Immaculate Conception - Why Did It Take 1,854 Years to Discover This Doctrine?

[Rick Otto]

The Trinity is implicit in the bible just as the Immaculate Conception is.

Your over-reaching statements like this have been pointed out before, and left unanswered.

The trinity is explicity illustrated in the account of Jesus' baptism. It is extraordinarily different than the contortionist typology you claim is implicit.

It was Adam's transgression, not Eve's for which we suffer.
It was Jesus' obedience, not Mary's by which we're saved.

You razzle dazzle contrived correlations with one hand, while transferring God's glory to Mary with the other.

 

[Athanasias]

Your over-reaching statements like this have been pointed out before, and left unanswered.

The trinity is explicity illustrated in the account of Jesus' baptism. It is extraordinarily different than the contortionist typology you claim is implicit.

It was Adam's transgression, not Eve's for which we suffer.
It was Jesus' obedience, not Mary's by which we're saved.

You are wrong! The formal and complete dogma of the trinity is not in its fullness found or even mentioned in Jesus Baptism. The scripture hints to the dogma but only in implicit ways. That is why there were many trinitarian heresies such as modalism, and monarchianism and Arianism and Macedoniansm. The scripture was not plain or clear on this subject as you seem to think. It took the Church guided by the Holy Spirit centuries to develop this dogma fully and promulgate it in councils to combat the confusion. The same is true for the immaculate conception. The apostolic Fathers of the Church such as St. Ireneaus and St Justin Martyr saw both Adam and Eve cooperating with the devil and disobeying God which brought death and sin upon us all(Gen 3:15-19). Luke's gospel shows a reverse of this in a redemptive way when Mary(the second Eve) and Jesus the New Adam cooperate with God. We were saved by both Mary's and Jesus obedience according to the fathers and scripture.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Athanasias;You are wrong! The formal and complete dogma of the trinity is not in its fullness found or even mentioned in Jesus Baptism.

I am right! A fully differentiated form of each of the three are formaly, fully, & completey present and accounted for in that scripture!

The scripture hints to the dogma but only in implicit ways.

The scripture illustrates their distinctiveness explicitly with a clarity that the simplest of laity can discern despite the sophistry of Latin & the obscurities conjured by a mystery-clad clergy.

That is why there were many trinitarian heresies such as modalism, and monarchianism and Arianism and Macedoniansm. The scripture was not plain or clear on this subject as you seem to think.

I realize not everyone is gifted with clarity of thought.

It took the Church guided by the Holy Spirit centuries to develop this dogma fully and promulgate it in councils to combat the confusion.

Revision & re-eduction can take forever!

The same is true for the immaculate conception.

Yeah, true except 1800yrs later & no heresies raging around it. Amazing coincidence.

The apostolic Fathers of the Church such as St. Ireneaus and St Justin Martyr saw both Adam and Eve cooperating with the devil and disobeying God which brought death and sin upon us all(Gen 3:15-19).

Don't put Eve's fingerprints on Adam's trainwreck.
If Adam had abstained, only women would die. Ok, I made that last part up, but only Adam's transgression counted. It's that clarity thing gettin' ya again.

Luke's gospel shows a reverse of this in a redemptive way when Mary(the second Eve) and Jesus the New Adam cooperate with God.

Again, it was Jesus' obedience that saved us, not Mary's. God's glory is not like cooties, it doesn't rub off Him & onto Mary.

We were saved by both Mary's and Jesus obedience according to the fathers and scripture.

There ya go, giving Mary credit for what Christ did alone.

 

[Athanasias]

I am right! A fully differentiated form of each of the three are formaly, fully, & completey present and accounted for in that scripture!



The scripture illustrates their distinctiveness explicitly with a clarity that the simplest of laity can discern despite the sophistry of Latin & the obscurities conjured by a mystery-clad clergy.


I realize not everyone is gifted with clarity of thought.


Revision & re-eduction can take forever!


Yeah, true except 1800yrs later & no heresies raging around it. Amazing coincidence.




Don't put Eve's fingerprints on Adam's trainwreck.
If Adam had abstained, only women would die. Ok, I made that last part up, but only Adam's transgression counted. It's that clarity thing gettin' ya again.


Again, it was Jesus' obedience that saved us, not Mary's. God's glory is not like cooties, it doesn't rub off Him & onto Mary.


There ya go, giving Mary credit for what Christ did alone.

Again the Trinity is in the bible but only implicitly just like the Immaculate conception is. There is no verse that speaks of God being Triune in nature. That comes from apostolic tradition. The bible implies this but does not clearly spell it out. Again that is why you had early heresies like Modalism and Monarchiansism and Arianism and Macedonianism come aboard. The first time the word trinity was used was in the late second century(181 ad.) The bible never mentioned that word. The bible shows us that there is only one God. It shows us the the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God. The bible never explains in detail how this is or what the complex relationship of the three are. it would take apostolic tradition and the Holy spirit teaching through Catholic church councils to get the full understanding. Protestant scholars admit this why can't you? The bible never explains them as trinity and it never talks explicitly about Jesus hypostatic union and relationship Homoousia or consubstantial to the Father or the Holy spirits relation to the other two. That is why councils had to formally hammer these issues out and define them at(Nicea and Constantinople I in 325 and 381) and that is why the heresies all were their.

Sorry but your wrong. The doctrine of the Trinity did develop just like the Immaculate conception did. You do realize that it is you who have the burden of proof. The early Fathers of the church taught that Eve and Adam cooperated to bring death to mankind and Mary and Jesus reverse this in Luke.

Jesus was the formal cause of our salvation by his death on a tree,. But Mary was the informal cause of our salvation by her obedience and fiat which allowed Jesus to come into the world and die on a tree for us. It is you who who are being unbiblical and are out of line with historic apostolic Christian teaching on these things.

In Genesis Eve is described as a “Women” who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to disobey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Luke’s gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way. In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and accept God’s plan for her, unlike Eve. This one women would give birth to one man -Jesus Christ- who would die for all on a tree and give the world one food to eat that would give life to the whole human race (Holy Communion). Mary is truly the fulfillment of Eve as Jesus is of Adam. Catholic Scripture scholar Dr. Scott Hahn demonstrates that Mary is called by the title “woman” by Jesus himself and in Rev 12:1-17 one discovers that the “woman” who is described as a fulfillment of Eve is the Mother of God herself.

The Fathers of the Church saw Mary as the fulfillment of Eve too. St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D. made direct comparisons to Mary and Eve on a redemptive level. St. Ireneuas spoke of Mary as a fulfillment of Eve stating that in Luke’s Gospel Mary loosed the knot of sin that Eve bound the world in. Even as early as the late 1st century the writings of Mathetes spoke of a new incorrupt Eve who was a Virgin.

The typology of Mary as New Eve is important to the Immaculate Conception because it shows implicit evidence for the doctrine. Remembering that all New Testament fulfillments are far greater and more powerful than their Old Testament types one can only conclude that Mary is immaculately conceived. Eve and Adam were created without sin; Jesus and Mary fulfill their types. Just as the new Adam, Jesus is sinless, so too the new Eve, Mary. If Mary was not con-ceived sinless she would be a inferior type to Eve. This is why many fathers of the church, such as St. Augustine in his work “Nature and Grace” , freely and confidently proclaimed Mary to be sinless.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Athanasias;Again the Trinity is in the bible but only implicitly just like the Immaculate conception is.

Again, it is not! The IC is implicit & reverse engineered. The trinity is explicitly illustrated at the baptism of Jesus.

The bible shows us that there is only one God. It shows us the the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God.

That's what I'm sayin'!

The bible never explains in detail how this is or what the complex relationship of the three are

.
Sure it does.

it would take apostolic tradition and the Holy spirit teaching through Catholic church councils to get the full understanding.

According to them.

Protestant scholars admit this why can't you?

It isn't true. I'm smart enough not to be a scholar.

The bible never explains them as trinity and it never talks explicitly about Jesus hypostatic union and relationship Homoousia or consubstantial to the Father or the Holy spirits relation to the other two.

It doesn't have to.

Sorry but your wrong. The doctrine of the Trinity did develop just like the Immaculate conception did.

Obviously not.

You do realize that it is you who have the burden of proof.

I've proved you wrong. It was a light burden.

The early Fathers of the church taught that Eve and Adam cooperated to bring death to mankind and Mary and Jesus reverse this in Luke.

THen they are as wrong as you are.

Jesus was the formal cause of our salvation by his death on a tree,. But Mary was the informal cause of our salvation by her obedience and fiat which allowed Jesus to come into the world and die on a tree for us.

Baloney.

It is you who who are being unbiblical and are out of line with historic apostolic Christian teaching on these things.

No, it is you.

In Genesis Eve is described as a “Women” who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil)

I already pointed out your error onthat. Adam wasn't approached by an angel, he was aproached by Eve.

and they choose freely to disobey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race.

It wasn't caused until ADAM ate. ONLY Adam was responsible for our death just as ONLY Jesus is responsible for our eternal life.

In Luke’s gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way.

Your repeating this isn't making it true or any less wrong.

In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and accept God’s plan for her, unlike Eve.

See the difference in typological construction from "The woman and man are approached by one angel..." to " In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel..."

The typology of Mary as New Eve is important to the Immaculate Conception because it shows implicit evidence for the doctrine.

It needs every scrap & shred of vainly imaginable evidence that can be conjured.

Remembering that all New Testament fulfillments are far greater and more powerful than their Old Testament types one can only conclude that Mary is immaculately conceived.

Grandiose delusion.

 

[Ormly]

You didn't answer the question Ormly. Luke and John both had something to do with the church. The early Fathers who were bishops and teachers in the Church had something to do with the church didn't they?

True. But you have your churches screwed up.

They taught Mary as Ark of the new covenant. Again you have proven to be wrong and you cannot show how Mary is not described as ark of the covenant in LK 1 and Rev 11-12 so the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate conception stands as a implicit biblical doctrine.

But they didn't teach that. It is your 'church' that forces that as a belief. I don't and won't acknowledge your 'church' as being the Church. Sorry.

 

[Athanasias]

True. But you have your churches screwed up.




But they didn't teach that. It is your 'church' that forces that as a belief. I don't and won't acknowledge your 'church' as being the Church. Sorry.

What Churches do I have screwed up? Were the early fathers not part for the Church? was Luke and John not part of the church?
Show me how Luke and John in those passage did not envision Mary as the new Ark? Can you do this? I have been waiting. Until you cannot the Catholic position stands strong. Again the early Christian's did teach that she was the Ark and New Eve and sinless. I am afraid it is your Protestant man made tradition that you follow that tells you no she wasn't. But early Christians saw this. Thats a big black hole for protestantism and for you. You still have not answered the question. Show me why I am wrong. Show me from Luke 1 and Rev 11-12 why Mary is not the New Ark. Show me from reason why she is not the new ark. Show me why the ancient Christian fathers of the Church are wrong . Don't just ell me I wrong show me! Show me the money!

 

[Athanasias]

Again, it is not! The IC is implicit & reverse engineered. The trinity is explicitly illustrated at the baptism of Jesus.


That's what I'm sayin'!
.
Sure it does.


According to them.


It isn't true. I'm smart enough not to be a scholar.


It doesn't have to.



Obviously not.


I've proved you wrong. It was a light burden.


THen they are as wrong as you are.


Baloney.


No, it is you.


I already pointed out your error onthat. Adam wasn't approached by an angel, he was aproached by Eve.


It wasn't caused until ADAM ate. ONLY Adam was responsible for our death just as ONLY Jesus is responsible for our eternal life.


Your repeating this isn't making it true or any less wrong.


See the difference in typological construction from "The woman and man are approached by one angel..." to " In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel..."

It needs every scrap & shred of vainly imaginable evidence that can be conjured.

Grandiose delusion.

I see that you can do no more that boohoo about the evidence. You have become your own Pope as all protestants really do. You have done nothing to show me why Luke 1, Rev 11-12 and the Fathers of the Church are wrong in seeing Mary as Ark of the covenant and new Eve. I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously. The fathers would have too. Show me in Luke 1 and Rev 11-12 why Mary is not the Ark and not the new Eve and Not Immaculate.

You deny the historic Christian interpretation and outlook on these passages and make your own up. That is basically what all protestants do. They give it the old college try when it comes to interpreting it and if someone disagrees with their own private interpretation then they start a new Church. Sorry I read scripture from the heart of the church that gave it to me in a historical traditional way. You well You can beleive what ever you want but it is hard to take your arguments seriously. Really. Same ol song and dance.Well the fathers are against you, Luke and John are against you. The historic Christian church through the ages is against you on your understanding of this.

Why do you thin you know better then them? Show me why? Show me why so many fathers were wrong and why Luke and John does not present this teaching in their writings I quoted.

 

[Ormly]

What Churches do I have screwed up? Were the early fathers not part for the Church? was Luke and John not part of the church?

Indeed. I just don't believe the RCC is the Church. . . . not even close. The semblance has no substance.

Your interpretation of Luke and John on this issue has the RCC stamp all over it..

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Athanasias;I see that you can do no more that boohoo about the evidence.

Imagination is not evidence.
The Trinity is not like the Immaculate Conception.
Eve is not a type of Mary unless you reverse the plot.
Adam is a type of Christ only in that his actions impacted all who were in him.
You call sound reasoning "boohoo" because you can't answer to it. You are on the run.

You have become your own Pope as all protestants really do.

Here's the "You're All Closet Papists" card being played.
No, you can't project your sin upon us in an attempt to identify us, simply because we refuse to allow the bishop of Rome to violate our consciences. The Pope model is a non-starter. We don't use it on ourselves, we simply accept personal responsibility for our beliefs. If you're not up to that, fine, but keep your anethemas to yourselves.

You have done nothing to show me why Luke 1, Rev 11-12 and the Fathers of the Church are wrong in seeing Mary as Ark of the covenant and new Eve. I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously.

Yeah, I was kinda hopin' you'd've answered my more basic disagreements first, but if you're not takin' me seriously, it's up to you give a little before you get to take.

You deny the historic Christian interpretation and outlook on these passages and make your own up.

You have a set of different definitions of terms that you don't seem to be aware of having, otherwise you'd make simpler statements that weren't so problematic. The made-up interpretations of a few early church fathers do not comprise the entirety of "church history". You exaggerate their importance just as the correlations are stretched and admittedly reversed in an attempt to exaggerate Mary's role in salvation, prayer, etc.
The only thing respectable about the whole thing is that you said it with a straight face.
I believe you are thoroughly convinced of all that.
Fine.
I don't believe a bit of it.
I'm happy to tell ya why, but ya gotta quit with the hate-speech.

That is basically what all protestants do.

We are all servants of satan.

They give it the old college try when it comes to interpreting it and if someone disagrees with their own private interpretation then they start a new Church.

Religious freedom never was popular around Rome.

Sorry I read scripture from the heart of the church that gave it to me in a historical traditional way.

That's what they told you, right?

You well You can beleive what ever you want but it is hard to take your arguments seriously. Really. Same ol song and dance.Well the fathers are against you, Luke and John are against you. The historic Christian church through the ages is against you on your understanding of this.

So you say.

Why do you thin you know better then them?

I have the internet.

Show me why? Show me why so many fathers were wrong and why Luke and John does not present this teaching in their writings I quoted.

Did you name all of two? Is that "so many"?
You said this teaching is implicit in scripture! Now you want me to tell you why it doesn't "present that teaching" - something you yourself admit it doesn't when you say it's implicit.

Seriously.

 

[Athanasias]

Indeed. I just don't believe the RCC is the Church. . . . not even close. The semblance has no substance.

Your interpretation of Luke and John on this issue has the RCC stamp all over it..

Ormly thanks for your reply. Ok then please explain how the semblance has no substance. Then the early fathers also have a Catholic stamp on them because they interpret Mary as the Second Eve and New Ark(of coarse they do they were Catholic). Yes my interpretation of John and Luke do have a Catholic hermeneutic on it. Does that surprise anyone? I am Catholic. I read the bible from the heart of the Catholic church that gave it to us and taught us how to read and understand it. Your understanding of these passages have a very private protestant stamp on it.

You still need to show me why the Catholic Church and the Fathers are wrong about calling Mary Ark of the Covenant and Second EVE. You need to deal with Lk 1 and Rev 11-12 and show me in context how she is not seen as the new Ark or new Eve. I have shown you how she is. Now lets discuss the scripture and you tell me why I am wrong in these passages.

The early Christian fathers saw Mary as the Ark and the New Eve and many proclaimed her sinless too. why are they wrong? Why is she not the New Ark in Lk1 or Rev 11-12? I need you to show me or else the Catholic interpretation on these passages stands strong. I just think you are in denial.

Lets discuss.

God bless you.

 

[Athanasias]

Imagination is not evidence.
The Trinity is not like the Immaculate Conception.
Eve is not a type of Mary unless you reverse the plot.
Adam is a type of Christ only in that his actions impacted all who were in him.
You call sound reasoning "boohoo" because you can't answer to it. You are on the run.


Here's the "You're All Closet Papists" card being played.
No, you can't project your sin upon us in an attempt to identify us, simply because we refuse to allow the bishop of Rome to violate our consciences. The Pope model is a non-starter. We don't use it on ourselves, we simply accept personal responsibility for our beliefs. If you're not up to that, fine, but keep your anethemas to yourselves.


Yeah, I was kinda hopin' you'd've answered my more basic disagreements first, but if you're not takin' me seriously, it's up to you give a little before you get to take.



You have a set of different definitions of terms that you don't seem to be aware of having, otherwise you'd make simpler statements that weren't so problematic. The made-up interpretations of a few early church fathers do not comprise the entirety of "church history". You exaggerate their importance just as the correlations are stretched and admittedly reversed in an attempt to exaggerate Mary's role in salvation, prayer, etc.
The only thing respectable about the whole thing is that you said it with a straight face.
I believe you are thoroughly convinced of all that.
Fine.
I don't believe a bit of it.
I'm happy to tell ya why, but ya gotta quit with the hate-speech.



We are all servants of satan.

Religious freedom never was popular around Rome.


That's what they told you, right?


So you say.


I have the internet.


Did you name all of two? Is that "so many"?
You said this teaching is implicit in scripture! Now you want me to tell you why it doesn't "present that teaching" - something you yourself admit it doesn't when you say it's implicit.

Seriously.

I suppose we will have to agree to dissagree here. I think it would be fruitless for us to continue given that neither of us can seem to communicate were one understands each other on certain levels. Our hermeneutics and principles behind them differ very much.

I would simply close my conversation to you by saying that Catholics believe that we do have solid biblical reasons(implicit) ones for the dogma of the IC along with reasons from apostolic Tradition. There were many Father of the Church I did not name that also viewed Mary as the New Ark of the covenant and Eve(Far more than two ). Given that, whether a protestant agrees or disagrees with our interpretation of LK 1 Rev 11-12 and all the other scripture that goes into the dogma of the RC is up to them(some have some have not) For us Catholics it is important to realize that Christ Catholic Church does believe that scripture implies the Immaculate Conception based upon the typologies of Mary as the the New Ark of the Covenant and as the Second Eve as I have shown and as many of the early Christan fathers also taught.

So for now. I will say my goodbyes to Mr Otto and further dialog with him on this issue. May the peace of the Lord Jesus be with you Mr Otto.



For those of you(especially Catholics) who are just tuning in now and do not know what typologies of Mary I am referring to as evidence for the Immaculate Conception here it is again.

God bless you all:

Biblical typology is the study of how people and things in the Old Testament foreshadow certain fulfillments in the New Testament. Every typological fulfillment in the New Testament is greater and more real and powerful then its Old Testament type. For example, St. Paul reminds us that Jesus is a typological fulfillment of Adam. One can see parallels between Adam and Christ. For through Adam all death comes and through Christ all life comes. Jesus is everything that Adam was and more. Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, unlike Adam. Jesus fulfills and destroys Adams curse.


Mary in the New Testament is also a fulfillment of certain types namely Eve and the Ark of the Covenant. In Genesis Eve is described as a “Women” who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to dis-obey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Luke’s gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way. In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and ac-cept God’s plan for her, unlike Eve. This one women would give birth to one man -Jesus Christ- who would die for all on a tree and give the world one food to eat that would give life to the whole human race (Holy Communion). Mary is truly the fulfillment of Eve as Jesus is of Adam. Catholic Scripture scholar Dr. Scott Hahn demonstrates that Mary is called by the title “woman” by Jesus himself and in Rev 12:1-17 one discovers that the “woman” who is described as a ful-fillment of Eve is the Mother of God herself.
The Fathers of the Church saw Mary as the fulfillment of Eve too. St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D. made direct comparisons to Mary and Eve on a redemptive level. St. Ireneuas spoke of Mary as a fulfillment of Eve stating that in Luke’s Gospel Mary loosed the knot of sin that Eve bound the world in. Even as early as the late 1st century the writings of Mathetes spoke of a new incorrupt Eve who was a Virgin.


The typology of Mary as New Eve is important to the Immaculate Conception because it shows implicit evidence for the doctrine. Remembering that all New Testament fulfillments are far greater and more powerful than their Old Testament types one can only conclude that Mary is immaculately conceived. Eve and Adam were created without sin; Jesus and Mary fulfill their types. Just as the new Adam, Jesus is sinless, so too the new Eve, Mary. If Mary was not con-ceived sinless she would be a inferior type to Eve. This is why many fathers of the church, such as St. Augustine in his work “Nature and Grace” , freely and confidently proclaimed Mary to be sinless.



Another type Mary fulfills is the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant contained three things: the Manna from heaven, the rod of Aaron (a sign of high priestly Authority), and the ten words (or Ten Commandments) of God. Mary carried in her womb the fulfillment of all three of those things. Jesus Christ is the new manna from heaven and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom (the church with a rod of iron). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself. The United States Catholic Bishops show how St. Luke presented Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant in parallels in their pastoral letter. For example, if one compares 2 Sam 6 with Luke 1 they will find Mary being presented as the new Ark. In 2 Sam 6:2 David arose and went to Judah; in Luke 1:39 Mary arose and went to Judah. In 2 Sam 6:9 David ask “How can the ark of the Lord come to Me”. In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth uses almost identical language saying “ why is this granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me.” In 2 Sam 6:11 the Ark remained for three months. In Lk 1:56 Mary stays three months with Elizabeth. In 2 Sam 6:12 David rejoices; in Lk 1:47 Mary’s spirit rejoices. In 2 Sam 6:16 there is leaping and dancing. In Lk 1:41 the babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb. Also interesting to note is the Ark of the Covenant was overshadowed by the Spirit of God. Luke used similar language that the Septuagint (Greek translations of the Old Testament) use in Exodus describing the Ark being overshadowed to describe Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Clearly St. Luke sees Mary as typologically the fulfillment of the Ark.

Scripture Scholar Dr. Scott Hahn also shows how gospel writer John reveals Mary as the New Ark in the Book of Revelation(Rev 11:19). The ark of God’s heavenly covenant is revealed, and in the very next verse(Rev 12:1) the woman, Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, appears. Dr. Hahn reminds readers that when Scripture was written there were no chapters and verses, and when the Book of Revelation is read in its immediate and typological context the Ark is revealed as Mary.


Fathers of the Church like St. Hippolytus, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose had openly proclaimed Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant and many of the fathers of the church also spoke of her being sinless. The earliest hymns written in praise of Mary spoke of Mary as “with-out stain or blemish” and also spoke of her as “Ark Gilded by the Holy Ghost”. If Mary is truly a fulfillment of the Ark then her Immaculate Conception makes sense. What the old ark contained could not be touched by sin. One had to be sanctified from sin just to carry the ark due to its precious cargo(1 Chron 15:12-14). Uzzuh was himself killed because he was a sinful man who touched the ark (2Sam 6:6-8). If the old covenant ark could not be touched by sin because of what it carried, how much more would the new covenant fulfillment of the ark (Mary) not be touched by sin for what she carried. For the wisdom of God will not dwell in a body under the debt of sin(Wis 1:4), and Jesus Christ is wisdom personified(1 Cor 1:24). Hence Mary’s Immaculate Conception is biblically implicit.

This is a great lesson for all Catholics. enjoy my fellow Catholics.

 

[Ormly]

Ormly thanks for your reply. Ok then please explain how the semblance has no substance. Then the early fathers also have a Catholic stamp on them because they interpret Mary as the Second Eve and New Ark(of coarse they do they were Catholic). Yes my interpretation of John and Luke do have a Catholic hermeneutic on it. Does that surprise anyone? I am Catholic. I read the bible from the heart of the Catholic church that gave it to us and taught us how to read and understand it. Your understanding of these passages have a very private protestant stamp on it.

You still need to show me why the Catholic Church and the Fathers are wrong about calling Mary Ark of the Covenant and Second EVE. You need to deal with Lk 1 and Rev 11-12 and show me in context how she is not seen as the new Ark or new Eve. I have shown you how she is. Now lets discuss the scripture and you tell me why I am wrong in these passages.

The early Christian fathers saw Mary as the Ark and the New Eve and many proclaimed her sinless too. why are they wrong? Why is she not the New Ark in Lk1 or Rev 11-12? I need you to show me or else the Catholic interpretation on these passages stands strong. I just think you are in denial.

Lets discuss.

God bless you.

For hundreds of years the church fathers never held her in such a postiion.

Mary is NOT a second Eve. Eve was created, Mary was born in sin, Period. So thats RCC speak to support the idea of making her to be what she isn't; to illegally venerate her.

If your RCC interpretation is bought into that would make Mary to occupy the "Holy of Holies". This she does not however and keeping in mind, the goal of the RCC is to venerate her; actually place her above Christ.

 

[Rick Otto]

May the peace of the Lord Jesus be with you Mr Otto.

Thank you, it is.

 

[Catholic Christian]

I suppose we will have to agree to dissagree here. I think it would be fruitless for us to continue given that neither of us can seem to communicate were one understands each other on certain levels. Our hermeneutics and principles behind them differ very much.

I would simply close my conversation to you by saying that Catholics believe that we do have solid biblical reasons(implicit) ones for the dogma of the IC along with reasons from apostolic Tradition. There were many Father of the Church I did not name that also viewed Mary as the New Ark of the covenant and Eve(Far more than two ). Given that, whether a protestant agrees or disagrees with our interpretation of LK 1 Rev 11-12 and all the other scripture that goes into the dogma of the RC is up to them(some have some have not) For us Catholics it is important to realize that Christ Catholic Church does believe that scripture implies the Immaculate Conception based upon the typologies of Mary as the the New Ark of the Covenant and as the Second Eve as I have shown and as many of the early Christan fathers also taught.

So for now. I will say my goodbyes to Mr Otto and further dialog with him on this issue. May the peace of the Lord Jesus be with you Mr Otto.



For those of you(especially Catholics) who are just tuning in now and do not know what typologies of Mary I am referring to as evidence for the Immaculate Conception here it is again.

God bless you all:

Biblical typology is the study of how people and things in the Old Testament foreshadow certain fulfillments in the New Testament. Every typological fulfillment in the New Testament is greater and more real and powerful then its Old Testament type. For example, St. Paul reminds us that Jesus is a typological fulfillment of Adam. One can see parallels between Adam and Christ. For through Adam all death comes and through Christ all life comes. Jesus is everything that Adam was and more. Jesus obeyed the Father perfectly, unlike Adam. Jesus fulfills and destroys Adams curse.


Mary in the New Testament is also a fulfillment of certain types namely Eve and the Ark of the Covenant. In Genesis Eve is described as a “Women” who disobeyed God. Genesis describes one woman (Eve) and one man (Adam) who are created initially immaculate. The woman and man are approached by one angel (who is fallen, the Devil) and they choose freely to dis-obey God and eat one food from one tree that would cause death for a whole race. In Luke’s gospel the same is seen but only in reversed and redemptive way. In Luke one woman (Mary) is visited by one angel (who is holy, Gabriel) and this one woman freely chooses to obey and ac-cept God’s plan for her, unlike Eve. This one women would give birth to one man -Jesus Christ- who would die for all on a tree and give the world one food to eat that would give life to the whole human race (Holy Communion). Mary is truly the fulfillment of Eve as Jesus is of Adam. Catholic Scripture scholar Dr. Scott Hahn demonstrates that Mary is called by the title “woman” by Jesus himself and in Rev 12:1-17 one discovers that the “woman” who is described as a ful-fillment of Eve is the Mother of God herself.
The Fathers of the Church saw Mary as the fulfillment of Eve too. St. Justin Martyr in 155 A.D. made direct comparisons to Mary and Eve on a redemptive level. St. Ireneuas spoke of Mary as a fulfillment of Eve stating that in Luke’s Gospel Mary loosed the knot of sin that Eve bound the world in. Even as early as the late 1st century the writings of Mathetes spoke of a new incorrupt Eve who was a Virgin.


The typology of Mary as New Eve is important to the Immaculate Conception because it shows implicit evidence for the doctrine. Remembering that all New Testament fulfillments are far greater and more powerful than their Old Testament types one can only conclude that Mary is immaculately conceived. Eve and Adam were created without sin; Jesus and Mary fulfill their types. Just as the new Adam, Jesus is sinless, so too the new Eve, Mary. If Mary was not con-ceived sinless she would be a inferior type to Eve. This is why many fathers of the church, such as St. Augustine in his work “Nature and Grace” , freely and confidently proclaimed Mary to be sinless.



Another type Mary fulfills is the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant contained three things: the Manna from heaven, the rod of Aaron (a sign of high priestly Authority), and the ten words (or Ten Commandments) of God. Mary carried in her womb the fulfillment of all three of those things. Jesus Christ is the new manna from heaven and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom (the church with a rod of iron). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself. The United States Catholic Bishops show how St. Luke presented Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant in parallels in their pastoral letter. For example, if one compares 2 Sam 6 with Luke 1 they will find Mary being presented as the new Ark. In 2 Sam 6:2 David arose and went to Judah; in Luke 1:39 Mary arose and went to Judah. In 2 Sam 6:9 David ask “How can the ark of the Lord come to Me”. In Luke 1:43 Elizabeth uses almost identical language saying “ why is this granted me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me.” In 2 Sam 6:11 the Ark remained for three months. In Lk 1:56 Mary stays three months with Elizabeth. In 2 Sam 6:12 David rejoices; in Lk 1:47 Mary’s spirit rejoices. In 2 Sam 6:16 there is leaping and dancing. In Lk 1:41 the babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb. Also interesting to note is the Ark of the Covenant was overshadowed by the Spirit of God. Luke used similar language that the Septuagint (Greek translations of the Old Testament) use in Exodus describing the Ark being overshadowed to describe Mary being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Clearly St. Luke sees Mary as typologically the fulfillment of the Ark.

Scripture Scholar Dr. Scott Hahn also shows how gospel writer John reveals Mary as the New Ark in the Book of Revelation(Rev 11:19). The ark of God’s heavenly covenant is revealed, and in the very next verse(Rev 12:1) the woman, Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, appears. Dr. Hahn reminds readers that when Scripture was written there were no chapters and verses, and when the Book of Revelation is read in its immediate and typological context the Ark is revealed as Mary.


Fathers of the Church like St. Hippolytus, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose had openly proclaimed Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant and many of the fathers of the church also spoke of her being sinless. The earliest hymns written in praise of Mary spoke of Mary as “with-out stain or blemish” and also spoke of her as “Ark Gilded by the Holy Ghost”. If Mary is truly a fulfillment of the Ark then her Immaculate Conception makes sense. What the old ark contained could not be touched by sin. One had to be sanctified from sin just to carry the ark due to its precious cargo(1 Chron 15:12-14). Uzzuh was himself killed because he was a sinful man who touched the ark (2Sam 6:6-8). If the old covenant ark could not be touched by sin because of what it carried, how much more would the new covenant fulfillment of the ark (Mary) not be touched by sin for what she carried. For the wisdom of God will not dwell in a body under the debt of sin(Wis 1:4), and Jesus Christ is wisdom personified(1 Cor 1:24). Hence Mary’s Immaculate Conception is biblically implicit.

This is a great lesson for all Catholics. enjoy my fellow Catholics.

Preach it, baby

 

[Catholic Christian]

Thank you, it is.

The proper response is:
"...and also with you".

 

[Ormly]

What we have here is a dicussion about the immaculate mis-conception.

 

[zeke37]

Actually, it was "realized" 9 months before Jesus was born. When the angel addressed her "Hail, full of grace".

And has been discussed in one way or another, since the Early Church, it just wasn't formal defined and decreed until 1854.

Peace be with you...Pam

Mary was full of Grace...Christ the Messiah...

but I believe she was as human as the rest of us...which means she must have sinned...as all men(and women) do...

she may very well have been the least of the sinners next to John the Baptist, who was specifically spoken of as being the best human being there ever was...that declaration was not made of Mary.

in His service
c

 

[zeke37]

The proper response is:
"...and also with you".

tradition...

 

[Rick Otto]

mind control