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

[Ormly]

Again you ignore the clear biblical references that Luke and John made and that even the early Christians saw from scripture relating Mary to the Ark of the covenant. It is easy to see who is teaching consistent historical biblical apostolic truth and who is teaching the novel heresy. You cannot even nor have you tried to refute the passages from Luke and John that I sited all you can say is no your wrong. I guess you simply dissagree with Luke, John, and Jesus historical Church for 2000 years. Sad! You simply do not have a leg to stand on on this issue.

What makes you seem to think it is "clear" when it is nothing but fable from the Vatican to be taken as truth? The position based upon your flimsy mis-understood referrences is unsupportable?

 

[Athanasias]

The references to Mary being the "new ark" exist only in your head, sorry.

I guess you have to deny the biblical typological evidence because if you didn't you would have to admit catholic truth. You answers to me would never hold up in court. You still have not dealt with why Luke's presentation of Mary in Chapter 1 does not show her as new ark of the covenant? Or Johns evidence? or why the early Christians all saw these evidences that you do not? You seem to be teaching the novel heresy not I. You need to answer my arguments and I will hold you to that otherwise your objections to her typology as Ark seem unwarranted.

 

[Brennin]

I guess you have to deny the biblical typological evidence because if you didn't you would have to admit catholic truth. You answers to me would never hold up in court. You still have not dealt with why Luke's presentation of Mary in Chapter 1 does not show her as new ark of the covenant? Or Johns evidence? or why the early Christians all saw these evidences that you do not? You seem to be teaching the novel heresy not I. You need to answer my arguments and I will hold you to that otherwise your objections to her typology as Ark seem unwarranted.

You could never make your case in court. You are engaging in the same sort of fast-and-loose exegesis as the Gnostics.

 

[Athanasias]

What makes you seem to think it is "clear" when it is nothing but fable from the Vatican to be taken as truth? The position based upon your flimsy mis-understood referrences is unsupportable?

Again this seems all fine that you make accusations. But you never back them up? Go ahead refute LK 1 and John 11-12 and tell me why Mary is not described as Ark? The early Christians seen this comparison in scripture why can't you?

 

[Athanasias]

You could never make your case in court. You are engaging in the same sort of fast-and-loose exegesis as the Gnostics.

Again you give me no reasons why Mary isn't seen as the ark in Lk 1 and Jn 11-12 you just say "Your wrong". Maybe I should present the evidence again. I am going to hold you to this. Otherwise the Catholic position stands strong!


Here goes:

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(Jn 6:48-58) and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom (the church with a rod of iron rev 12:5). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself(Jn 1:1). 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 simliar 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.

 

[Brennin]

Again you give me no reasons why Mary isn't seen as the ark in Lk 1 and Jn 11-12 you just say "Your wrong". Maybe I should present the evidence again. I am going to hold you to this. Otherwise the Catholic position stands strong!


Here goes:

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(Jn 6:48-58) and is the new covenant high priest who rules the new kingdom (the church with a rod of iron rev 12:5). Like the ten words carried in the Ark, Jesus is the Word of God incarnate himself(Jn 1:1). 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 the same Greek word 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.

The authors you cite do not make that "connection." You have to throw out this typology nonsense because there is not one mention of Mary being the "new ark."

 

[Athanasias]

The authors you cite do not make that "connection." You have to throw out this typology nonsense because there is not one mention of Mary being the "new ark."

Again I have showed how the author Luke makes the connection by listing the old testamant passages they connected it with and also the language they used. Scripture scholars see this and the early Christians also saw this as a clear comparison biblically. Why can't you? And once again Brennin you did not show in any way how Lk 1 or Jn 11-12 does not reveal Mary as the New testament ark. Until you do the Catholic position on the Immaculate Conception stands strong. And again you have evaded the answer.

 

[Brennin]

2 Samuel 6:9
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
kai efobhqh Dauid ton kurion en th hmera ekeinh legwn pwv eiseleusetai prov me h kibwtov kuriou

[/FONT]Luke 1:43

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva] kai poqen moi touto ina elqh| h mhthr tou kuriou mou prov eme
[/FONT]
The alleged "parallels" do not seem so impressive in the original Greek.[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT]

 

[Athanasias]

2 Samuel 6:9
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
kai efobhqh Dauid ton kurion en th hmera ekeinh legwn pwv eiseleusetai prov me h kibwtov kuriou

[/FONT]Luke 1:43

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva] kai poqen moi touto ina elqh| h mhthr tou kuriou mou prov eme
[/FONT]
The alleged "parallels" do not seem so impressive in the original Greek.[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
[/FONT]

They were impressive enough for the early Christian Greek fathers to see the connection and make parallels between Mary and the Ark.

 

[Brennin]

Exodus 40:34[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]




kai ekaluyen h nefelh thn skhnhn tou marturiou kai dochv kuriou eplhsqh h skhnh
















[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]



Luke 1:35

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva] kai apokriqeiv o aggelov eipen auth|, Pneuma agion epeleusetai epi se, kai dunamiv uyistou episkiasei soi dio kai to gennwmenon agion klhqhsetai, uiov qeou.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Brennin]

They were impressive enough for the early Christian Greek fathers to see the connection and make parallels between Mary and the Ark.

I don't care. Athanasius was wrong about most things; this is just another example.

 

[Athanasias]

I don't care. Athanasius was wrong about most things; this is just another example.

You should care because A) these eastern Fathers knew and spoke Greek as their original language. they spoke in and had early Liturgies in B) They were much closer to the times and culture of Jesus and how to interpret scripture from its apostolicity than a 21st century protestant is.

It was these fathers that you disagree with that you untimately owe your belief in the new testament to. Ironic isn't it. The fathers knew the language and the historical context of Luke and all you can do is give it your 21st century protestant best college guess. Again it is you who are teaching the novel heresy. biblically and all through early chrisitian history Mary was seen as the New ark of the covenant.

 

[Ormly]

Again this seems all fine that you make accusations. But you never back them up? Go ahead refute LK 1 and John 11-12 and tell me why Mary is not described as Ark? The early Christians seen this comparison in scripture why can't you?

They didn't and I don't. No one spoke of her in that light that had anything to do with the Church..

 

[Athanasias]

They didn't and I don't. No one spoke of her in that light that had anything to do with the Church..

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? 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.

 

[Brennin]

You should care because A) these eastern Fathers knew and spoke Greek as their original language. they spoke in and had early Liturgies in B) They were much closer to the times and culture of Jesus and how to interpret scripture from its apostolicity than a 21st century protestant is.

It was these fathers that you disagree with that you untimately owe your belief in the new testament to. Ironic isn't it. The fathers knew the language and the historical context of Luke and all you can do is give it your 21st century protestant best college guess. Again it is you who are teaching the novel heresy. biblically and all through early chrisitian history Mary was seen as the New ark of the covenant.

Three hundred years (in the case of Athanasius) is not close. And the books of the Bible existed before the canonization process; I do not owe Athanasius anything.

 

[Athanasias]

Three hundred years (in the case of Athanasius) is not close. And the books of the Bible existed before the canonization process; I do not owe Athanasius anything.

What funny about your answer is this; They were 1700 hundred years closer to Jesus and the apostles than you. Also there are 1st century and early second centruy Fathers who also refer to her as the ark. That puts them at about 1900 or more years closer than you and your interpetation.

Secondly, One can say the same thing about the Trinity. It was not until around the end of the second century(170-180's ) that the word Trinitas was ever used. It was even further that it was not until the 4th century that it was formally defined and explained. does this mean that it is not in the bible implicitly? certainly not. The Trinity is implicit in the bible just as the Immaculate Conception is.

Thirdly. yes the books of the bible were around before 382. But no one knew what the complete Canon of the new testament even was before 367(Suggested by St. Athanasias) and 382 at the council of Rome formally promulgated by Pope Damasus I. So yes you do owe your knowledge of the new testament canon to the fathers and Catholic popes and councils who just happened to teach also that Mary was the new ark of the covenant and sinless.

So try again!

 

[Brennin]

What funny about your answer is this; They were 1700 hundred years closer to Jesus and the apostles than you. Also there are 1st century and early second centruy Fathers who also refer to her as the ark. That puts them at about 1900 or more years closer than you and your interpetation.

Secondly, One can say the same thing about the Trinity. It was not until around the end of the second century(170-180's ) that the word Trinitas was ever used. It was even further that it was not until the 4th century that it was formally defined and explained. does this mean that it is not in the bible implicitly? certainly not. The Trinity is implicit in the bible just as the Immaculate Conception is.

Thirdly. yes the books of the bible were around before 382. But no one knew what the complete Canon of the new testament even was before 367(Suggested by St. Athanasias) and 382 at the council of Rome formally promulgated by Pope Damasus I. So yes you do owe your knowledge of the new testament canon to the fathers and Catholic popes and councils who just happened to teach also that Mary was the new ark of the covenant and sinless.

So try again!

Name the first and second century theologians who spoke of Mary as the "new ark." Also, as I said previously, I don't owe your church (or the EO church) anything when it comes to the canon. In fact, I would not have chosen the canon they chose.

 

[Athanasias]

Name the first and second century theologians who spoke of Mary as the "new ark." Also, as I said previously, I don't owe your church (or the EO church) anything when it comes to the canon. In fact, I would not have chosen the canon they chose.

Hippolytus is the second and third century theologian who wrote on this. Sorry I had mistakenly confused the typologies of New Eve with Ark so there may be no 1st century Christians that compared Mary to ark or used this title with exception of Luke and John and Hippolytus. What is even more interesting is that even by the time Hippolytus wrote what he did (Late 2nd-early 3rd century)no one seemed to question the title but many many fathers embraced it seeing its biblical implications. Again though even if there are no 1st century mentioning of this title it still wouldn't matter. There are no mentioning of the Trinity in the first century. It wasn't until 180 years later that the this began to take shape and not until 300 some years later that this doctrine was hammered out in councils. Yet it still is implicit in the bible as all chrisitians mention. The same is true for Mary's immaculate conception. However the New eve is a also a typology that shows her immaculate conception implicitly and that does go back to the first and second century. So the Catholic dogma stands strong and biblical despite the wild imaginations and hopes of rather limited protestant mindsets.

If you do not go by the early chruches new testament canon as suggested by St. Athanasias and Promulgated by Pope Damasus I then what new testament books would you add or take away to the canon? And what is your authority to do so?

 

[Brennin]

Hippolytus is the second and third century theologian who wrote on this. Sorry I had mistakenly confused the typologies of New Eve with Ark so there may be no 1st century Christians that compared Mary to ark or used this title with exception of Luke and John and Hippolytus. What is even more interesting is that even by the time Hippolytus wrote what he did (Late 2nd-early 3rd century)no one seemed to question the title but many many fathers embraced it seeing its biblical implications. Again though even if there are no 1st century mentioning of this title it still wouldn't matter. There are no mentioning of the Trinity in the first century. It wasn't until 180 years later that the this began to take shape and not until 300 some years later that this doctrine was hammered out in councils. Yet it still is implicit in the bible as all chrisitians mention. The same is true for Mary's immaculate conception. However the New eve is a also a typology that shows her immaculate conception implicitly and that does go back to the first and second century. So the Catholic dogma stands strong and biblical despite the wild imaginations and hopes of rather limited protestant mindsets.

Hippolytus wrote in the 3rd century and neither Luke nor John refer to Mary as the "new ark."

If you do not go by the early chruches new testament canon as suggested by St. Athanasias and Promulgated by Pope Damasus I then what new testament books would you add or take away to the canon? And what is your authority to do so?

I would remove all the obvious pseudonymous epistles, such as I and II Peter and the Pastorals. I would probably add Clement, Hermas and Barnabas.

 

[Athanasias]

Hippolytus wrote in the 3rd century and neither Luke nor John refer to Mary as the "new ark."



I would remove all the obvious pseudonymous epistles, such as I and II Peter and the Pastorals. I would probably add Clement, Hermas and Barnabas.

1st of all I find it interesting that you do not go by the same NT canon that all Christians go by. Well at least your consistent unlike the protestants who just believe the canon based on Catholic councils. I am not sure what kind of Person I am debating here? So are you protestant? It doesn't sound like it. What are you? And where does your Authority come from to dissagree with the NT canon as its promulgated by the ancient historic Catholic Church.


Hippolytus may have written in the third century but he was born in the second. And thus his writing's could have easily referenced a teaching much earlier. Still it would not make a difference as I mentioned in comparison to the Trinity. Again you refuse to answer. The typology of Mary as New Eve does go back tot eh 1st and 2nd century. Again it would not matter if they did not appear earlier because as the Trinity did not but was still implied in scripture. John and Luke do refercne Mary as new Ark and even go out of their way to describe Mary as new Ark in Scripture; Maybe you forgot so I'll show it again.

"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.