Faithful Ag said:

---

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?

---

You're constantly trying to create an argument that just isn't there.

The entire premise of my posts have been that interpretations need to be challenged against the Word of God. I'm not sure you're in such violent in your agreement with me? Are you afraid we might agree on something?

You're trying to make a big deal of "who" which is the standard Roman Catholic argument to justify the Pope.

I already pointed out out that Ignatius of Loyola said: "What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines."

The simple fact, as I said several posts ago, is that the Word of God is perfect, by definition. The Scripture tells us this fact and we can believe it. It has to be because it is from God. When our salvation is on the line, do we really think God is hiding things from man?

So who can can rightly decide and declare? The simplest answer is that with the Holy Spirit, can understand the way to salvation. We know this is true simply because millions have come to know Christ without needing a pope. We know this because a church does not save anybody. Only Christ does. No pope has saved anyone.

I know this will dissatisfy you, but it's the simple truth. The Word of God has always been what matters, not a pope.

Edit: I wanted to add this as well. What I'm not saying is "nuda Scriptura" or solo Scriptura. We come to understand Jesus as our Savior by God alone. Our salvation is from God alone, but the Scriptures are also extremely clear we are not to try and go about our salvation alone. We cannot honor our neighbor as our self. We cannot participate in the Lord's Supper alone, and we almost certainly cannot understand the Word of God alone. So I and many Protestants honor the Fathers. We learn from the Councils. We read the history (in most cases better than our Roman Catholic brothers), but we understand that the Word of God is always superior to man and that anytime there is a dispute, we must turn to the Word as our source.

------------------
So to your last question. Is Mary the "New Ark of the Covenant?" I don't know, but my test is this.

Does Scripture make this claim? The answer is no, Even the source that Thaddeus poaches from acknowledges its a typological argument

Does my salvation hinge on this claim? No. The Scriptures do not claim it, nor do any of the Ecumenical Creeds consider this necessary.

Could I choose to hold to this? Sure, there's a wide range of adiaphora topics that we can comfortably hold to.

We should have the debate, but as I said above, we should be willing to risk being wrong, and Thaddeus has been wrong a lot in this thread, whether in his historical (lack of) sourcing of fathers, or claims about a council that do not hold up to any level of scrutiny.

You say that your entire premise is that interpretations need to be challenged against the Word of God.

However, the issue I have with your premise is that what you mean by saying this is that interpretations/traditions need to be challenged against your interpretation of the Word of God.

Something you said earlier in the thread is 100% spot on...with a huge qualifier:

AgLiving06 said:

---

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 any traditions need 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.

---

The qualifier is the "Word of God" must be rightly understood.

Yes, the Word of God is perfect as written by the inspired writers. This does not mean that the reader of the perfect Word will interpret or understand the meaning of the written Word correctly. So when two people disagree on the meaning or application of the perfectly written Word of God, what then? Complicating the issue further is that we are not even reading and interpreting the text as originally written. The language is different, the text has been translated and influenced by the uninspired translators, chapter breaks, verses, and headings have been added to the text which can influence interpretations, etc.

You attempt to get around all of this by deflecting the issue to the Holy Spirit, but this does not address the fundamental issue. God is truth. The Holy Spirit cannot guide one person/group into one truth and a different person/group into a different truth. There is only one truth, and the Holy Spirit cannot be divided against itself.

Several times you invoke and denigrate the Pope as if the Pope matters more to me than the Word of God, and as if my being a Catholic renders me unable to engage in an honest discussion. Despite what you might think or assume, what matters most to me is that people do not abuse the Word of God and miss important theological truths about the Christian faith.

Earlier in this thread you posted "just a sampling" of what the ancient church held about Revelation 11:19-12:1 as if the passage is the only support we have for Mary as the Ark. Later, you dismiss the typological arguments clearly displayed in Luke's gospel as weak. So I thought I would provide some "historical sourcing of quotes" from ancient Christians on Mary being the Ark.

and for what it is worth, there are many more...we are not just making this stuff up on a whim.

Quote:

---

St. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236)
"At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested....And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body" (S. Hippolytus, In Dan.vi., Patr. Gr., Tom. 10, p. 648) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)
"The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification. Arise, O Lord, from the Father's bosom, to raise up again the ruined race of our first parent" (Orat. in Deip. Annunciat. Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaumaturg) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).

Another translation renders this: "Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary." For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.[url=https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/#_ftn1][1][/url]

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)
"The tenor of his message was as follows. I am moved by My compassion to descend to earth in order to recover the lost Adam. Sin made him to decay who was made to My image, and hath corrupted the work of My hands, and obscured the beauty which I formed....Go therefore to the Virgin Mary. Pass thou on to the animate city whereof the prophet spake these words: Glorious things are said of thee, O city of God. Go, then, to My rational paradise, to the Gate of the East, to the place of sojourn that is worthy of My Word, that hath appeared as a heaven upon earth ; go to the light cloud, and announce to it the shower of My coming ; go to the sanctuary prepared for Me, to the hall of the Incarnation, to the pure chamber of My generation according to the flesh. Speak in the ears of My rational ark, so as to prepare for Me the accesses of hearing. But disturb not nor vex the soul of Mary. Manifest thyself in such wise as becomes that sanctuary, and salute her first with the voice of gladness" (Homilies, il, ii., iii. On the Annunciation, Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaum., 5th century) (Blessed Virgin, p. 123).


St. Dionysius (died 264)
"As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God's Virgin Mother" (S. Dionysius of Alexandria, Respons. ad Quoest. v. Pauli Samos) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

St Dionysius (died 264)
"Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God" (Ib. ad Quoest. vii. In calling Mary , the Saint implies that she was of an election and origin altogether singular and exceptional. The word occurs three times in the New Testament (Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1, Col. Ii. 11), and in each case denotes what is of singular and divine origin. See also Heb. ix. 11, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

Hesychius (lived c. 300)
"The ark is without doubt the Virgin Mother of God. For if Thou art the gem, with reason is she the ark; and because Thou art the sun, the Virgin will necessarily be called heaven: since Thou art the unfading flower, the Virgin must assuredly be the plant of incorruption and paradise of immortality. Which things Isaias, seeing from afar, exclaimed later on: Behold a Virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel. Behold a Virgin. Who is she? The most noble of women, the elect from among virgins, the splendid ornament of our nature, the glory of our mould, who freed Eve from her shame and Adam from the curse, who cut off the bold insolence of the dragon, she whom the smoke of concupiscence touched not, nor the worm of pleasure harmed" (Is.vii. 14). (Hesychius, Orat. De Virginis laudib. Biblioth. PP. Grco-Lat. Tom. ii. p. 423) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).

St. Athanasius (c. 296-373)
"Be mindful of us, most holy virgin, who after childbirth didst remain virgin; and grant to us for these small words great gifts from the riches of they graces, O thou full of grace. Accept them as though they were true and adequate praises in they honor; and if there is in them any virtue and any praise, we offer them as a hymn from ourselves and from all creatures to thee, full of grace, Lady, Queen, Mistress, Mother of God, and Ark of sanctification" (Orat. In Deip. Annuntiat, nn. 13, 14. Int. Opp. S. Athanasii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 80).

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373; the main defender of the Trinity and the deity of Christ against the 2nd century Arian heretics.)
"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides." Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib [i.e., Mary], a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon. For in that ark [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror. There was then a mystery revealed, in that Dagon was brought low in his own place of refuge. The accomplishment came after the type, in that the wicked one was brought low wherein he trusted....Fulfilled was the mystery. Blessed is He who by the true Lamb redeemed us, and destroyed our destroyer as He did Dagon" (S. Ephrem, Rhythm iii, On the Nativity, Morris, p.20) ((Blessed Virgin, p. 66).

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"O Virgin Mother of God, Gate of heaven, and Ark, in thee I have a secure salvation. Save me out of the pure mercy (, gratis), O Lady" (Precat. ix. Opp. Gr. et Lat. Tom. iii. P. 522) (Blessed Virgin, p. 294).


St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"Concentration of the hierarchies, crown of all saints and virgins, approached for thy exceeding brightness and splendor, censer of God, lamp most bright, urn must beautiful containing the heavenly manna; table bearing the written law for men, true ark, book of writing most divine, princess, of all most prudent and wise, light-giving Virgin, most holy consoler and directress of all, most sacred Maid. . . (Is. Xxv. 9, vii. 16) (Blessed Virgin, p. 297)


St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"Hail, most tranquil haven, and most ardently longed for rescuer of the tempest-tossed from billows and storms. Hail, succor of those in danger. Hail, resurrection of our first father Adam. Hail, sweet liberty. Hail, parent of all. Hail, fountain of grace, and of all the solace. Hail, refuge and hospice of sinners. Hail, mercy-seat of the afflicted. Hail, place of sanctuary in Jerusalem. Hail, most glorious throne of our Creator. Hail, most illustrious splendor of the age. Hail, hope of all the good who suffer under affliction. Hail, sweet solace and protection of the converted. Hail, of men and women alike Queen and Patroness. Hail, best mediatress between God and man. (Threni B. V. M. Opp. Gr. et Lat. Tom. iii. p.575 sq) (Blessed Virgin, p. 298)

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"The woman ministered before the man, because he is her head. Joseph rose to minister before His Lord, who was in Mary. The priest ministered before Thy Ark by reason of Thy holiness. Moses carried the tables of stone which the Lord wrote, and Joseph bare about the pure Tablet in whom the Son of the Creator was dwelling. The tables had ceased, because the world was filled with Thy doctrine" (Serm. xi., Natali Domini, Opp. Syr. Tom. ii. p. 429. Morris, pp. 51, 52.) (Blessed Virgin, p. 383).

St. Cyril (c. 315-387?)
"The Ark would be the type and image of Christ : for if we look back to the way of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, we shall see that it is in the temple of the Virgin, as in an ark that the Word of God took up His abode. For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as the Scripture saith. But the testimonies in the ark were the word of God, and the wood of it was imperishable, and with pure and choicest gold was it beautified within and without" (St. Cyril, De ador. In Spir. Et Verit, p. 293, St. Maximus of Turin and other Fathers apply the Ark of the Covenant to the Blessed Virgin Mary) (Blessed Virgin, p. 76).

St. Ambrose (c. 339-397)
"For this cause did the prophet David dance before the Ark. And what shall we say is the Ark, but holy Mary? For as the Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, so Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament: it preserved within it the Law, she the Gospel; it had the voice, she the word, of God. The Ark, moreover, was radiant within and without with the shining of gold, whilst holy Mary gleamed within and without with the splendor of virginity; it was adorned with earthly gold, she with heavenly" (Serm. xlii., Int. Opp. S. Ambros. Ed. Maurin,. vol. iv. p. 551) (Blessed Virgin, p. 201).

St. Jerome (c. 345-420)
"Behold one in truth, the handmaid of the Lord. Holy she is, in whom is no guile, all simplicity....The spouse of Christ is the ark of the covenant, within and without overlaid with gold, a keeper of the law of the Lord. As in the ark there was nothing but the tables of the Testament, so too in thee no one from outside should be thought of. Over this propitiatory, as though upon the Cherubim, the Lord is pleased to sit....The Apostle thus defines a virgin, that she should be holy in body and in spirit... (Epist. Xxii., Ad Eustoch. Nn. 18, 19, 21, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 216).

St. Theodotus of Ancyra (died c. 445)
"But what part had the divine Virgin Mother, worthy of all praise, in these things that were taking place? She wondered indeed and with reason at the things that were being said, and kept them, together with those said before, in her heart. To her now Simeon of set purpose speaks: O fair and innocent dove! O sacred tabernacle of our hope, wherein all sanctity and magnificence dwell, He to whom thou hast given birth-thou knowest it not is set for the ruin and resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed" (Hom. Iv. In Deip. Et Simeon. N. 13, Patr. Gr. Tom. 74, p. 1410) (Blessed Virgin, p. 161).


Chrysippus of Jerusalem (died c. 479)
"An ark truly royal, an ark most precious is the ever-Virgin Mother of God, an ark which received the treasure of entire sanctification. Not that ark wherein were all kinds of animals, as in the ark of Noe, which escaped the shipwreck of the whole drowning world. Not that ark in which were the tables of stone, as in the ark that journeyed in company with Israel throughout the desert; but an ark whose architect and inhabitant, pilot and merchant, companion of the way, and leader, was the Creator of all creatures, all which He bears in Himself, but by all is not contained" (Chrysippus, Orat. de laudib. Deip. (Blessed Virgin, p. 74).

St. Proclus (died 446 or 447)
"Let the woman haste hither, for the woman shows not the tree of death, but brings forth the tree of life: the virgins...the mothers also, for the Virgin Mother has amended the tree of disobedience by the tree of life. The female sex is no longer in execration, for it has obtained whereby it shall surpass even the angels in glory. Eve has been healed...and Mary is venerated (adored), because she has become mother and handmaid, cloud and chamber, and ark of the Lord....For this cause let us say to her: Blessed art thou amongst women, who alone hast healed the grief of Eve; who alone hast borne the world's price" (Orat.iv.and v. In Natal. Dom. P.G. Tom. 65, p.710) (Blessed Virgin, p. 58).

https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/

---

Hah! I guess you beat me to the punch on this one, Thad.

Faithful Ag said:

---

You say that your entire premise is that interpretations need to be challenged against the Word of God.

However, the issue I have with your premise is that what you mean by saying this is that interpretations/traditions need to be challenged against your interpretation of the Word of God.

Something you said earlier in the thread is 100% spot on...with a huge qualifier:

AgLiving06 said:

---

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 any traditions need 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.

---

The qualifier is the "Word of God" must be rightly understood.

Yes, the Word of God is perfect as written by the inspired writers. This does not mean that the reader of the perfect Word will interpret or understand the meaning of the written Word correctly. So when two people disagree on the meaning or application of the perfectly written Word of God, what then? Complicating the issue further is that we are not even reading and interpreting the text as originally written. The language is different, the text has been translated and influenced by the uninspired translators, chapter breaks, verses, and headings have been added to the text which can influence interpretations, etc.

You attempt to get around all of this by deflecting the issue to the Holy Spirit, but this does not address the fundamental issue. God is truth. The Holy Spirit cannot guide one person/group into one truth and a different person/group into a different truth. There is only one truth, and the Holy Spirit cannot be divided against itself.

Several times you invoke and denigrate the Pope as if the Pope matters more to me than the Word of God, and as if my being a Catholic renders me unable to engage in an honest discussion. Despite what you might think or assume, what matters most to me is that people do not abuse the Word of God and miss important theological truths about the Christian faith.

Earlier in this thread you posted "just a sampling" of what the ancient church held about Revelation 11:19-12:1 as if the passage is the only support we have for Mary as the Ark. Later, you dismiss the typological arguments clearly displayed in Luke's gospel as weak. So I thought I would provide some "historical sourcing of quotes" from ancient Christians on Mary being the Ark.

and for what it is worth, there are many more...we are not just making this stuff up on a whim.

Quote:

---

St. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236)
"At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested....And the Savior came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own body" (S. Hippolytus, In Dan.vi., Patr. Gr., Tom. 10, p. 648) (Blessed Virgin, p. 77).

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)
"The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification. Arise, O Lord, from the Father's bosom, to raise up again the ruined race of our first parent" (Orat. in Deip. Annunciat. Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaumaturg) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).

Another translation renders this: "Let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the Ark of Thy sanctuary." For the holy Virgin is in truth an Ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary.[url=https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/#_ftn1][1][/url]

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)
"The tenor of his message was as follows. I am moved by My compassion to descend to earth in order to recover the lost Adam. Sin made him to decay who was made to My image, and hath corrupted the work of My hands, and obscured the beauty which I formed....Go therefore to the Virgin Mary. Pass thou on to the animate city whereof the prophet spake these words: Glorious things are said of thee, O city of God. Go, then, to My rational paradise, to the Gate of the East, to the place of sojourn that is worthy of My Word, that hath appeared as a heaven upon earth ; go to the light cloud, and announce to it the shower of My coming ; go to the sanctuary prepared for Me, to the hall of the Incarnation, to the pure chamber of My generation according to the flesh. Speak in the ears of My rational ark, so as to prepare for Me the accesses of hearing. But disturb not nor vex the soul of Mary. Manifest thyself in such wise as becomes that sanctuary, and salute her first with the voice of gladness" (Homilies, il, ii., iii. On the Annunciation, Int. Opp. S. Greg. Thaum., 5th century) (Blessed Virgin, p. 123).


St. Dionysius (died 264)
"As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God's Virgin Mother" (S. Dionysius of Alexandria, Respons. ad Quoest. v. Pauli Samos) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

St Dionysius (died 264)
"Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God" (Ib. ad Quoest. vii. In calling Mary , the Saint implies that she was of an election and origin altogether singular and exceptional. The word occurs three times in the New Testament (Mark xiv. 58, 2 Cor. v. 1, Col. Ii. 11), and in each case denotes what is of singular and divine origin. See also Heb. ix. 11, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 81).

Hesychius (lived c. 300)
"The ark is without doubt the Virgin Mother of God. For if Thou art the gem, with reason is she the ark; and because Thou art the sun, the Virgin will necessarily be called heaven: since Thou art the unfading flower, the Virgin must assuredly be the plant of incorruption and paradise of immortality. Which things Isaias, seeing from afar, exclaimed later on: Behold a Virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel. Behold a Virgin. Who is she? The most noble of women, the elect from among virgins, the splendid ornament of our nature, the glory of our mould, who freed Eve from her shame and Adam from the curse, who cut off the bold insolence of the dragon, she whom the smoke of concupiscence touched not, nor the worm of pleasure harmed" (Is.vii. 14). (Hesychius, Orat. De Virginis laudib. Biblioth. PP. Grco-Lat. Tom. ii. p. 423) (Blessed Virgin, p. 89).

St. Athanasius (c. 296-373)
"Be mindful of us, most holy virgin, who after childbirth didst remain virgin; and grant to us for these small words great gifts from the riches of they graces, O thou full of grace. Accept them as though they were true and adequate praises in they honor; and if there is in them any virtue and any praise, we offer them as a hymn from ourselves and from all creatures to thee, full of grace, Lady, Queen, Mistress, Mother of God, and Ark of sanctification" (Orat. In Deip. Annuntiat, nn. 13, 14. Int. Opp. S. Athanasii) (Blessed Virgin, p. 80).

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373; the main defender of the Trinity and the deity of Christ against the 2nd century Arian heretics.)
"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides." Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"With the rib that was drawn out of Adam, the wicked one drew out the heart of Adam. There arose from the rib [i.e., Mary], a hidden power which cut off Satan as Dagon. For in that ark [Mary again], a book was hidden that cried and proclaimed the Conqueror. There was then a mystery revealed, in that Dagon was brought low in his own place of refuge. The accomplishment came after the type, in that the wicked one was brought low wherein he trusted....Fulfilled was the mystery. Blessed is He who by the true Lamb redeemed us, and destroyed our destroyer as He did Dagon" (S. Ephrem, Rhythm iii, On the Nativity, Morris, p.20) ((Blessed Virgin, p. 66).

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"O Virgin Mother of God, Gate of heaven, and Ark, in thee I have a secure salvation. Save me out of the pure mercy (, gratis), O Lady" (Precat. ix. Opp. Gr. et Lat. Tom. iii. P. 522) (Blessed Virgin, p. 294).


St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"Concentration of the hierarchies, crown of all saints and virgins, approached for thy exceeding brightness and splendor, censer of God, lamp most bright, urn must beautiful containing the heavenly manna; table bearing the written law for men, true ark, book of writing most divine, princess, of all most prudent and wise, light-giving Virgin, most holy consoler and directress of all, most sacred Maid. . . (Is. Xxv. 9, vii. 16) (Blessed Virgin, p. 297)


St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"Hail, most tranquil haven, and most ardently longed for rescuer of the tempest-tossed from billows and storms. Hail, succor of those in danger. Hail, resurrection of our first father Adam. Hail, sweet liberty. Hail, parent of all. Hail, fountain of grace, and of all the solace. Hail, refuge and hospice of sinners. Hail, mercy-seat of the afflicted. Hail, place of sanctuary in Jerusalem. Hail, most glorious throne of our Creator. Hail, most illustrious splendor of the age. Hail, hope of all the good who suffer under affliction. Hail, sweet solace and protection of the converted. Hail, of men and women alike Queen and Patroness. Hail, best mediatress between God and man. (Threni B. V. M. Opp. Gr. et Lat. Tom. iii. p.575 sq) (Blessed Virgin, p. 298)

St. Ephrem (c. 306-373)
"The woman ministered before the man, because he is her head. Joseph rose to minister before His Lord, who was in Mary. The priest ministered before Thy Ark by reason of Thy holiness. Moses carried the tables of stone which the Lord wrote, and Joseph bare about the pure Tablet in whom the Son of the Creator was dwelling. The tables had ceased, because the world was filled with Thy doctrine" (Serm. xi., Natali Domini, Opp. Syr. Tom. ii. p. 429. Morris, pp. 51, 52.) (Blessed Virgin, p. 383).

St. Cyril (c. 315-387?)
"The Ark would be the type and image of Christ : for if we look back to the way of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, we shall see that it is in the temple of the Virgin, as in an ark that the Word of God took up His abode. For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as the Scripture saith. But the testimonies in the ark were the word of God, and the wood of it was imperishable, and with pure and choicest gold was it beautified within and without" (St. Cyril, De ador. In Spir. Et Verit, p. 293, St. Maximus of Turin and other Fathers apply the Ark of the Covenant to the Blessed Virgin Mary) (Blessed Virgin, p. 76).

St. Ambrose (c. 339-397)
"For this cause did the prophet David dance before the Ark. And what shall we say is the Ark, but holy Mary? For as the Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, so Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament: it preserved within it the Law, she the Gospel; it had the voice, she the word, of God. The Ark, moreover, was radiant within and without with the shining of gold, whilst holy Mary gleamed within and without with the splendor of virginity; it was adorned with earthly gold, she with heavenly" (Serm. xlii., Int. Opp. S. Ambros. Ed. Maurin,. vol. iv. p. 551) (Blessed Virgin, p. 201).

St. Jerome (c. 345-420)
"Behold one in truth, the handmaid of the Lord. Holy she is, in whom is no guile, all simplicity....The spouse of Christ is the ark of the covenant, within and without overlaid with gold, a keeper of the law of the Lord. As in the ark there was nothing but the tables of the Testament, so too in thee no one from outside should be thought of. Over this propitiatory, as though upon the Cherubim, the Lord is pleased to sit....The Apostle thus defines a virgin, that she should be holy in body and in spirit... (Epist. Xxii., Ad Eustoch. Nn. 18, 19, 21, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 216).

St. Theodotus of Ancyra (died c. 445)
"But what part had the divine Virgin Mother, worthy of all praise, in these things that were taking place? She wondered indeed and with reason at the things that were being said, and kept them, together with those said before, in her heart. To her now Simeon of set purpose speaks: O fair and innocent dove! O sacred tabernacle of our hope, wherein all sanctity and magnificence dwell, He to whom thou hast given birth-thou knowest it not is set for the ruin and resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed" (Hom. Iv. In Deip. Et Simeon. N. 13, Patr. Gr. Tom. 74, p. 1410) (Blessed Virgin, p. 161).


Chrysippus of Jerusalem (died c. 479)
"An ark truly royal, an ark most precious is the ever-Virgin Mother of God, an ark which received the treasure of entire sanctification. Not that ark wherein were all kinds of animals, as in the ark of Noe, which escaped the shipwreck of the whole drowning world. Not that ark in which were the tables of stone, as in the ark that journeyed in company with Israel throughout the desert; but an ark whose architect and inhabitant, pilot and merchant, companion of the way, and leader, was the Creator of all creatures, all which He bears in Himself, but by all is not contained" (Chrysippus, Orat. de laudib. Deip. (Blessed Virgin, p. 74).

St. Proclus (died 446 or 447)
"Let the woman haste hither, for the woman shows not the tree of death, but brings forth the tree of life: the virgins...the mothers also, for the Virgin Mother has amended the tree of disobedience by the tree of life. The female sex is no longer in execration, for it has obtained whereby it shall surpass even the angels in glory. Eve has been healed...and Mary is venerated (adored), because she has become mother and handmaid, cloud and chamber, and ark of the Lord....For this cause let us say to her: Blessed art thou amongst women, who alone hast healed the grief of Eve; who alone hast borne the world's price" (Orat.iv.and v. In Natal. Dom. P.G. Tom. 65, p.710) (Blessed Virgin, p. 58).

https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/

---

---

Nicely explained.

Quote:

---

You say that your entire premise is that interpretations need to be challenged against the Word of God.

However, the issue I have with your premise is that what you mean by saying this is that interpretations/traditions need to be challenged against your interpretation of the Word of God.

---

This is complete and utterly false. Nowhere did I say this, though it is rather ironic given you're trying to argue against misinterpretation and you do exactly that.

You'll notice one significant difference, and again using Thaddeus as an example, he typically can't be bothered ot even source the info he's "borrowing" and certainly can't look to the fathers, something Zobel also pointed out to you in the other thread. So there very well may be a theme of one group using their own interpretation as the standard, but it isn't me.

Quote:

---

The qualifier is the "Word of God" must be rightly understood.

Yes, the Word of God is perfect as written by the inspired writers. This does not mean that the reader of the perfect Word will interpret or understand the meaning of the written Word correctly. So when two people disagree on the meaning or application of the perfectly written Word of God, what then? Complicating the issue further is that we are not even reading and interpreting the text as originally written. The language is different, the text has been translated and influenced by the uninspired translators, chapter breaks, verses, and headings have been added to the text which can influence interpretations,

---

You claim that the Word of God must be rightly understood and then immediately run from that.

What is the Word of God? It's Jesus speaking, it's others speaking through the Holy Spirit, it's the Scriptures.

The entire rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with the Word of God, yet it seems to be a theme in how you've continued to misunderstand me. Three days ago I said this:

"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've taken 3 days to eventually make the same argument as if I'm in disagreement with you on it. Again, you seem so afraid to acknowledges we might agree on something, that it's curious why...

----------------
Finally, I'll briefly address your quotes.

First, I'm happy to see Thaddeus finally source something. That's a very positive change.

Second, I never made the claim that no father might have said Mary is the ark. In fact, I was clear, just one post ago, that there are many things people can hold to, that others don't.

Third, I'll reiterate what I said that no Ecumenical Council, nor Creed saw it as a necessity that we profess Mary is the ark. It's not something that was deemed necessary for salvation.

Fourth, I did some cursory checks of the quotes. Some I couldn't find at all, except to see random websites quoting them, but not on CCEL or New Advent. I may have missed them, as I was looking fast, but nothing popped up quickly.

Fifth, I did find the Jerome section. I call it section because, and this "should" have made you pause if you weren't so anxious to make a claim, you didn't really research any of it and just assumed it's good.

This is the quote to have it in front of us:
"St. Jerome (c. 345-420)
"Behold one in truth, the handmaid of the Lord. Holy she is, in whom is no guile, all simplicity....The spouse of Christ is the ark of the covenant, within and without overlaid with gold, a keeper of the law of the Lord. As in the ark there was nothing but the tables of the Testament, so too in thee no one from outside should be thought of. Over this propitiatory, as though upon the Cherubim, the Lord is pleased to sit....The Apostle thus defines a virgin, that she should be holy in body and in spirit... (Epist. Xxii., Ad Eustoch. Nn. 18, 19, 21, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 216)."


Notice it points to Nn. 18,19,21,24 for what amounts to 5 or so sentences (with massive ... in the middle).

These 5 sections equate to roughly 5 pages on CCEL.org. So either this guy is the master of condensing that many pages into a coherent thought, or he was being very liberal with it. As you'll see, it's the latter.

A read of these sections, make it clear that Jerome is not making a claim about Mary being the ark. The letter is talking about the virtues of virginity to Eustochium. Jerome also talks of his virginity and so forth. Mary (moth of Jesus) is only tangentially mentioned.

The best I could come up with is this website is pulling from section 24 and while a Mary is mentioned in this section, it's not the Mother of Jesus, but instead Mary Magdalene with Jerome noting the story of Mary and Martha.

Then there's the obvious question of who is the spouse of Christ...Ephesian 5. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24).


So while I don't intend to go through the quotes, it does appear that there are errors on this particular website.

But even then, if the standard you want to use is that "some fathers said some thing" and therefore it's doctrine, things get a lot more interesting really quick because we can find the fathers saying something that is not considered orthodox doctrine in nearly every instance.

Edit:

This supposed quote from Athanasius also appears to be a false attribution to him:

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373; the main defender of the Trinity and the deity of Christ against the 2nd century Arian heretics.)
"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides." Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

The Homily of Papyrus of Turin doubtful at best as something Athanasius actually wrote.

So 0-2 so far on actual support for the claim...

While that "could" be true...gonna need a source.

CCEL and New Advent show nothing.

In fact, looking at CCEL, it says the following:

Quote:

---

His [Chrysostom] extravagant laudations of saints and martyrs promoted that refined form of idolatry which in the Nicene age began to take the place of the heathen hero-worship. But it is all the more remarkable that he furnishes no support to Mariolatry, which soon after his death triumphed in the Greek as well as the Latin church. He was far from the idea of the sinless perfection and immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. He attributes her conduct at the wedding of Cana (John ii. 3, 4) to undue haste, a sort of unholy ambition for the premature display of the miraculous power of her Son; and in commenting on Matthew xii. 4649, he charges her and his brethren with vanity and a carnal mind.33 He does not use the term theotokos, which twenty years after his death gave rise to the Nestorian controversy, and which was endorsed by the third and fourth cumenical councils.

---

https://catholicsstrivingforholiness.org/st-john-chrysostoms-beautiful-sermon-on-adam-and-christ-eve-and-mary/

Thaddeus73 said:

---

https://catholicsstrivingforholiness.org/st-john-chrysostoms-beautiful-sermon-on-adam-and-christ-eve-and-mary/

---

Linking to a random unsourced pro-catholic site does nothing to further your cause.

Googling the supposed homily brings us right back to this site.

Again, if this is something we should trust, where is it on CCEL.org or New Advent? Both trusted sites largely based on Roman Catholic translation....

Should be easy to link to a credible site, not some random site with an article from 5 years ago.

https://missiomagazine.com/christ-mary-revealed-genesis-315/

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say that your entire premise is that interpretations need to be challenged against the Word of God.

However, the issue I have with your premise is that what you mean by saying this is that interpretations/traditions need to be challenged against your interpretation of the Word of God.

---

This is complete and utterly false. Nowhere did I say this, though it is rather ironic given you're trying to argue against misinterpretation and you do exactly that.

You'll notice one significant difference, and again using Thaddeus as an example, he typically can't be bothered ot even source the info he's "borrowing" and certainly can't look to the fathers, something Zobel also pointed out to you in the other thread. So there very well may be a theme of one group using their own interpretation as the standard, but it isn't me.

Quote:

---

The qualifier is the "Word of God" must be rightly understood.

Yes, the Word of God is perfect as written by the inspired writers. This does not mean that the reader of the perfect Word will interpret or understand the meaning of the written Word correctly. So when two people disagree on the meaning or application of the perfectly written Word of God, what then? Complicating the issue further is that we are not even reading and interpreting the text as originally written. The language is different, the text has been translated and influenced by the uninspired translators, chapter breaks, verses, and headings have been added to the text which can influence interpretations,

---

You claim that the Word of God must be rightly understood and then immediately run from that.

What is the Word of God? It's Jesus speaking, it's others speaking through the Holy Spirit, it's the Scriptures.

The entire rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with the Word of God, yet it seems to be a theme in how you've continued to misunderstand me. Three days ago I said this:

"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've taken 3 days to eventually make the same argument as if I'm in disagreement with you on it. Again, you seem so afraid to acknowledges we might agree on something, that it's curious why...

----------------
Finally, I'll briefly address your quotes.

First, I'm happy to see Thaddeus finally source something. That's a very positive change.

Second, I never made the claim that no father might have said Mary is the ark. In fact, I was clear, just one post ago, that there are many things people can hold to, that others don't.

Third, I'll reiterate what I said that no Ecumenical Council, nor Creed saw it as a necessity that we profess Mary is the ark. It's not something that was deemed necessary for salvation.

Fourth, I did some cursory checks of the quotes. Some I couldn't find at all, except to see random websites quoting them, but not on CCEL or New Advent. I may have missed them, as I was looking fast, but nothing popped up quickly.

Fifth, I did find the Jerome section. I call it section because, and this "should" have made you pause if you weren't so anxious to make a claim, you didn't really research any of it and just assumed it's good.

This is the quote to have it in front of us:
"St. Jerome (c. 345-420)
"Behold one in truth, the handmaid of the Lord. Holy she is, in whom is no guile, all simplicity....The spouse of Christ is the ark of the covenant, within and without overlaid with gold, a keeper of the law of the Lord. As in the ark there was nothing but the tables of the Testament, so too in thee no one from outside should be thought of. Over this propitiatory, as though upon the Cherubim, the Lord is pleased to sit....The Apostle thus defines a virgin, that she should be holy in body and in spirit... (Epist. Xxii., Ad Eustoch. Nn. 18, 19, 21, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 216)."


Notice it points to Nn. 18,19,21,24 for what amounts to 5 or so sentences (with massive ... in the middle).

These 5 sections equate to roughly 5 pages on CCEL.org. So either this guy is the master of condensing that many pages into a coherent thought, or he was being very liberal with it. As you'll see, it's the latter.

A read of these sections, make it clear that Jerome is not making a claim about Mary being the ark. The letter is talking about the virtues of virginity to Eustochium. Jerome also talks of his virginity and so forth. Mary (moth of Jesus) is only tangentially mentioned.

The best I could come up with is this website is pulling from section 24 and while a Mary is mentioned in this section, it's not the Mother of Jesus, but instead Mary Magdalene with Jerome noting the story of Mary and Martha.

Then there's the obvious question of who is the spouse of Christ...Ephesian 5. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24).


So while I don't intend to go through the quotes, it does appear that there are errors on this particular website.

But even then, if the standard you want to use is that "some fathers said some thing" and therefore it's doctrine, things get a lot more interesting really quick because we can find the fathers saying something that is not considered orthodox doctrine in nearly every instance.

Edit:

This supposed quote from Athanasius also appears to be a false attribution to him:

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373; the main defender of the Trinity and the deity of Christ against the 2nd century Arian heretics.)
"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides." Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

The Homily of Papyrus of Turin doubtful at best as something Athanasius actually wrote.

So 0-2 so far on actual support for the claim...

---

Keep in mind, though, that many of the councils and creeds developed out of a need to address heresies. When there was complete agreement about the Christian beliefs, there was no need to have these. It is only when people starting trying to diverge from what Christ taught did they have to codify these things. There are number of things not including in the Nicene Creed that generally all Christians. The books of the new testament weren't finalized until after the first Nicene Council. And everyone was in agreement with canon of the bible until 1563 with the thirty-nine articles and then not formerly codified until Westminster.
There were many ante-Nicene church fathers (that knew the apostles) that wrote things that were accepted by the church. But in their writings the still included their opinions. For example, Tertullian was emphatic about one Apostolic Church and proving the succession of the apostles, but he also questioned whether it was better to baptist infants or unmarried people should they happen to fall into sin.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

https://missiomagazine.com/christ-mary-revealed-genesis-315/

---

Why is it so difficult to provide a direct source? Even this links off to another item.

It should not be so difficult to actually point to a writing of Chrysostom. There are tons of them.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say that your entire premise is that interpretations need to be challenged against the Word of God.

However, the issue I have with your premise is that what you mean by saying this is that interpretations/traditions need to be challenged against your interpretation of the Word of God.

---

This is complete and utterly false. Nowhere did I say this, though it is rather ironic given you're trying to argue against misinterpretation and you do exactly that.

You'll notice one significant difference, and again using Thaddeus as an example, he typically can't be bothered ot even source the info he's "borrowing" and certainly can't look to the fathers, something Zobel also pointed out to you in the other thread. So there very well may be a theme of one group using their own interpretation as the standard, but it isn't me.

Quote:

---

The qualifier is the "Word of God" must be rightly understood.

Yes, the Word of God is perfect as written by the inspired writers. This does not mean that the reader of the perfect Word will interpret or understand the meaning of the written Word correctly. So when two people disagree on the meaning or application of the perfectly written Word of God, what then? Complicating the issue further is that we are not even reading and interpreting the text as originally written. The language is different, the text has been translated and influenced by the uninspired translators, chapter breaks, verses, and headings have been added to the text which can influence interpretations,

---

You claim that the Word of God must be rightly understood and then immediately run from that.

What is the Word of God? It's Jesus speaking, it's others speaking through the Holy Spirit, it's the Scriptures.

The entire rest of your paragraph has nothing to do with the Word of God, yet it seems to be a theme in how you've continued to misunderstand me. Three days ago I said this:

"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've taken 3 days to eventually make the same argument as if I'm in disagreement with you on it. Again, you seem so afraid to acknowledges we might agree on something, that it's curious why...

----------------
Finally, I'll briefly address your quotes.

First, I'm happy to see Thaddeus finally source something. That's a very positive change.

Second, I never made the claim that no father might have said Mary is the ark. In fact, I was clear, just one post ago, that there are many things people can hold to, that others don't.

Third, I'll reiterate what I said that no Ecumenical Council, nor Creed saw it as a necessity that we profess Mary is the ark. It's not something that was deemed necessary for salvation.

Fourth, I did some cursory checks of the quotes. Some I couldn't find at all, except to see random websites quoting them, but not on CCEL or New Advent. I may have missed them, as I was looking fast, but nothing popped up quickly.

Fifth, I did find the Jerome section. I call it section because, and this "should" have made you pause if you weren't so anxious to make a claim, you didn't really research any of it and just assumed it's good.

This is the quote to have it in front of us:
"St. Jerome (c. 345-420)
"Behold one in truth, the handmaid of the Lord. Holy she is, in whom is no guile, all simplicity....The spouse of Christ is the ark of the covenant, within and without overlaid with gold, a keeper of the law of the Lord. As in the ark there was nothing but the tables of the Testament, so too in thee no one from outside should be thought of. Over this propitiatory, as though upon the Cherubim, the Lord is pleased to sit....The Apostle thus defines a virgin, that she should be holy in body and in spirit... (Epist. Xxii., Ad Eustoch. Nn. 18, 19, 21, 24) (Blessed Virgin, p. 216)."


Notice it points to Nn. 18,19,21,24 for what amounts to 5 or so sentences (with massive ... in the middle).

These 5 sections equate to roughly 5 pages on CCEL.org. So either this guy is the master of condensing that many pages into a coherent thought, or he was being very liberal with it. As you'll see, it's the latter.

A read of these sections, make it clear that Jerome is not making a claim about Mary being the ark. The letter is talking about the virtues of virginity to Eustochium. Jerome also talks of his virginity and so forth. Mary (moth of Jesus) is only tangentially mentioned.

The best I could come up with is this website is pulling from section 24 and while a Mary is mentioned in this section, it's not the Mother of Jesus, but instead Mary Magdalene with Jerome noting the story of Mary and Martha.

Then there's the obvious question of who is the spouse of Christ...Ephesian 5. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24).


So while I don't intend to go through the quotes, it does appear that there are errors on this particular website.

But even then, if the standard you want to use is that "some fathers said some thing" and therefore it's doctrine, things get a lot more interesting really quick because we can find the fathers saying something that is not considered orthodox doctrine in nearly every instance.

Edit:

This supposed quote from Athanasius also appears to be a false attribution to him:

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373; the main defender of the Trinity and the deity of Christ against the 2nd century Arian heretics.)
"O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides." Homily of the Papyrus of Turin.

The Homily of Papyrus of Turin doubtful at best as something Athanasius actually wrote.

So 0-2 so far on actual support for the claim...

---

Keep in mind, though, that many of the councils and creeds developed out of a need to address heresies. When there was complete agreement about the Christian beliefs, there was no need to have these. It is only when people starting trying to diverge from what Christ taught did they have to codify these things. There are number of things not including in the Nicene Creed that generally all Christians. The books of the new testament weren't finalized until after the first Nicene Council. And everyone was in agreement with canon of the bible until 1563 with the thirty-nine articles and then not formerly codified until Westminster.
There were many ante-Nicene church fathers (that knew the apostles) that wrote things that were accepted by the church. But in their writings the still included their opinions. For example, Tertullian was emphatic about one Apostolic Church and proving the succession of the apostles, but he also questioned whether it was better to baptist infants or unmarried people should they happen to fall into sin.

---

Functionally, yes Creeds and Councils were called to address issues, and there was in fact a perfect opportunity with the debates between calling Mary the Theotokos and Christotokos. Yet this was not addressed.
------------------------
Your comments on the Scriptures are inaccurate though. Even at the time of of the Reformation, Rome did not have an official canon. Only Trent would create that innovation.

As an example, Cardinal Cajetan, who was an opponent of Luther, wrote the following in his "Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament"

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

You have to separate the 39 articles from the Westminster Confession.

The 39 articles are historically correct, to what Jerome and Cardinal Cajetan said:
"And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: The Third Book of Esdras The Fourth Book of Esdras The Book of Tobias The Book of Judith The rest of the Book of Esther The Book of Wisdom Jesus the Son of Sirach Baruch the Prophet The Song of the Three Children The Story of Susanna Of Bel and the Dragon The Prayer of Manasses The First Book of Maccabees The Second Book of Maccabees"

The Westminster Confession certainly takes a harder tack, that I think is unwarranted.
"The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings"

I don't think this is historically accurate, but it was clearly a reaction to Rome. I think they would do good to take the more middle of the road line of the 39 articles.

-----------------
To your last paragraph, yes and amen. Many Church fathers wrote many things. That some fathers might have made connections to Mary and the ark does not mean the church catholic made that connection. Especially when you're stretching typological arguments. There are opinions made that I'd agree with and you wouldn't. There are opinions that you'd agree with that I wouldn't.

you are wrong...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries: "Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is 'the dwelling of God . . . with men'" (CCC 2676).

The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant

Thaddeus73 said:

---

you are wrong...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries: "Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is 'the dwelling of God . . . with men'" (CCC 2676).

The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant

---

At least we've now come full circle and you're now directly linking to Steve Ray, who you were borrowing from before.

First, no I'm not wrong. That the catechism claiming something doesn't make Rome right.

However, it is good that you drop the pretense of trying to point to historical sources and simply claim that Rome is right because Rome says it's right. We can avoid all the other back and forth.

I'm still willing to concede the Chrysostom quote if there's an actual quotation that can be traced back to his writings. CCEL.org for example, even shows spurious writings, so if this quote was somewhere, I'd have expected it to be there...It's curious it isn't.

-----------------
But to Steve Ray's article, It's really bad.

First, as previously noted, His references to Athanasius is likely not a real quote. Scholarship seems to assume it's not.

Second, and somehow it gets even better, He quotes "Gregory the Wonder Worker" as another ancient father in support. Fortunately CCEL.org did have this particular quote with this footnote at the start:

"[This very homily has been cited to prove the antiquity of the festival of the Annunciation, observed, in the West, March 25. But even Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work. The feast of the Nativity was introduced into the East by Chrysostom after the records at Rome had been inspected, and the time of the taxing at Bethlehem had been found. See his Sermon (a.d. 386), beautifully translated by Dr. Jarvis in his Introduction, etc., p. 541. Compare Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 164, and Justin, vol. i. p. 174, this series. Now, as the selection of the 25th of March is clearly based on this, we may say no more of that day. Possibly some Sunday was associated with the Annunciation. The four Sundays preceding Christmas are all observed by the Nestorians in commemoration of the Annunciation.]

So to summarize, Steve Ray knowingly cited two quotations from fathers that are both deemed spurious. Great scholarship from him!

Third, he tries to make the case that because the Scripture uses examples, in this case typological arguments, everybody else is apparently free to use them at all. On the surface, this is silly and actually shows the weakness of the argument. The Scriptures can make these arguments because they are the Word of God. God wanted us to know these connections and so He gives them to us explicitly. The only time we should rely on an implicity typological argument is when we have explicit Scriptures that lead us to that conclusion. Steve doesn't bother with this and wants to pick and choose typological arguments that support what he wants to believe.

This article is just really bad scholarship, and if you had spent anytime checking the sources instead of just running with it, you'd have seen the challenges with it.

Not sure anything you said makes any sense whatsoever, in the light of 2000 years of Church history/Scripture/Tradition/Magesterial teachings.

But, if your personal opinion makes you feel superior to the apostolic fathers and the martyrs, by all means, keep it up...

Picked up a really interesting book on Our Lady of Guadalupe by Joseph Julian Gonzalez and Monique Gonzalez, "Guadalupe and the Flower World Prophecy"

Based on ancient Aztec songs and poetry, the book proposes that God had prepared the way for the apparition of our Lady to St. Juan Diego- not unlike the old testament prophecies for the Jews. The roughly 10 million baptisms performed during the 1500's for indigenous people of the Americas is a testament to heart of a people ready for the truth.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Not sure anything you said makes any sense whatsoever, in the light of 2000 years of Church history/Scripture/Tradition/Magesterial teachings.

But, if your personal opinion makes you feel superior to the apostolic fathers and the martyrs, by all means, keep it up...

---

Except so far you've failed to prove anything other than Rome says it so it must be true.

Steve Ray's quotations of the fathers are both spurious.

Steve Ray's claim that because Scripture uses typological arguments means we can also infallible do so is just wrong.

You've failed on History. You've failed on Scripture. You honestly probably fail on tradition .

So you're left saying "Rome says it's true, so it must be true."

You're a true believer, I get that. So you'll believe anything thrown your way as true...but it doesn't help in any real discussion when none of it holds up to any scrutiny.

I want to expand on my last point on the problem you cause for youself, but also for your representation and defense of Rome. When you hold a belief that cannot be challenged or falsified, you're now entering into the realm of irrationality.
-------------------------
Let's say I'm interested in Rome.

You excitedly send me this: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/

I look at it and I'm impressed. So many wonderful quotes to support your claims. So I start digging to confirm (as any good researcher should), and go to CCEL.org or Newadvent.org, both of which can be cited in scholarly works. Suddenly I run into a problem. Many of the quotes aren't there. Some are there, but maybe there's a note that they are spurious works. Others are just misuses of the quotes all together.
----------------------

Undeterred, I point out the challenges and you sent me another link, this time by a "Catholic Apologist" who certainly can parse through the spurious sources: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant.

I again look up the links, and again find that even Roman Catholic sources acknowledge they are likely spurious or doubtful sources.

That's ok, this source has Scripture. But there's a problem. The Scripture is being misused and the author is claiming that because God made a type of argument (typological), we therefore can read Scripture and if we don't want to use the primary context, we too can create a secondary meaning of the text and make it the primary (the very nature of typological arguments). This is less ok. If we are changing the meaning of Scripture to support our position, how far do we take this? Where's the limiting principle.
-----------------------
Lets say I even take it one step further. Both articles rely on this book: The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries written by Thomas Livius. It's an old book and fortunately a link to a free book: https://archive.org/details/TheBlessedVirginInThe/page/n25/mode/2up

So I start reading it, and I come to this statement on page XIX:

"Another difficulty in the works of the early Fathers is that many of them are held to be spurious and unauthentic, whilst the genuineness of others is disputed. I leave the discussion in all cases to the judgment of learned critics. My general rule has been to make my quotations from writings the authenticity of which is commonly acknowledged. Sometimes, however, I have cited works of doubtful genuineness, or which, at any rate, were not written as we now have them by the Fathers to whom they are attributed, but whose date, as assigned to them by critics, falls within the first six centuries, to which period I confine myself. When I quote from a doubtful or unauthentic work, or depart exceptionally from this general rule, I note the fact."

Now I'm real concerned. If I can't find the quotes anywhere. The author notes that many are held to be spurious and unauthentic. Many of the quotes I did find also carry that label. Is it enough to now say, "the church fathers didn't say this, but probably somebody at that time said it?" Is that the standard we should use?

I'm concerned. Why does Steve Ray not warn us of this? Why is he claiming quotes as authentic, that likely aren't? Is it good scholarship to hide this fact from the audience?
--------------------------

To say I'm concerned is an understatement. In both links, the historical record doesn't hold up. The Scripture claims require a secondary meaning being added to the text by man, not God. There is a common theme though, that when you remove that, we are asked to based our belief in this topic on a Catechism saying it's true.

What I'm left with is that the historical church doesn't seem to support the position presented. The church fathers aren't quoted accurately. The Scriptures require a secondary meaning.

What I'm left with is that I should believe you because Rome says its true. Not because it is supported, but simply on the word of Rome.
----------------------------

I know you'll dismiss this, but I truly hope you will see that when you're going to make claims that rest on dubious sources or claims, you truly hurt not just your credible, but as a witness for Rome.

AgLiving06 said:

---

I want to expand on my last point on the problem you cause for youself, but also for your representation and defense of Rome. When you hold a belief that cannot be challenged or falsified, you're now entering into the realm of irrationality.
-------------------------
Let's say I'm interested in Rome.

You excitedly send me this: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/

I look at it and I'm impressed. So many wonderful quotes to support your claims. So I start digging to confirm (as any good researcher should), and go to CCEL.org or Newadvent.org, both of which can be cited in scholarly works. Suddenly I run into a problem. Many of the quotes aren't there. Some are there, but maybe there's a note that they are spurious works. Others are just misuses of the quotes all together.
----------------------

Undeterred, I point out the challenges and you sent me another link, this time by a "Catholic Apologist" who certainly can parse through the spurious sources: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant.

I again look up the links, and again find that even Roman Catholic sources acknowledge they are likely spurious or doubtful sources.

That's ok, this source has Scripture. But there's a problem. The Scripture is being misused and the author is claiming that because God made a type of argument (typological), we therefore can read Scripture and if we don't want to use the primary context, we too can create a secondary meaning of the text and make it the primary (the very nature of typological arguments). This is less ok. If we are changing the meaning of Scripture to support our position, how far do we take this? Where's the limiting principle.
-----------------------
Lets say I even take it one step further. Both articles rely on this book: The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries written by Thomas Livius. It's an old book and fortunately a link to a free book: https://archive.org/details/TheBlessedVirginInThe/page/n25/mode/2up

So I start reading it, and I come to this statement on page XIX:

"Another difficulty in the works of the early Fathers is that many of them are held to be spurious and unauthentic, whilst the genuineness of others is disputed. I leave the discussion in all cases to the judgment of learned critics. My general rule has been to make my quotations from writings the authenticity of which is commonly acknowledged. Sometimes, however, I have cited works of doubtful genuineness, or which, at any rate, were not written as we now have them by the Fathers to whom they are attributed, but whose date, as assigned to them by critics, falls within the first six centuries, to which period I confine myself. When I quote from a doubtful or unauthentic work, or depart exceptionally from this general rule, I note the fact."

Now I'm real concerned. If I can't find the quotes anywhere. The author notes that many are held to be spurious and unauthentic. Many of the quotes I did find also carry that label. Is it enough to now say, "the church fathers didn't say this, but probably somebody at that time said it?" Is that the standard we should use?

I'm concerned. Why does Steve Ray not warn us of this? Why is he claiming quotes as authentic, that likely aren't? Is it good scholarship to hide this fact from the audience?
--------------------------

To say I'm concerned is an understatement. In both links, the historical record doesn't hold up. The Scripture claims require a secondary meaning being added to the text by man, not God. There is a common theme though, that when you remove that, we are asked to based our belief in this topic on a Catechism saying it's true.

What I'm left with is that the historical church doesn't seem to support the position presented. The church fathers aren't quoted accurately. The Scriptures require a secondary meaning.

What I'm left with is that I should believe you because Rome says its true. Not because it is supported, but simply on the word of Rome.
----------------------------

I know you'll dismiss this, but I truly hope you will see that when you're going to make claims that rest on dubious sources or claims, you truly hurt not just your credible, but as a witness for Rome.

---

Careful, your very first sentence is an argument that atheists make.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

When you hold a belief that cannot be challenged or falsified, you're now entering into the realm of irrationality.
* * *

---

Careful, your very first sentence is an argument that atheists make.

---

They do but should check in the mirror first. They have many fundamental beliefs that cannot be falsified. Examples include materialistic only explanations for everything, including the origins of everything, origins of the universe, origins of life, origin and increase of information in biological organisms, and so forth. They worship the God of materialism and scientism is their religion.

Ironically, they are wrong about Christians. Although many Christians do hold beliefs that may not be falsifiable, all of us do hold to one core belief. That belief is the historical reality of Jesus Christ: his existence, his divinity, his death, and, most importantly, his resurrection. And rather than being falsifiable, that event is the most documented and evidenced event in ancient history. I suspect that if the historical reality of Jesus Christ was ever indubitably falsified, all of the other beliefs that Christians hold would dissipate quickly.

So, in other words, Christians should not shy away from the non-falsifiable argument simply because atheists use it wrongly.

Quote:

---

that event is the most documented and evidenced event in ancient history

---

No it isn't.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

that event is the most documented and evidenced event in ancient history

---

No it isn't.

---

What is?

Jabin said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

When you hold a belief that cannot be challenged or falsified, you're now entering into the realm of irrationality.
* * *

---

Careful, your very first sentence is an argument that atheists make.

---

They do but should check in the mirror first. They have many fundamental beliefs that cannot be falsified. Examples include materialistic only explanations for everything, including the origins of everything, origins of the universe, origins of life, origin and increase of information in biological organisms, and so forth. They worship the God of materialism and scientism is their religion.

Ironically, they are wrong about Christians. Although many Christians do hold beliefs that may not be falsifiable, all of us do hold to one core belief. That belief is the historical reality of Jesus Christ: his existence, his divinity, his death, and, most importantly, his resurrection. And rather than being falsifiable, that event is the most documented and evidenced event in ancient history. I suspect that if the historical reality of Jesus Christ was ever indubitably falsified, all of the other beliefs that Christians hold would dissipate quickly.

So, in other words, Christians should not shy away from the non-falsifiable argument simply because atheists use it wrongly.

---

Might point is that as apologists, we need to be careful about calling someone out on their logic if that same logic is often used to refute the existence of God.
Absolutely that historicity of Christ is proven. His resurrection, for non believers it depends on your source of evidence. But for the existence of God, the argument I listed is used.

And as Christians, when arguing with each other, we have to be careful when arguing things like downplaying typology on one topic but not with others

BluHorseShu said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I want to expand on my last point on the problem you cause for youself, but also for your representation and defense of Rome. When you hold a belief that cannot be challenged or falsified, you're now entering into the realm of irrationality.
-------------------------
Let's say I'm interested in Rome.

You excitedly send me this: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/mary/church-fathers-on-mary-as-ark-of-the-new-covenant/

I look at it and I'm impressed. So many wonderful quotes to support your claims. So I start digging to confirm (as any good researcher should), and go to CCEL.org or Newadvent.org, both of which can be cited in scholarly works. Suddenly I run into a problem. Many of the quotes aren't there. Some are there, but maybe there's a note that they are spurious works. Others are just misuses of the quotes all together.
----------------------

Undeterred, I point out the challenges and you sent me another link, this time by a "Catholic Apologist" who certainly can parse through the spurious sources: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant.

I again look up the links, and again find that even Roman Catholic sources acknowledge they are likely spurious or doubtful sources.

That's ok, this source has Scripture. But there's a problem. The Scripture is being misused and the author is claiming that because God made a type of argument (typological), we therefore can read Scripture and if we don't want to use the primary context, we too can create a secondary meaning of the text and make it the primary (the very nature of typological arguments). This is less ok. If we are changing the meaning of Scripture to support our position, how far do we take this? Where's the limiting principle.
-----------------------
Lets say I even take it one step further. Both articles rely on this book: The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries written by Thomas Livius. It's an old book and fortunately a link to a free book: https://archive.org/details/TheBlessedVirginInThe/page/n25/mode/2up

So I start reading it, and I come to this statement on page XIX:

"Another difficulty in the works of the early Fathers is that many of them are held to be spurious and unauthentic, whilst the genuineness of others is disputed. I leave the discussion in all cases to the judgment of learned critics. My general rule has been to make my quotations from writings the authenticity of which is commonly acknowledged. Sometimes, however, I have cited works of doubtful genuineness, or which, at any rate, were not written as we now have them by the Fathers to whom they are attributed, but whose date, as assigned to them by critics, falls within the first six centuries, to which period I confine myself. When I quote from a doubtful or unauthentic work, or depart exceptionally from this general rule, I note the fact."

Now I'm real concerned. If I can't find the quotes anywhere. The author notes that many are held to be spurious and unauthentic. Many of the quotes I did find also carry that label. Is it enough to now say, "the church fathers didn't say this, but probably somebody at that time said it?" Is that the standard we should use?

I'm concerned. Why does Steve Ray not warn us of this? Why is he claiming quotes as authentic, that likely aren't? Is it good scholarship to hide this fact from the audience?
--------------------------

To say I'm concerned is an understatement. In both links, the historical record doesn't hold up. The Scripture claims require a secondary meaning being added to the text by man, not God. There is a common theme though, that when you remove that, we are asked to based our belief in this topic on a Catechism saying it's true.

What I'm left with is that the historical church doesn't seem to support the position presented. The church fathers aren't quoted accurately. The Scriptures require a secondary meaning.

What I'm left with is that I should believe you because Rome says its true. Not because it is supported, but simply on the word of Rome.
----------------------------

I know you'll dismiss this, but I truly hope you will see that when you're going to make claims that rest on dubious sources or claims, you truly hurt not just your credible, but as a witness for Rome.

---

Careful, your very first sentence is an argument that atheists make.

---

They might make that argument, but it's not a very good one. Christianity is built on one primary premise:

"12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Cor. 15:12-19).

Christianity offers a falsifiable claim. That Jesus died, and was resurrected. If there ever existed a body, then Christianity is false. This is noted immediately in the Gospels as the very point that could disprove it.

Obviously the counter is the apostles moved the body, but there are questions there. Would we expect these men to willingly die for a belief they absolutely knew was false?

Jabin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

that event is the most documented and evidenced event in ancient history

---

No it isn't.

---

What is?

---

There are any number of events in ancient history for which we have contemporary documentary and archeological evidence. The resurrection is not at all attested to archeologically and the documentary evidence is from decades after the fact and contradictory.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

that event is the most documented and evidenced event in ancient history

---

No it isn't.

---

What is?

---

There are any number of events in ancient history for which we have contemporary documentary and archeological evidence. The resurrection is not at all attested to archeologically and the documentary evidence is from decades after the fact and contradictory.

---

Again, what other event from ancient history is as well attested as Christ? You may be right, and would like to learn if you are.

Alleged contradictions don't have anything to do with the documentation, do they? That goes to the reliability of the documentation, not its existence.

And of course we wouldn't have archaeological evidence. Sheesh. (However, many credible scholars are convinced that the Shroud of Turin is Christ's burial shroud, and/or are unconvinced by the evidence that it's not. So that is, arguably, archaeological evidence.)

Besides documentary evidence, we also have the conduct of the Church and Christians themselves immediately after the Resurrection, which is contemporaneous evidence of Christ and his Resurrection.

Even if you can produce another event from ancient history that is equally or better documented, that takes nothing away from the point that Christianity's core belief is falsifiable (unlike atheists' core beliefs?).

Are you referring to the letter of Pliny the younger to the Emperor Trajan?

In addition, is there any evidence falsifying the claims of Christianity? Or are the arguments of atheists and skeptics limited to critiquing the evidence that does exist?