She was a fabulous mother and person no doubt.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Nope, especially when you tie together Revelation 11:19 and 12:1...The Early Church Fathers all saw this....

---

We've been over this many times that only Rome finds this apparent tie. The most common view throughout the history of the church is that it is not Mary mentioned here, but the Church.

Zobel said:

---

It's not saying Mary the Theotokos is the same as the ark. It is saying the ark is a type of Mary the Theotokos. Just as Christ is the new Adam doesn't diminish Christ to the level of Adam. She is the new Ark.

---

Zobel, you're back!

I was afraid you'd gotten sick, or perhaps fired for spending so much of your working day on TexAgs.

Got some interesting data on the other ark..

Noah's..

There's this wonderful book called "Ancient Christian Commentaries" that summarizes as many of the fathers as they can find writings on.

Here's just a sampling to show that the ancient church largely held that Revelation 12 was not about Mary.

Some people did try to draw reference to Mary, but they were in the minority.

So at best, your argument is that you want to ignore the majority of teachings on Revelation 12 in favor of a lesser view, not because it's historical, but because you want it to defend something you've constructed.


HIPPOLYTUS: By the "woman clothed with the sun,' he meant most manifestly the church,
endued with the Father's Word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by
"the moon under her feet," he referred to [the church] being adorned, like
the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words "upon her head a crown of
twelve stars" refer to the twelve apostles by whom the church was founded.
ON THE ANTICHRIST 61.

VICTORINUS OF PETOVIUM: This is the
ancient church of the fathers and the prophets and the holy apostles. For
they experience the groans and torments of their desire until that which was
long since promised was fulfilled out of their own people and according to
their own flesh. That [the woman] was "clothed with the sun" signifies the
hope of the resurrection and the promise of glory. The "moon" refers to the
fall of the bodies of the saints on account of their irreversible debt to death
which can never fail. For just as the life of people is diminished and so
again is increased, so also the hope of the sleeping is never utterly
extinguished, as some think, but in their darkness they will have light as of
the moon. The "crown of twelve stars" indicates the [crown] of the fathers "
from whom the spirit' was to assume flesh, according to the birth of the
flesh. COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 12.1."

Tycontus: "And a great sign was seen in heaven." We now see that which
has occurred in the church, God has taken form in man. "A woman," it
says, "clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet." We have already
noted that a genus may divide into many species. For what [in one passage]
is heaven, here signifies the temple placed in heaven. In the woman he
indicates the church who in the purification of baptism puts on Christ, the I as the apostle Paul testifies, "As many as were "sun of righteousness, baptized into Christ have put on Christ."** However, in this passage the moon is described as placed under the feet of the woman and so indicates the church of the heretics that the "sun of righteousness," that is, Christ, does not allow to be illumined by his presence. Yet, since everything which is found in the Scriptures concerning the church may be interpreted in a
twofold way, we can also interpret the moon in a good sense and compare it
with the church. As it is written in the psalms, "Once I have sworn by my
holiness; I will not lie to David. His seed shall endure forever. His throne
[will endure] as the sun before me and as a full moon forever. The witness
in the skies is sure." And again, "Bright as the sun and fair as the moon in
her beauty." " "And on her head a crown of twelve stars." He is indicating
the twelve apostles whom Christ placed as a crown over the twelve tribes of
Israel upon the head of his church and adorned her with spiritual gems.
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 12.1."

PRIMASIUS: This is what
now appears in the church, namely, that by the operation of the Holy Spirit
the human nature is joined to the Wisdom of God and that from the two the
selfsame Christ becomes the mediator of God and humanity and is so
proclaimed and believed. As he himself said, "Destroy this temple, and in 3! and the Evangelist said, "He was speaking of three days I will raise it up,
the temple of his body." ** "A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon
under her feet." It is frequently said that a genus is divided into many
species which are the same thing. For what was heaven itself is now a
temple in heaven and now is the woman clothed with the sun and having
the moon under her feet. Namely, this is the church who has put on Christ
and on account of her love is trampling upon every mutable thing. For [the
church] is not enraptured by these changeable things who, clinging to the
immoveable good, says truthfully, "But for me it is good to be near to
God." **

HIPPOLYTUS: [The words that she was with child and cried out in anguish for delivery] mean that the church will not cease to bear from its heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. ON THE ANTICHRIST 61."

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Revelation 12...Mary represents the Church, with the 12 stars (the 12 tribes/12 Apostles) crown on her head....The verse says that the woman gave birth to the savior...The Church wasn't around when Jesus was born. But Mary was...So, it's Mary representing the Church...

---

Btw...yes the Church was around when Jesus was born.

The Church is nothing more than God's people. The same people who God spoke to in the Old Testament, that helped preservere the very Scriptures that spoke of the coming of Jesus. The very Scriptures that Jesus used to refute Satan. The very Scriptures Paul told people to search to see Jesus.

So to clarify, you are correct to say the Roman Catholic Church did not exist then. That really didn't come until the 16th century with Trent. But the Church that constituted the people of God did exist and continues to exist.

---

Yikes. I realize there is nothing from history we could post here to challenge your belief that the RCC did not exist until the 16th century. Because even considering that would require you to reevaluate a lot. To believe that the Church is actually the Church Christ described and not just an amalgam of all the variations of Christian churches requires giving up the notion that Christ intended for their to be a multitude of interpretations with no definitive framework of leaders passing down these teaching from the apostles on.

Even without the multitude of historic evidence of the Churchs existence, doesn't it just make more sense that Christ did leave us his actual Church with a framework built on the apostles continued teachings to help work through what scripture is saying rather than leaving us to our own interpretations of scripture and thus theologies? Back again to the Home Depot analogy....It has everything you need to build a house...but how well would the average person do if they had no one to help guide you. If scripture were completely perspicuous to the average person, we wouldn't have so many various denominations.

I know, it took me over 5 years to work against the preconceived ideas that I was taught about the RCC in my protestant church to finally realize I could not deny the history of the Church. It never meant I wasn't a Christian before, it just meant that I had to bend over backwards to justify what all the variation in protestant churches was more true than the unchanging teachings of Christs Church.

---

Wow. Where to begin...

Lets start with the simplest part. You misconstrue my comments. The Christian Church does not equate to the Roman Catholic Church. It never has. I realize that is a claim Rome likes to make, but it's wrong and unproductive to the conversation. So at a surface level, I don't have any issue with Rome, except when claims are made that just don't stand up to any historical evidence or scrutiny. This of course holds true to any group (and I should be held to the same), but with the larger Rome presence, the claims tend to be more bold than other groups.

Next, of course what I'm not saying is that the Church didn't exist. I'm saying that the modern Roman Catholic Church did not exist. That does not mean that the modern Roman Church doesn't have some elements from the ancient church. There are many churches, Rome, EO, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc that have many historical elements. What it means is that while there are some historical elements, many elements are quite modern innovations. This is the root of Thaddeus claim. His claim about Revelation 12, is at best a minority view, if not simply modern. Yet we both know he will continue to claim it as if John himself told everybody who listened this was the truth.

Finally, lets address this: "Even without the multitude of historic evidence of the Churchs existence, doesn't it just make more sense that Christ did leave us his actual Church with a framework built on the apostles continued teachings to help work through what scripture is saying rather than leaving us to our own interpretations of scripture and thus theologies?"

There's many concerning things in what you've said here.

First, we don't hold that the teachings come from the Apostles directly, but the Holy Spirit working through them. It would be a mistake to think that the Apostles themselves could teach anything other than what was given to them.

Second, Certainly Jesus gave us the frameworks, just as God has always given it to us. Through his Scriptures. I don't believe you're going to claim the Israelites were infallible, and yet through the Holy Spirit, they preserved the Scriptures, and God delivered Prophets to guide the church. God gave us the Scriptures through the Holy Spirit and He has preserved them for us. The biggest challenge for mankind is not that the Scriptures are unclear, but that we put barriers up to avoid reading the truths.

So in the end, this is never an attack on Rome, but on the claims made on behalf of Rome.

---

Okay. then my apologies on misinterpreting. However, I do have a question about the apostles. I would agree that the Holy Spirit strengthened their teachings and interpretation but after they died, are you saying that those that were taught by the Apostles started from zero with the Holy Spirit teaching them only? So after Christ died and his apostles continued His mission, those teachings didn't persevere in succession? Or are you saying that the perpetuation of the first Apostles teachings were strengthened through the Holy Spirit? Either way, it begs the question of whether the 'teachings' that came from the Holy Spirit were in line with what the apostles also taught.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

That really didn't come until the 16th century with Trent

---

Ignoring 1500 years of Catholic Church history really diminishes your posts...

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Smyrna, was fed to the lions in the Coliseum in the 2nd century, and he was taught by the apostle John....

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

((St. Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8).

---

I'm not ignoring Christian Church history. I'm ignoring the incorrect claims of Rome that their current church is representative of the early church.

---

As an Orthodox I kind of agree. Been down hill for the RCC since the schism. See what you did RCC? It's been bedlam ever since in the west.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Revelation 12...Mary represents the Church, with the 12 stars (the 12 tribes/12 Apostles) crown on her head....The verse says that the woman gave birth to the savior...The Church wasn't around when Jesus was born. But Mary was...So, it's Mary representing the Church...

---

Btw...yes the Church was around when Jesus was born.

The Church is nothing more than God's people. The same people who God spoke to in the Old Testament, that helped preservere the very Scriptures that spoke of the coming of Jesus. The very Scriptures that Jesus used to refute Satan. The very Scriptures Paul told people to search to see Jesus.

So to clarify, you are correct to say the Roman Catholic Church did not exist then. That really didn't come until the 16th century with Trent. But the Church that constituted the people of God did exist and continues to exist.

---

Yikes. I realize there is nothing from history we could post here to challenge your belief that the RCC did not exist until the 16th century. Because even considering that would require you to reevaluate a lot. To believe that the Church is actually the Church Christ described and not just an amalgam of all the variations of Christian churches requires giving up the notion that Christ intended for their to be a multitude of interpretations with no definitive framework of leaders passing down these teaching from the apostles on.

Even without the multitude of historic evidence of the Churchs existence, doesn't it just make more sense that Christ did leave us his actual Church with a framework built on the apostles continued teachings to help work through what scripture is saying rather than leaving us to our own interpretations of scripture and thus theologies? Back again to the Home Depot analogy....It has everything you need to build a house...but how well would the average person do if they had no one to help guide you. If scripture were completely perspicuous to the average person, we wouldn't have so many various denominations.

I know, it took me over 5 years to work against the preconceived ideas that I was taught about the RCC in my protestant church to finally realize I could not deny the history of the Church. It never meant I wasn't a Christian before, it just meant that I had to bend over backwards to justify what all the variation in protestant churches was more true than the unchanging teachings of Christs Church.

---

Wow. Where to begin...

Lets start with the simplest part. You misconstrue my comments. The Christian Church does not equate to the Roman Catholic Church. It never has. I realize that is a claim Rome likes to make, but it's wrong and unproductive to the conversation. So at a surface level, I don't have any issue with Rome, except when claims are made that just don't stand up to any historical evidence or scrutiny. This of course holds true to any group (and I should be held to the same), but with the larger Rome presence, the claims tend to be more bold than other groups.

Next, of course what I'm not saying is that the Church didn't exist. I'm saying that the modern Roman Catholic Church did not exist. That does not mean that the modern Roman Church doesn't have some elements from the ancient church. There are many churches, Rome, EO, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc that have many historical elements. What it means is that while there are some historical elements, many elements are quite modern innovations. This is the root of Thaddeus claim. His claim about Revelation 12, is at best a minority view, if not simply modern. Yet we both know he will continue to claim it as if John himself told everybody who listened this was the truth.

Finally, lets address this: "Even without the multitude of historic evidence of the Churchs existence, doesn't it just make more sense that Christ did leave us his actual Church with a framework built on the apostles continued teachings to help work through what scripture is saying rather than leaving us to our own interpretations of scripture and thus theologies?"

There's many concerning things in what you've said here.

First, we don't hold that the teachings come from the Apostles directly, but the Holy Spirit working through them. It would be a mistake to think that the Apostles themselves could teach anything other than what was given to them.

Second, Certainly Jesus gave us the frameworks, just as God has always given it to us. Through his Scriptures. I don't believe you're going to claim the Israelites were infallible, and yet through the Holy Spirit, they preserved the Scriptures, and God delivered Prophets to guide the church. God gave us the Scriptures through the Holy Spirit and He has preserved them for us. The biggest challenge for mankind is not that the Scriptures are unclear, but that we put barriers up to avoid reading the truths.

So in the end, this is never an attack on Rome, but on the claims made on behalf of Rome.

---

Okay. then my apologies on misinterpreting. However, I do have a question about the apostles. I would agree that the Holy Spirit strengthened their teachings and interpretation but after they died, are you saying that those that were taught by the Apostles started from zero with the Holy Spirit teaching them only? So after Christ died and his apostles continued His mission, those teachings didn't persevere in succession? Or are you saying that the perpetuation of the first Apostles teachings were strengthened through the Holy Spirit? Either way, it begs the question of whether the 'teachings' that came from the Holy Spirit were in line with what the apostles also taught.

---

You phrase your last statement backwards. The question isn't whether the Holy Spirits teachings were in line with the Apostles, but whether the Apostles were in line with the Holy Spirit...or put more simply....God.

The Holy Spirit, by definition, cannot disagree or differ from Christ. They are God.
The Apostles can either agree with the Word of God, or they are wrong. The same holds to this day for us.

So when the Apostles taught of Jesus, or when the writers of the Scriptures wrote, the Holy Spirit protected their words from error. We aren't relying on their memory or education or philosophical beliefs. And just to head it off now, this was not a claim or promise made to an ongoing group or person.

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Revelation 12...Mary represents the Church, with the 12 stars (the 12 tribes/12 Apostles) crown on her head....The verse says that the woman gave birth to the savior...The Church wasn't around when Jesus was born. But Mary was...So, it's Mary representing the Church...

---

Btw...yes the Church was around when Jesus was born.

The Church is nothing more than God's people. The same people who God spoke to in the Old Testament, that helped preservere the very Scriptures that spoke of the coming of Jesus. The very Scriptures that Jesus used to refute Satan. The very Scriptures Paul told people to search to see Jesus.

So to clarify, you are correct to say the Roman Catholic Church did not exist then. That really didn't come until the 16th century with Trent. But the Church that constituted the people of God did exist and continues to exist.

---

Yikes. I realize there is nothing from history we could post here to challenge your belief that the RCC did not exist until the 16th century. Because even considering that would require you to reevaluate a lot. To believe that the Church is actually the Church Christ described and not just an amalgam of all the variations of Christian churches requires giving up the notion that Christ intended for their to be a multitude of interpretations with no definitive framework of leaders passing down these teaching from the apostles on.

Even without the multitude of historic evidence of the Churchs existence, doesn't it just make more sense that Christ did leave us his actual Church with a framework built on the apostles continued teachings to help work through what scripture is saying rather than leaving us to our own interpretations of scripture and thus theologies? Back again to the Home Depot analogy....It has everything you need to build a house...but how well would the average person do if they had no one to help guide you. If scripture were completely perspicuous to the average person, we wouldn't have so many various denominations.

I know, it took me over 5 years to work against the preconceived ideas that I was taught about the RCC in my protestant church to finally realize I could not deny the history of the Church. It never meant I wasn't a Christian before, it just meant that I had to bend over backwards to justify what all the variation in protestant churches was more true than the unchanging teachings of Christs Church.

---

Wow. Where to begin...

Lets start with the simplest part. You misconstrue my comments. The Christian Church does not equate to the Roman Catholic Church. It never has. I realize that is a claim Rome likes to make, but it's wrong and unproductive to the conversation. So at a surface level, I don't have any issue with Rome, except when claims are made that just don't stand up to any historical evidence or scrutiny. This of course holds true to any group (and I should be held to the same), but with the larger Rome presence, the claims tend to be more bold than other groups.

Next, of course what I'm not saying is that the Church didn't exist. I'm saying that the modern Roman Catholic Church did not exist. That does not mean that the modern Roman Church doesn't have some elements from the ancient church. There are many churches, Rome, EO, Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc that have many historical elements. What it means is that while there are some historical elements, many elements are quite modern innovations. This is the root of Thaddeus claim. His claim about Revelation 12, is at best a minority view, if not simply modern. Yet we both know he will continue to claim it as if John himself told everybody who listened this was the truth.

Finally, lets address this: "Even without the multitude of historic evidence of the Churchs existence, doesn't it just make more sense that Christ did leave us his actual Church with a framework built on the apostles continued teachings to help work through what scripture is saying rather than leaving us to our own interpretations of scripture and thus theologies?"

There's many concerning things in what you've said here.

First, we don't hold that the teachings come from the Apostles directly, but the Holy Spirit working through them. It would be a mistake to think that the Apostles themselves could teach anything other than what was given to them.

Second, Certainly Jesus gave us the frameworks, just as God has always given it to us. Through his Scriptures. I don't believe you're going to claim the Israelites were infallible, and yet through the Holy Spirit, they preserved the Scriptures, and God delivered Prophets to guide the church. God gave us the Scriptures through the Holy Spirit and He has preserved them for us. The biggest challenge for mankind is not that the Scriptures are unclear, but that we put barriers up to avoid reading the truths.

So in the end, this is never an attack on Rome, but on the claims made on behalf of Rome.

---

Okay. then my apologies on misinterpreting. However, I do have a question about the apostles. I would agree that the Holy Spirit strengthened their teachings and interpretation but after they died, are you saying that those that were taught by the Apostles started from zero with the Holy Spirit teaching them only? So after Christ died and his apostles continued His mission, those teachings didn't persevere in succession? Or are you saying that the perpetuation of the first Apostles teachings were strengthened through the Holy Spirit? Either way, it begs the question of whether the 'teachings' that came from the Holy Spirit were in line with what the apostles also taught.

---

You phrase your last statement backwards. The question isn't whether the Holy Spirits teachings were in line with the Apostles, but whether the Apostles were in line with the Holy Spirit...or put more simply....God.

The Holy Spirit, by definition, cannot disagree or differ from Christ. They are God.
The Apostles can either agree with the Word of God, or they are wrong. The same holds to this day for us.

So when the Apostles taught of Jesus, or when the writers of the Scriptures wrote, the Holy Spirit protected their words from error. We aren't relying on their memory or education or philosophical beliefs. And just to head it off now, this was not a claim or promise made to an ongoing group or person.

---

I could agree to the Holy Spirit being the common source and absolutely that they could not disagree and the Holy Spirit protected what they wrote. They were also given the power to bind and loose. And while we don't disagree with the scripture as texts, we do not find across the board common interpretation. The apostles past on the traditions of what the words meant. A man on a beach alone with a bible (without getting into which version) is not likely to understand everything the way it was intended. Its possible....just not probable. Thus we have guides that help us. Ergo the apostolic succession as Christ intended.

AgLiving06 said:

---

I think you're stretching the language of binding and loosing. Nothing in that makes them infallible or able to speak infallible, without the help of God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit).

So any traditions needs to be tested against the Word of God. If it holds, then it is conforming to the Word of God, if it is against, it should be tossed aside.

---

According to whose interpretation?

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I think you're stretching the language of binding and loosing. Nothing in that makes them infallible or able to speak infallible, without the help of God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit).

So any traditions needs to be tested against the Word of God. If it holds, then it is conforming to the Word of God, if it is against, it should be tossed aside.

---

According to whose interpretation?

---

The rules of logic?

If a tradition is in error against the Word of God....there seem to be possibilities....

Either the tradition is wrong.

Or the Word of God is wrong...

I'll place my money on the Word of God.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I think you're stretching the language of binding and loosing. Nothing in that makes them infallible or able to speak infallible, without the help of God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit).

So any traditions needs to be tested against the Word of God. If it holds, then it is conforming to the Word of God, if it is against, it should be tossed aside.

---

According to whose interpretation?

---

The rules of logic?

If a tradition is in error against the Word of God....there seem to be possibilities....

Either the tradition is wrong.

Or the Word of God is wrong...

I'll place my money on the Word of God.

---

I would agree that any traditions or teachings cannot be contrary to the word of God. The problem arises among men about what they think is contrary.

Just a for instance that's overtly Catholic or Protestant. The teaching that contraception does not go against the Word of God didn't exist until the 1930s (and I mean man made contraception, not natural family planning). This teaching never exists in the church prior to this time. But many will argue this is not contrary to Gods Word.

Too many parallels. Luke is screaming to us that Mary is the new testament Ark of the Covenant....

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I think you're stretching the language of binding and loosing. Nothing in that makes them infallible or able to speak infallible, without the help of God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit).

So any traditions needs to be tested against the Word of God. If it holds, then it is conforming to the Word of God, if it is against, it should be tossed aside.

---

According to whose interpretation?

---

The rules of logic?

If a tradition is in error against the Word of God....there seem to be possibilities....

Either the tradition is wrong.

Or the Word of God is wrong...

I'll place my money on the Word of God.

---

Or…the individual's INTERPRETATION and/or their UNDERSTANDING is wrong.

You left that possibility out.

---

This is just trying to create a third category in that isn't necessary or is not already covered.

For example, if I claim Texas A&M is in Austin, Texas based on my interpretation of a map, that doesn't change the truth that Texas A&M is in College Station.

So likewise, if someone's interpretation is wrong, that doesn't change the truth of the Word of God.

The challenge is are we willing to set aside our preconceived notions and risk realizing we have the wrong interpretation, or not. Since I don't want to offer personal attacks or call out anybody personally, I'll turn to what St. Ignatius of Loyola claimed as problematic: "What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines."

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I think you're stretching the language of binding and loosing. Nothing in that makes them infallible or able to speak infallible, without the help of God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit).

So any traditions needs to be tested against the Word of God. If it holds, then it is conforming to the Word of God, if it is against, it should be tossed aside.

---

According to whose interpretation?

---

The rules of logic?

If a tradition is in error against the Word of God....there seem to be possibilities....

Either the tradition is wrong.

Or the Word of God is wrong...

I'll place my money on the Word of God.

---

Or…the individual's INTERPRETATION and/or their UNDERSTANDING is wrong.

You left that possibility out.

---

This is just trying to create a third category in that isn't necessary or is not already covered.

For example, if I claim Texas A&M is in Austin, Texas based on my interpretation of a map, that doesn't change the truth that Texas A&M is in College Station.

So likewise, if someone's interpretation is wrong, that doesn't change the truth of the Word of God.

The challenge is are we willing to set aside our preconceived notions and risk realizing we have the wrong interpretation, or not. Since I don't want to offer personal attacks or call out anybody personally, I'll turn to what St. Ignatius of Loyola claimed as problematic: "What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines."

---

You are demonstrating my point quite beautifully. Thank you.

It is not the TEXT of scripture that is fundamentally the issue at hand, but rather it is the MEANING of Scripture. Said differently, it is the INTERPRETATION of the individual reader that is at fault. It is not God and it is not the Scripture, but rather the fault or error rests directly with the person doing the reading and interpretation of the text.

Truth is Truth.

---
Your example does not hold because for us we are looking at the same map in the same time in history. For example, let's say two people are living 1,000 years from now and your claim above is stated in the exact same way. However the map has changed in that thousand years. The new map shows Austin is a State in the country of Texas, and College Station is a city in the state of Austin. Texas A&M would be in both Austin, TX and College Station, Austin. Even though Texas A&M never moved. Things change and the meaning of words can change.

A different hypothetical...If I told you that "THE University of Texas" is in College Station an Aggie would understand what I am saying. Most people would be completely lost, but a t-sip would understand what I meant if I called Texas t.u. Do you think someone reading what I just wrote would have any idea what I am talking about 1,000 years from now? I don't even know that current students in College Station will understand what I just wrote.

---

Ah..I see what you're doing. Trying to shift the conversation away from what was discussed to make a random point.

The question being discussed, is "whether the 'teachings' that came from the Holy Spirit were in line with what the apostles also taught."

The shift you're trying to make does nothing to try and further that conversation, but to avoid it.

The very question at hand is whether the apostle's needed to teach in alignment with the Holy Spirit.

Most of what you're trying to claim as disagreement or as an argument is a red herring. But even your example does nothing to change my statements....

Unless you plan to add something more to the discussion, I'll let you have the final word and I'll be engaging with others.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Too many parallels. Luke is screaming to us that Mary is the new testament Ark of the Covenant....

---

If you're going to rip off Steve Ray, at least give the dude credit.

As is always the case, when you're resorting to typology as the primary argument for your claim, you know it's a weak argument.

Respectfully, I am not shifting the conversation in the slightest and I am not avoiding anything. In fact the shift comes in when you replace "The Holy Spirit (or God)" with the "Word of God". When you insert the term the "Word of God" you are essentially saying go to the Bible/Scriptures. In reality you are only testing the tradition against YOUR INTERPRETATION of the "Word of God". That is the point I am making, and you made the exact same point yourself in this very thread.

The issue is not what does the Scriptural text ("Word of God") say, but rather the issue is what does the Scriptural text ("Word of God") mean - what is the text's correct interpretation, context, and application. Are you taking the position that the apostles and early Christians did not see or teach the connection of Mary, the Theotokos, as being the Ark of the Covenant? Are you claiming that they rejected or would have rejected this teaching?

Of course the apostles needed to teach in alignment with the Holy Spirit, and nobody here is saying anything contrary to that.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I think you're stretching the language of binding and loosing. Nothing in that makes them infallible or able to speak infallible, without the help of God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit).

So any traditions needs to be tested against the Word of God. If it holds, then it is conforming to the Word of God, if it is against, it should be tossed aside.

---

According to whose interpretation?

---

The rules of logic?

If a tradition is in error against the Word of God....there seem to be possibilities....

Either the tradition is wrong.

Or the Word of God is wrong...

I'll place my money on the Word of God.

---

I would agree that any traditions or teachings cannot be contrary to the word of God. The problem arises among men about what they think is contrary.

Just a for instance that's overtly Catholic or Protestant. The teaching that contraception does not go against the Word of God didn't exist until the 1930s (and I mean man made contraception, not natural family planning). This teaching never exists in the church prior to this time. But many will argue this is not contrary to Gods Word.

---

And I would agree with you. If a teaching is contrary to the Word of God, then we should ignore it. We have Scriptural support for Jesus saying just that in Mark 7

"And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
" 'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

AgLiving06 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I think you're stretching the language of binding and loosing. Nothing in that makes them infallible or able to speak infallible, without the help of God (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit).

So any traditions needs to be tested against the Word of God. If it holds, then it is conforming to the Word of God, if it is against, it should be tossed aside.

---

According to whose interpretation?

---

The rules of logic?

If a tradition is in error against the Word of God....there seem to be possibilities....

Either the tradition is wrong.

Or the Word of God is wrong...

I'll place my money on the Word of God.

---

I would agree that any traditions or teachings cannot be contrary to the word of God. The problem arises among men about what they think is contrary.

Just a for instance that's overtly Catholic or Protestant. The teaching that contraception does not go against the Word of God didn't exist until the 1930s (and I mean man made contraception, not natural family planning). This teaching never exists in the church prior to this time. But many will argue this is not contrary to Gods Word.

---

And I would agree with you. If a teaching is contrary to the Word of God, then we should ignore it. We have Scriptural support for Jesus saying just that in Mark 7

"And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
" 'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

---

The underlying question that is not being acknowledged or addressed is the question of WHO can rightly decide or declare a teaching is contrary to the "Word of God.. According to whose interpretation?

Let's take the issue of Baptismal Regeneration for example. Or we could use the Eucharist and the real vs. symbolic nature of what is being professed. Good and well meaning Christians have very different interpretations and teachings that they follow, and there is a wide variance among Protestants on who is following the Word of God and who is not. There is only one Truth and God cannot lie, therefore some Christians must be wrong on these issues - but how are we to know who is right vs. who is wrong? Are these Christians not relying on the same "Word of God"?

The topic of this thread was Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. Do you deny that this is true? Is it your position that the Catholics and Orthodox are creating this teaching in opposition to what the apostles and earliest Christians believed and understood?