was Mary. The Tabernacle housed the stones on which the Law was written, as Mary housed the Word for a time. Symbolism. Drawing parallels between Moses and the New Testament via symbols and hints of greater things.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I mean symbolically. Christ has many titles for Himself, many of which sound a bit unusual if taken literally. But just as the Tabernacle of Meeting was overshadowed and filled with the Spirit, so was Mary. The Tabernacle housed the stones on which the Law was written, as Mary housed the Word for a time. Symbolism. Drawing parallels between Moses and the New Testament via symbols and hints of greater things.

That can be a very slippery slope that can lead to some very unintended consequences. For example. the scape goat of the Old Testament that was released into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement has been compared either with Satan or with Jesus Christ. In fact, scripture makes no comparisons and it is human speculation that leads to these opposite conclusions.

 

[anna ~ grace]

That can be a very slippery slope that can lead to some very unintended consequences. For example. the scape goat of the Old Testament that was released into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement has been compared either with Satan or with Jesus Christ. In fact, scripture makes no comparisons and it is human speculation that leads to these opposite conclusions.

I hear you, Sir. But this is kind of detailed. Like, say you read Exodus 40:34-35 and then read Luke 1:35, that's fairly striking.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I hear you, Sir. But this is kind of detailed. Like, say you read Exodus 40:34-35 and then read Luke 1:35, that's fairly striking.

Not really, IMO. There is nothing in the verse in Luke to suggest a tabernacle (or tent), unless you have been programmed to see it there. Give these two passages to the average person on the street and they will fail to see any connection.

Now, there are many Christians who have devoted endless amounts of pages and ink in describing the real meaning of the various parts of the tabernacle. For example. blue will suggest to some the color of the sky and they will go into ecstasies about heaven being described. Others, however, see blue as the color of the sea and they will go into ecstasies about the hidden depths of the ocean being represented. Still other will see blue as representative of virginity and will go into ecstasies about the "direct" allusion to Mary. Who is right? Only God knows and He, in His infinite ignorance, failed to tell us.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Now, there are many Christians who have devoted endless amounts of pages and ink in describing the real meaning of the various parts of the tabernacle. For example. blue will suggest to some the color of the sky and they will go into ecstasies about heaven being described. Others, however, see blue as the color of the sea and they will go into ecstasies about the hidden depths of the ocean being represented. Still other will see blue as representative of virginity and will go into ecstasies about the "direct" allusion to Mary. Who is right? Only God knows and He, in His infinite ignorance, failed to tell us.

If only there was an institution with a teaching authority to help us better understand these ideas...

 

[bbbbbbb]

If only there was an institution with a teaching authority to help us better understand these ideas...

Actually, as we all know, there are many institutions that make that claim . . .

 

[justinangel]

Is it appropriate to describe Mary as a Second Tabernacle, after Luke's Gospel? And as a Second, better Sarah?

It certainly is appropriate to designate Mary as the second Ark of the Covenant and as the second Matriarch of the Covenant considering who she carried in her womb. Or is Isaac "better" than Jesus?

https://blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/04/10/how-is-it-that-the-mother-of-my-lord-should-come-to-me/

https://blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/04/04/behold-thy-mother/

PAX

 

[bbbbbbb]

It certainly is appropriate to designate Mary as the second Ark of the Covenant and as the second Matriarch of the Covenant considering who she carried in her womb. Or is Isaac "better" than Jesus?

https://blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/04/10/how-is-it-that-the-mother-of-my-lord-should-come-to-me/

https://blessedaboveallwomen.co/2016/04/04/behold-thy-mother/

PAX

So, are you implying that Sarah, who laughed in unbelief when told by God that she would bear a son in her old age, is like Mary? I think you grossly demean Mary.

Or that Sarah, who had enjoyed a long life of connubial relations with her husband, Abram, was like Mary?

 

[Open Heart]

Is it appropriate to describe Mary as a Second Tabernacle, after Luke's Gospel? And as a Second, better Sarah?

I am not familiar with any Church tradition doing so. Describing her as the Ark, and as the New Eve goes all the way back to the Early Church.

Justin the Martyr wrote: “For whereas Eve, yet a virgin and undefiled, through conceiving the word that came from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One to be born of her should be the Son of God, answered, Be it done to me according to thy word. And so by means of her was he born, concerning whom we have shown so many Scriptures were spoken; through whom God overthrows the serpent, and those angels and men who have become like to it, and on the other hand, works deliverance from death for such as repent of their evil doings and believe in him (Dialogue with Trypho, 100 A.D.)

Irenaeus said, "What is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter… […] t was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. (Against Heresies, III.22.4, A.D. 180)

For just as [Eve] was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did [Mary], by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness of the virgin Eve.

And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. (Against Heresies, V.19.1, A.D. 180)

 

[anna ~ grace]

So, are you implying that Sarah, who laughed in unbelief when told by God that she would bear a son in her old age, is like Mary? I think you grossly demean Mary.

Or that Sarah, who had enjoyed a long life of connubial relations with her husband, Abram, was like Mary?

No, Sir. But we can compare those places where Sarah did differently, and draw parallels.

Sarah laughed, whereas Mary believed and rejoiced. Sarah and Mary both bore children miraculously, but Mary much more so. Sarah received a message from an angel but indirectly. Mary spoke with Gabriel face to face. Sarah bore a son who would be first among the physical seed of Abraham, whereas Mary bore a Son above all, the Savior. While Catholics describe Mary as a second Eve, I'm more inclined to see her as a second, greater Sarah, giving life to an eternal Covenant in the Spirit, not the flesh.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, Sir. But we can compare those places where Sarah did differently, and draw parallels.

Sarah laughed, whereas Mary believed and rejoiced. Sarah and Mary both bore children miraculously, but Mary much more so. Sarah received a message from an angel but indirectly. Mary spoke with Gabriel face to face. Sarah bore a son who would be first among the physical seed of Abraham, whereas Mary bore a Son above all, the Savior. While Catholics describe Mary as a second Eve, I'm more inclined to see her as a second, greater Sarah, giving life to an eternal Covenant in the Spirit, not the flesh.

Well, we can do that for most female characters in the Bible. For example, we could say that Mary is a type of Deborah or Ruth or Orpah or Naomi or Esther.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Well, we can do that for most female characters in the Bible. For example, we could say that Mary is a type of Deborah or Ruth or Orpah or Naomi or Esther.

Yet the miraculous giving of birth, angelic visitation, and first born son aspect of both events stands out to me.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yet the miraculous giving of birth, angelic visitation, and first born son aspect of both events stands out to me.

That's fine. You have three commonalities against a lifetime of contrasts. I can easily cite more than three commonalities between King David and Mary. Does that make King David a type of Mary?

 

[anna ~ grace]

That's fine. You have three commonalities against a lifetime of contrasts. I can easily cite more than three commonalities between King David and Mary. Does that make King David a type of Mary?

No, but Mary's motherhood, miraculous receiving of a Son, announcement through an angelic announcement, and her role in the salvation history of the world through bearing the Savior all stack up to comparable aspects of Sarah's importance in salvation history. Had Sarah not had Isaac, she would simply be remembered as a rather beautiful, childless, jealous wife of Abraham. But her giving birth made the difference.

Two miraculous conceptions, one after Abraham, the other by the Spirit. One woman mothered Israel, the second mothered the Saviour of Israel, and it's King.

It's alright if you don't see it, Sir; I do.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, but Mary's motherhood, miraculous receiving of a Son, announcement through an angelic announcement, and her role in the salvation history of the world through bearing the Savior all stack up to comparable aspects of Sarah's importance in salvation history. Had Sarah not had Isaac, she would simply be remembered as a rather beautiful, childless, jealous wife of Abraham. But her giving birth made the difference.

Two miraculous conceptions, one after Abraham, the other by the Spirit. One woman mothered Israel, the second mothered the Saviour of Israel, and it's King.

It's alright if you don't see it, Sir; I do.

Actually, I do see it and have a higher regard than I have presented. However, as I noted one can find some really excellent parallels between biblical characters, some of which are really quite valid and others of which may be open to question.

 

[justinangel]

So, are you implying that Sarah, who laughed in unbelief when told by God that she would bear a son in her old age, is like Mary? I think you grossly demean Mary.

Or that Sarah, who had enjoyed a long life of connubial relations with her husband, Abram, was like Mary?

What gives you the idea that I'm implying that?

PAX

 

[justinangel]

No, but Mary's motherhood, miraculous receiving of a Son, announcement through an angelic announcement, and her role in the salvation history of the world through bearing the Savior all stack up to comparable aspects of Sarah's importance in salvation history. Had Sarah not had Isaac, she would simply be remembered as a rather beautiful, childless, jealous wife of Abraham. But her giving birth made the difference.

Two miraculous conceptions, one after Abraham, the other by the Spirit. One woman mothered Israel, the second mothered the Saviour of Israel, and it's King.

It's alright if you don't see it, Sir; I do.

But it was Jesus who redeemed the world and reconciled it to God, not Isaac. And Mary is his mother. If it weren't for the Son's and the Mother's obedience to the will of God, by His foreknowledge, God wouldn't have chosen Abraham and Sarah. Isaac would not have been born and become the father of Jacob. Nor would all the nations on earth be blessed in Israel. Their roles depended on their culmination in Jesus and Mary. The Church Christ founded has rightly perceived this from earliest times.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

That's fine. You have three commonalities against a lifetime of contrasts. I can easily cite more than three commonalities between King David and Mary. Does that make King David a type of Mary?

What commonalities would these be? And what Scriptural passages are there that equate the two in salvation history? It appears the Fathers and Doctors of the Church couldn't see any significant parallel between the two. So how is it easy for you?

PAX

 

[bbbbbbb]

But it was Jesus who redeemed the world and reconciled it to God, not Isaac. And Mary is his mother. If it weren't for the Son's and the Mother's obedience to the will of God, by His foreknowledge, God wouldn't have chosen Abraham and Sarah. Isaac would not have been born and become the father of Jacob. Nor would all the nations on earth be blessed in Israel. Their roles depended on their culmination in Jesus and Mary. The Church Christ founded has rightly perceived this from earliest times.

PAX

Likewise, since the very beginning the Church has seen the direct correlation between Adam and his sin and the second Adam, Jesus Christ, and His redemption. The first Adam was necessary, but is the antetype of the second Adam, not the prototype. Likewise, Sarah may be viewed as an antetype of Mary, but not a prototype because there are many aspects of Sarah which contrast negatively with Mary than compare favorably.