Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by tom » Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:56 pm

Popeman,

I can see where you're coming from. Just on this Souls in Heaven or are they in soul sleep or somewhere in between we have disagreement. I don't understand how they can say the Saints in Heaven can't intercede for us when they can't even agree on their own views. My view works but yours doesn't kind of attitude.

I'm not done with Mary so I hope we don't get dropped from this thread.

Tom

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by tom » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:01 am

I would just like to know if any Protestant, and I dislike to put them in a box, can at least say that Mary could be the new Ark of the Covenant? If no one can say that, without being sarcastic, then I think this thread is done.

Tom

User avatar
smcllr3
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:55 pm
Location: Bolivar, Missouri

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by smcllr3 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:07 am

popeman wrote:Hello Tom,

Sorry if I am writing a bit strong on this site, but I get tired of the Protestant hypocrisy and lack of knowledge of their own history. Therefore, it is always nice to remind them when they bring up some obtuse Catholic info as if it is the end-all of anti-Catholic arguments.
Wow! is this your "end-all" of the anti- Protestant argument. Their history is Yours too, Baby.
popeman wrote:As you discuss topics with anti-Catholic Protestants and try to bring up historical fact to faith/doctrine it has been nearly in vein to bring up some issue from the very earliest Christian. That being said, maybe you may want to bring up the historical Christian roots/writings/preaching of the Protestant movement. The only problem is that Protestant theology has changed so dramatically and continues to morph as each new Protestant preacher, born-again believer interprets Scripture in “their” own view.
As I recall, Each man will give an account of himself. My history consists of recognizing my sins in ignorance and that, though God winked, there is a King one Jesus and that I should serve him. If that has morphed from the RCC dogma then Praise God! It's funny that you would mention lack of knowledge when the RCC's theology morphed into a series of hoops invented for their sheep to jump through when the sheep should have been loved and cared for instead of tormented with the wrong views of God. I consider that a huge lack of knowledge. That's why I wouldn't be entirely opposed to sola scriptura, because I don't know if I could afford the indulgences I'd have to buy if I had to live with you as a shepherd.
popeman wrote:As Martin Luther (Mary forever virgin), Calvin (multiple births), Zwingli (Mary forever virgin) Bullinger, Wesley, et al had doctrinal beliefs in faith, these doctrinal beliefs/interpretations were slowly morphed over time by more modern “progressive” Protestants (ie, many on this forum discussion point). The lesson that one can take away from this is simple…wait a generation or so, and these modern/progressive doctrinal beliefs will be passé, foolish, completely off-tract just like Protestants today believe of Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Wesley, et al. That is the true nature of a Protestant, to “protest”, never really submit to God, only themselves and their own interpretations.


You know, I don't really think of myself as protestant because I have no need to protest anything and the Catholic church is way to conceited if they believe that I think that their doctrines are something I really need to work at to overcome. And you know that's not the first time a Catholic has referred to themselves as God. You said, "That is the true nature of a Protestant, to “protest”, never really submit to God,..." By submitting to God you meant to the RCC.
popeman wrote:That is why Acts 15 is so important, Tom. It shows how even the earliest Scriptural Christians submitted to the Church Authority when Christian doctrine interpretation was in doubt. There was a body of Church Authority that “mandated” (that is a scriptural word and it mean to ‘an authoritative order or command, to order or require; make mandatory’) what Paul, Barnabus and the whole congregation at Antioch was to believe … not what “they” interpreted! This discussion about Mary being the Ark is frustrating because many of the arguments have been circular. When they have not been circular then they get one-sided by having to prove by Scripture “verbatim” because “inference” is not tolerated unless it has to do with modern/progressive Protestant doctrine.
Well the "Acts 15" thing has also been circular. If the Catholic Church had the same claims to authority that those men had, then I would almost have to agree with their authority. By "claims" I'm referring to having divine revelation rather than mandating that something is a divine revelation. You keep using that word interpret. Scripture seems clear to me. The RCC wants to reinterpret the clear meaning to say a lot of things that are not consistent with scripture or are you ignorant of Catholic history.

One of the clearest reasons why no "protestant" takes the RCC authority seriously is because your authority would mandate things like "Mary is the ark of the covenant". Any "protestant" can see that Jesus was not in Mary when he entered the temple that is not of this creation, or when he gave the new commandment, or when he pronounced the new covenant. Mary was not even present. And is it that ridiculous to say that the things that came through Jesus were contained in Jesus. DUH! I don't even care what modern/progressive Protestant doctrine teaches. I only care what Jesus taught and Jesus said that that would be fine. You seem to think there is some sort of "embryological recapitulation" equivalent inside each successive "protestant" generation. As if we decide to reject the RCC (or God according to the RCC) and then go through every stage of the reformation until we arrive at the furthest position from the RCC possible. I like a little history but I didn't even need the reformers to get this far from the RCC. Just a Bible and humility.
popeman wrote:For this reason(s), I would love to see Protestants help me find that NT Church in Acts 15 where we (Christians) can go and ask that Church “Hey, what about this Mary thing, what about this Purgatory thing....?” They (that Church with mandating power) can mandate what we are to believe and it would be the end of the story. We know that this Church has to be around and alive because Scripture tells us that the Church will be forever. Protestants do not want to find that Church….not in Scriptural history , in today’s modern world or in the future because it would take away from their ability to “protest”, to self-interpret Scripture to their satisfaction generation after generation after generation after generation….
Okay. I can help you. Open up to Acts 15 and read it. No "Mary thing" or "Purgatory thing". Well there you have it. Now I know it's not that simple, so I'll tell you what, open to any page in the New testament and show me a confirmation from the New Testament Church Leaders of the "Mary thing" or the "Purgatory thing". I think I speak for everyone beside the bigots when I say it's not there. End of the Story. The only self-interpretation I see between me and the RCC is 100% on the end of the RCC. Scripture doesn't say what they want it to say so they would like it if they could mandate it. Then they could imprison people for not agreeing with them. It makes since that the RCC would loathe sola scriptura (not that I'm completely for it); that and the printing press and Men who seek the face of God. Hard to get men to seek you when they read for themselves.
popeman wrote:Peace baby, Popeman
I know this was not aimed at me but I just Figured I'd show you some of your caustic writing with an argument conforming to your own points. I Love Catholics generally because they're generally soft spoken and nice (my wife is Catholic). I feel no different about you but I figured if you could step out as you have and not expect to be taken as malicious then you would probably receive the same without taking it as malicious. If I have offended you I hope that it was appropriate.

Peace.
"For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him." II Samuel 14:14

tom
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:52 am

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by tom » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:43 am

smcllr3,
You keep using that word interpret. Scripture seems clear to me.
And in this we have the problem! "In those days [there was] no king in Israel; everyone did [what was] right in his own eyes."

Look at Korah's rebellion Num 16:32, "and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all [their] goods." Jude 1:11, "Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah."

Tom

User avatar
Suzana
Posts: 503
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:09 am
Location: Australia

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by Suzana » Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:34 am

popeman wrote:
Dear Tom,

Have any of these Protestants read the Catechism or the compendium to it? Do they think that every walking Catholic is walking doctrine? Catholic Christians fail daily (if not more like Protestants) because they forget doctrinal faith. Got a question? Go to the Catechism ...that is about as close to the Pope you will get and before you get to God. That is what is great about the Catholic Christian Church...we will stand by doctrine and even write a book about it (in concert with scripture so pleaseeee don't say carzy things like "that's why we have the Bible"). Protestants will neverrrrrrr write down doctrine that reflects scripture because it changes every darn year. Still confused, then find that Acts 15 Church we can go to....Scripture tells us its there! Don't yell at me, don't question me, just find me the Church and I'll pay the airfare. whoyaa Popeman
Popeman,

Now I'm confused. Just out of curiosity, Has Tom been saying crazy things, and yelling at you; or, why do you think he might be likely to do so? :?
Suzana
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by darinhouston » Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:56 am

Suzana wrote:
popeman wrote:
Dear Tom,

Have any of these Protestants read the Catechism or the compendium to it? Do they think that every walking Catholic is walking doctrine? Catholic Christians fail daily (if not more like Protestants) because they forget doctrinal faith. Got a question? Go to the Catechism ...that is about as close to the Pope you will get and before you get to God. That is what is great about the Catholic Christian Church...we will stand by doctrine and even write a book about it (in concert with scripture so pleaseeee don't say carzy things like "that's why we have the Bible"). Protestants will neverrrrrrr write down doctrine that reflects scripture because it changes every darn year. Still confused, then find that Acts 15 Church we can go to....Scripture tells us its there! Don't yell at me, don't question me, just find me the Church and I'll pay the airfare. whoyaa Popeman
Popeman,

Now I'm confused. Just out of curiosity, Has Tom been saying crazy things, and yelling at you; or, why do you think he might be likely to do so? :?
I don't think that was meant for Tom, but for us.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by darinhouston » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:04 am

tom wrote:And in this we have the problem! "In those days [there was] no king in Israel; everyone did [what was] right in his own eyes."
Tom, you seem to assume that this is a bad thing. Does the context suggest to you that this pleased God? or displeased God? Did it please God to provide the King? or was it a concession to them?

User avatar
smcllr3
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:55 pm
Location: Bolivar, Missouri

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by smcllr3 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:05 pm

tom wrote:And in this we have the problem! "In those days [there was] no king in Israel; everyone did [what was] right in his own eyes."
Of course you are Catholic and that is right in your own eyes. I just happen to believe there is only one mediator between God and man; one teacher; one Father. Paul said that scripture was "...profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." If the Catholic church hadn't "run greedily in the error of Balaam" maybe the rest of the world would have never read these verses and "trimmed the fat" so to speak. Nice try though.
tom wrote:Look at Korah's rebellion Num 16:32, "and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the men with Korah, with all [their] goods." Jude 1:11, "Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily in the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah."

Tom
Jesus is the high priest. I don't rebel against that. I'm surrendered to it. I haven't cursed anyone for money lately and I haven't killed anyone because his offering was better than mine. I'm positive you haven't either but I would encourage you to recall the RCC history and how their actions might conform very closely to all three of these crimes that you are accusing me of. That's a kind of a huge Log in the old eyeball don't you think? Maybe I didn't get it. If you explain how my rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church falls into these categories of crimes, I could probably do more to examine my position.

I don't believe RCC has any valid claim to the Acts 15 church and I don't think that popeman's idea of the Acts 15 church was ever to exsist except in Acts 15. We have enough revealed in the New Testament to ever need any more mandates from councils of Men.

Peace
"For we will surely die and are like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered up again Yet God does not take away life, but plans ways so that the banished one will not be cast out from him." II Samuel 14:14

popeman
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:19 pm

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by popeman » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:27 pm

Dear Tom,

Can you get a hold of this logic “…I don't think that popeman's idea of the Acts 15 church was ever to exist except in Acts 15….” And we wonder why Protestants go off in every different tangent. Well, why doesn’t someone come up with …. “I don’t think that the idea that Jesus is the son of God, the 2nd part of the Trinity was ever to exist except in some parts of the Bible…” [applies to Christians to today]….oh, I’m sorry someone has already done that….the JW’s. When you start “interpreting" scripture as you wish then you get to start your own Church!

Acts 15 is an example of the very new, the earliest NT Church and the problems that a congregation will have, like Churches have today. We are given example’s here in Act 15 and Matthew about the Church we are to go to that has the “mandating” power of authority over Christians here on earth. It is right there in B&W. Catholic Christians read it and believe it as scripture. Protestant Christians read it and simply re-interpret it if is not pertinent to today’s’ Christian community. End of argument. Peace Popeman

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Does The Ark Represent Jesus? or Mary?

Post by darinhouston » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:30 am

popeman, you have not responded to my private message regarding your participation on this forum. I have asked (as a matter of courtesy if nothing else) that you answer certain questions, elaborate or respond to certain assertions, back up specific statements, and most importantly to address the person with whom you may disagree (on the merits). Instead, you have ignored my requests, you continue to do nothing to contribute to this forum and have criticized the people and their motives and the only merits you have discussed have been conclusory statements or open criticisms / complaints with your fellow RC brother, Tom.

I would love to hear, for example, you answer my questions about the Acts 15 and other apostolic successions and logically show exegetically how that verse is intended to do anything other than describe the state of the apostolic purpose for the original apostles in grounding doctrine, etc. If you can show me (in a different thread) that the pope and bishops derive apostolic authority all the way back to the 12, and that the Acts 15 church model (so-called) continued in the 1st and 2nd century and beyond, then we can progress the discussion.

If you continue to refuse to do anything other than speak past us to Tom and say "how can so and so believe X -- they just hate catholics" or the like -- consider this to be your public warning that you will be banned from the forum. We strongly resist [edited 1/12 to remove "wont"] doing this, especially with people of divergent views, because we enjoy getting to the root of our disagreements and/or changing our views through such dialogue. However, this has not been fruitful so far.

If you wish to contribute in a meaningful way and exhibit the spirit of Christ in this forum, then we will be glad to have you present your arguments and directly confront ours where you disagree (provided you can explain how we're wrong and not just that we are so).

darin

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”