The Catholics and my conclusion

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nov 30, 2012
2,396
26
0
I rest my case.

You DO NOT WORSHIP MARY, BUT YOU DO BELIEVE THAT GOD WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAVE MANKIND WITHOUT MARY.

You DO NOT WORSHIP MARY, BUT YOU DO BELIEVE THAT JESUS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAVE MANKIND WITHOUT MARY.


I tell you this: EVEN your POPE WILL disown you. This is blasphemous.

I hope Admin will notice your post.
No, its simple. If it wasn't done God's way...then it wasn't done. Without Mary, the chosen of God, we have no evidence that God would have chosen another. Also, you seem to utterly ignore God's omniscience and omnipotence. If there was no human mother of Christ, then the prophecy would have been false, and God a liar. But there was a virgin, there was a human mother of Christ, thus the prophecy is fulfilled, and God is the source of Truth. It is in this that the phrase, "No Mary, No Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus" comes from. For if we acknowledge that Mary is the fulfillment of God's prophecy of through Eve's seed man shall be saved, and that Mary was the virgin, the Ark of the Covenant, then we know in total truth and absolute fact who Jesus is. Jesus is the promised Messiah. He is almighty God, Wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace. He is the Word of God.

Through Eve's seed would come the Messiah. Mary is the chosen woman through whom this prophecy speaks, thus Jesus is the Messiah.

A virgin would conceive almighty God. Mary is the chosen virgin who conceived, thus Jesus is God.

The Ark carried within it the Books of Moses, the Tablets of the Ten Commandments, and Aaron's Staff. Mary was the chosen vessel, thus Jesus is the Word of God, the Source of all Justice, and the High Priest.

No Mary, No Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus. Because if Mary is not who Scripture proclaims her to be, then Jesus is not who Scripture proclaims Him to be.
 
Jul 4, 2015
648
6
0
Teaching Mary was without sin is going against God and His Truth in the Scriptures. Teaching that Mary is our Mediator is going against God and His Truth in the Scriptures.

What you Catholics do not realize is that by teaching Mary was without sin and teaching that Mary is our Mediator will keep you from accepting Salvation from God.

Jesus was born without sin. Jesus never sinned because He is God.

The Catholics teach Mary was born without sin.

The Catholics have put Mary equal to God. To the Catholics Mary is equal to God.

Jesus is our Mediator between us and God.

The Catholics teach Mary is our Mediator between us and God.

The Catholics have made Mary equal to God.

Therefore by making Mary equal to God the Catholics have made Mary their God.

Its these two teaching that will keep the Catholics from receiving Salvation. Its these two teaching that will keep the Catholics from receiving the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Its these two teaching that will keep the Catholics from entering into Heaven.

As long as the Catholics keep believing and teaching these two Doctrines, we True Christians cannot call them our Brothers in Christ.

You cannot serve two Masters. You cannot serve Mary and God.

The Catholics have made their choice by serving Mary. They serve Mary every time they Pray the Hail Mary. They serve Mary every time they bow down to a statue, picture, or medal of Mary. Its Mary who is the god of the Catholics.
 
Jul 4, 2015
648
6
0
Pope John Paul II was quoted saying, "Man is Justified by Works and not by Faith alone". Los Angels Time, March 8, 1983.

Catholic Priests reject the view that our only hope for Heaven is through a personal Faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. They hold instead that "Heaven is a divine reward for those who earn it by their good life. Catholic Priests reject the Scriptures as the first place to turn to in deciding religious questions; rather they test their religious beliefs by what the Catholic Church says.

Catholic Priests reject the Biblical doctrine of Salvation. They reject the doctrine that divine authority resides only in the Bile. Instead they insist divine authority resides only in the Catholic Church.

Catholic Priests believe it is only the Catholic Church that is infallible, not the Bible, not God.

This is why no Catholic will ever listen to what we True Christians say.
 
Nov 30, 2012
2,396
26
0
Pope John Paul II was quoted saying, "Man is Justified by Works and not by Faith alone". Los Angels Time, March 8, 1983.
Umm...John Paul II was quoting Scripture. Literally word for word. Its James 2:24.
 

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,128
13,140
113
58
James 2:24 has to be the most misunderstood verse in the Bible. Works salvationists misinterpret it to mean that we are saved by works. In the first place, James is not using the word "justified" to mean "accounted as righteous" but is "shown to be righteous." James is discussing the proof of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3). Works bear out the justification that already came by faith. In James 2:14, we read of one who says-claims he has faith but has no works (to back up his claim). This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" He is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. So James does not teach that we are saved by works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Simple!

In James 2:21, notice closely that James does not say that Abraham's work of offering up Isaac resulted in God accounting Abraham as righteous. The accounting of Abraham's faith as righteousness was made in Genesis 15:6, many years before his work of offering up Isaac recorded in Genesis 22. The work of Abraham was essential, not because it had some kind of intrinsic merit to save him, but because it proved or manifested the genuineness of his faith. Romans 4:2 - "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God" 4 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." Paul and James do not contradict each other. They are just explaining saving faith from two different perspectives. The harmony of Romans 4:2-3 and James 2:21,24 is seen in the differing ways that Paul and James use the term "justified." Paul, when he uses the term, refers to the legal (judicial) act of God by which He accounts the sinner as righteous. James, however is using the term to describe those who would prove the genuineness of their faith by the works that they do.

In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaioo" #1344 is:

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

God is said to have been justified by those who were baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:29). This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God IS righteous. Notice that the NIV reads, "acknowledged that God's way was right.." The ESV reads, "they declared God just.." This is the sense in which God was justified, "shown to be righteous" not accounted as righteous.

Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified/vindicated/shown to be right by her deeds."

Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is vindicated, substantiated, evidenced by works (James 2:14-24). The word "alone" in regards to salvation through faith "in Christ alone" conveys the message that Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not on the merits of our works. It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not by the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24; 5:1); yet the faith that justifies is never alone (solitary, unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine (James 2:14-24). *Perfect Harmony.*
 
Nov 30, 2012
2,396
26
0
Whether or not its been misinterpreted, the comment was made as if the Pope had said something scandalizing, even though the very quote was from Scripture. So, the argument can be..."The Pope preached a works salvation based on James 2:24, the idiot doesn't understand scripture at all"...it can't be..."The Pope said "Man is Justified by Works and not by Faith alone" can you believe that?" Because it was literally Scripture.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Whether or not its been misinterpreted, the comment was made as if the Pope had said something scandalizing, even though the very quote was from Scripture. So, the argument can be..."The Pope preached a works salvation based on James 2:24, the idiot doesn't understand scripture at all"...it can't be..."The Pope said "Man is Justified by Works and not by Faith alone" can you believe that?" Because it was literally Scripture.
That statement apart from context that can be seen to mean just about anything. If we attach James 2:24 to the statement apart from it's context we have accomplished nothing. We start with scripture and build doctrine upon the scripture not start with doctrine and add scripture to it so that it appears to be supported.

James 2:24 cannot be interpreted or applied to contradict Ephesians 2:8-10. We are saved by grace and justified by grace.

There is a context where men are justified by their works but not in Gods context. Men re justified by their works before men. The only justification acceptable to God is the justification by grace through the blood of Christ and His sufferings on the cross of Calvary. We are justified through the works of Christ not our own works which are a filthy rags in the esteem of God.

There is nothing as odious as false piety in the nostrils of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
Umm...John Paul II was quoting Scripture. Literally word for word. Its James 2:24.
Transliteration but not accurate biblical exegesis.

Any honest scholar of the scriptures would perceive the attempt to deceive those who do not know the scriptures.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Sep 16, 2014
1,278
23
0
Genesis 15:6
[SUP]6 [/SUP] And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Romans 4:3
[SUP]3 [/SUP] For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

One thing we can count on is the Scriptures will never contradict each other. God does not contradict Himself.

Clearly in Genesis and Romans God says Abraham was Justified by Faith, not by works. James 2:24 is not talking about receiving Salvation BY works. We do works because we have received Salvation.

This is another example of people like Thomistcolin and epostle who have never accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior trying to deceive the Children of God with their false teachings.

Repent Thomistcolin, accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior before its too late and you end up in the Lake of Fire.
 

Patnubay

Senior Member
May 27, 2014
498
8
18
No, its simple. If it wasn't done God's way...then it wasn't done. Without Mary, the chosen of God, we have no evidence that God would have chosen another.
YES WE DO. You are forgetting the prophecies in the old testament. The Messiah will be born to a Virgin. Never it was mentioned to Mary. So, Yes, Redemption will happen even without Mary.


Also, you seem to utterly ignore God's omniscience and omnipotence.

Too much bashing you got, that you learned to do one,
Thomiscolin....


If there was no human mother of Christ, then the prophecy would have been false, and God a liar.

Nobody says otherwise. Where are you going with
this. Read to understand, not to respond, Thomiscolin. I've read your posts before. You are better than this.




But there was a virgin, there was a human mother of Christ, thus the prophecy is fulfilled, and God is the source of Truth. It is in this that the phrase, "No Mary, No Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus" comes from.

I am sure, the original is " Know Mary, Know Jesus" then somebody who did not understand anything MISTAKENLY WROTE " No Mary, No
Jesus " . And it is blasphemous.


For if we acknowledge that Mary is the fulfillment of God's prophecy of through Eve's seed man shall be saved, and that Mary was the virgin, the Ark of the Covenant, then we know in total truth and absolute fact who Jesus is.
I actually posted a thread on this here at CC, " how Holy is Mary's womb considering Jesus stayed there for 9 months." But I was referring to Mary as an instrument to God's promise of Salvation for men. MARY IS NOT THE FULFILLMENT OF God's promise. No offense, but this is semantics play. JESUS IS THE FULFILLMENT of God's promise of redemption. Mary was just used as an instrument.

Without disrespecting Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus, ( Not mother of God ), Judas was also an instrument to the redemption. If Judas' free will was exercised the right way, and he chose not to betray Jesus, it would have been another apostle who betrayed Jesus and the Story of Redemption would still be fulfilled.

Honestly, to portray Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is a disrespect to her. The original Ark was a lifeless box. She was a blessed human being selected by God to conceive His Child. The one who nursed and raised Jesus, the Messiah.
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
I rest my case.

You DO NOT WORSHIP MARY, BUT YOU DO BELIEVE THAT GOD WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAVE MANKIND WITHOUT MARY.

You DO NOT WORSHIP MARY, BUT YOU DO BELIEVE THAT JESUS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAVE MANKIND WITHOUT MARY.

I tell you this: EVEN your POPE WILL disown you. This is blasphemous.

I hope Admin will notice your post.
Oh, my apologies. God saved mankind without Mary, she wasn't His mother, God sent His Son into the world by space aliens. God had no need of Mary. :rolleyes:
Scripture doesn't explicitly state that Jesus loved his mother, based on the criteria of proof-texting.
Since Jesus didn't love his mother due to scriptural silence, and we all want to be like Jesus, we don't need to love his mother either. This is a Pharisaical absurdity.
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
YES WE DO. You are forgetting the prophecies in the old testament. The Messiah will be born to a Virgin. Never it was mentioned to Mary. So, Yes, Redemption will happen even without Mary.

Too much bashing you got, that you learned to do one,Thomiscolin....

Nobody says otherwise. Where are you going withthis. Read to understand, not to respond, Thomiscolin. I've read your posts before. You are better than this.

I am sure, the original is " Know Mary, Know Jesus" then somebody who did not understand anything MISTAKENLY WROTE " No Mary, No Jesus " . And it is blasphemous.

I actually posted a thread on this here at CC, " how Holy is Mary's womb considering Jesus stayed there for 9 months." But I was referring to Mary as an instrument to God's promise of Salvation for men. MARY IS NOT THE FULFILLMENT OF God's promise. No offense, but this is semantics play. JESUS IS THE FULFILLMENT of God's promise of redemption. Mary was just used as an instrument.

Without disrespecting Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus, ( Not mother of God ), Judas was also an instrument to the redemption. If Judas' free will was exercised the right way, and he chose not to betray Jesus, it would have been another apostle who betrayed Jesus and the Story of Redemption would still be fulfilled.

Honestly, to portray Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is a disrespect to her. The original Ark was a lifeless box. She was a blessed human being selected by God to conceive His Child. The one who nursed and raised Jesus, the Messiah.
It helps to understand typology as a basic principle in understanding the Old Testament and how it is revealed in the NT. Once that is understood, you can then apply the same types to the Ark of the New Covenant. Marian doctrines will never make any sense unless those two steps are taken first. Everything else is a waste of time. It takes some reading and an open mind. Don't use Jesus' mother as a bat to beat Catholics with, I'll just ignore it.

The first Christians followed their Master in reading the Bible this way:
In the letter to the Hebrews, the Old Testament tabernacle and its rituals are described as "types and shadows of heavenly realities" (8:5), and the law as a "shadow of the good things to come" (10:1). Saint Peter, in turn, noted that Noah and his family "were saved through water," and that "this prefigured baptism, which saves you now" (Pt 3:20—21). Peter's word translated as "prefigured"is actually the Greek word for "typify," or "make a type." The apostle Paul, for his part, described Adam as a "type" of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:14).

So what is a type? A type is a real person, place, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something greater in the New Testament. From "type" we get the word "typology," the study of Christ's foreshadowing in the Old Testament.

128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,[SUP]104[/SUP] and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.
129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.[SUP]105[/SUP] Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.[SUP]106[/SUP] As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.[SUP]107[/SUP]130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone."[SUP]108[/SUP] Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God's plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.CCC

Again,we must emphasize that types are not fictional symbols. They are literally true historical details. When Saint Paul interpreted the story of Abraham's sons as "an allegory"(Gal 4:24), for example, he was not suggesting that the story never really happened; he was affirming it as history, but as history with a place in God's plan, history whose meaning was clear only after its eventual fulfillment.

Typology unveils more than the person of Christ; it also tells us about heaven, the Church, the apostles, the Eucharist, the places of Jesus' birth and death, and the person of Jesus' mother. From the first Christians we learn that the Jerusalem temple foreshadowed the heavenly dwelling of the saints in glory (2 Cor 5:1—2; Rev/ 21:9-22); that Israel prefigured the Church (Gal 6:16);,that the twelve Old Testament patriarchs prefigured the twelve New Testament apostles (Lk 22:30); and that the ark of the covenant was a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Rev11:19; 12:1-6,13-17). In addition to Old Testament types explicitly discussed in the New Testament, there are many more that are implicit but obvious. For example, Saint Joseph's role in the early life of Jesus clearly follows the patriarch Joseph's role in the early life of Israel.
  • The two men share the same name;
  • both are described as "righteous," or "just";
  • both receive revelations in dreams;
  • both find themselves exiled to Egypt;
  • and both arrive on the scene in order to prepare the way for a greater event—in the patriarch Joseph's case, the exodus led by Moses, the Deliverer; in Saint Joseph's case, the redemption brought about by Jesus,the Redeemer.

Marian types abound in the Old Testament. We find Mary prefigured in Eve,the mother of all the living; in Sarah, the wife of Abraham, who conceived her child miraculously; in the queen mother of Israel's monarchy,who interceded with the king on behalf of the people of the land; and in many other places, in many other ways (for example, Hannah and Esther). The type addressed most explicitly in the New Testament, the ark of the covenant, I will discuss in greater detail... Here I will merely point out that, as the ancient ark was made to bear the old covenant, so the Virgin Mary was created to bear the new covenant.

Luke weaves additional parallels into the story of Mary—types that could be overlooked if one is unfamiliar with the Old Testament. After Moses died, Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Joshua established the Ark of the Covenant in Shiloh, where it stayed for more than 200 years. One day the Israelites were losing a battle with the Philistines, so they snatched the ark and rushed it to the front lines. The Philistines captured the ark, but it caused them great problems, so they sent it back to Israel (1 Sm 5:1-6:12).

David went out to retrieve the ark (1 Sm 6:1-2). After a man named Uzzah was struck dead when he touched the ark, David was afraid and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. We are also told that David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obed-edom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6:9-14).

Compare David and the ark to Luke’s account of the Visitation:

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." (Lk 1:39-45)


  • Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. I have been to both Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided), and they are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea
  • When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke is telling us something—drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.
  • When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb—and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark.
  • The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.
  • When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.
  • The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22).
It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.

The Old Testament tells us that one item was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant while in the Sinai wilderness: God told Moses to put the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inside the ark (Dt 10:3-5). Hebrews 9:4 informs us that two additional items were placed in the Ark: "a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded."
Notice the amazing parallels:
  • In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary’s womb was the Word of God in flesh.
  • In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God’s people alive in the wilderness; in Mary’s womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life.
  • In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary’s womb is the true priest. In the third century, St. Gregory the Wonder Worker said that Mary is truly an ark—"gold within and gold without, and she has received in her womb all the treasures of the sanctuary."

This is how the earliest Christians, who were Jews and knew the OT very well, viewed the scriptures. Nobody worships the Ark, but there can be no denying it was a sacred object, and not just a box.




 
Sep 16, 2014
1,278
23
0
There is no "Ark of the New Covenant".

This doctrine was made up by the Catholic Church to Justify their Worship of Mary as their God.


Mary's womb was NOT an Ark. This was also made up by the Catholics to follow Mary as their God.

Do you see how the Catholics Worship Mary?

Do see how the Catholics believe they are greater than God?

You epostle are not doing the Will of the Father. Instead you are doing the will of your father who is Satan.

Matthew 7:21-23
[SUP]21 [/SUP] “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’


Matthew 7:24-27
[SUP]24 [/SUP] “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
[SUP]25 [/SUP] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
[SUP]26 [/SUP] And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
[SUP]27 [/SUP] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

You are a foolish man epostle.


Repent epostle. Reject Mary. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior before its to late. For you will spend Eternity in the Lake of Fire with Satan if you keep on deceiving people with the lies of the Catholic Church.
 
Nov 30, 2012
2,396
26
0
YES WE DO. You are forgetting the prophecies in the old testament. The Messiah will be born to a Virgin. Never it was mentioned to Mary. So, Yes, Redemption will happen even without Mary.



Too much bashing you got, that you learned to do one,
Thomiscolin....




Nobody says otherwise. Where are you going with
this. Read to understand, not to respond, Thomiscolin. I've read your posts before. You are better than this.






I am sure, the original is " Know Mary, Know Jesus" then somebody who did not understand anything MISTAKENLY WROTE " No Mary, No
Jesus " . And it is blasphemous.




I actually posted a thread on this here at CC, " how Holy is Mary's womb considering Jesus stayed there for 9 months." But I was referring to Mary as an instrument to God's promise of Salvation for men. MARY IS NOT THE FULFILLMENT OF God's promise. No offense, but this is semantics play. JESUS IS THE FULFILLMENT of God's promise of redemption. Mary was just used as an instrument.

Without disrespecting Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus, ( Not mother of God ), Judas was also an instrument to the redemption. If Judas' free will was exercised the right way, and he chose not to betray Jesus, it would have been another apostle who betrayed Jesus and the Story of Redemption would still be fulfilled.

Honestly, to portray Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is a disrespect to her. The original Ark was a lifeless box. She was a blessed human being selected by God to conceive His Child. The one who nursed and raised Jesus, the Messiah.
Though I disagree with your interpretation. This was well thought out. I'm sorry if that one comment came off as insulting, I tend to get hyperbolic in trying to emphasize something and in result insulted you. That was wrong.

When we say she was the Ark of the New Covenant, its as epostle put it, the Ark was a "type". What the Ark contained is very similar in "type" to what Mary contained within her womb (Word of God, Source of Justice, the High Priest, the Living Bread).

Pax Christi.
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
There is no "Ark of the New Covenant".

Then you must reject all the scripture regarding the Ark of the Old Covenant

This doctrine was made up by the Catholic Church to Justify their Worship of Mary as their God.
Wrong.
Mary's womb was NOT an Ark.
Then there was no contents foreshadowing Jesus in the Old Ark. You have a scriptural dilemma.
This was also made up by the Catholics to follow Mary as their God.
Please stop your baseless insults. I challenge you to find a single official Catholic document in a 2000 year period that says Mary is God. Since none exists, you need to get off this Mary=God bandwagon.

Do you see how the Catholics Worship Mary?
You can't stick to my post you quoted. And you can't quote anything in it that suggests such a lame canard.

Do see how the Catholics believe they are greater than God?
Where? This is why I ignore people infected with blind prejudice. If they can't refute something, they make things up that has nothing to do with the post..
You epostle are not doing the Will of the Father. Instead you are doing the will of your father who is Satan.
This is not a reply, not discussion, not a rebuttal, it's a temper tantrum.
Matthew 7:21-23
[SUP]21 [/SUP] “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’


Matthew 7:24-27
[SUP]24 [/SUP] “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
[SUP]25 [/SUP] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
[SUP]26 [/SUP] And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
[SUP]27 [/SUP] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
What do these verses have to do with my post?
You are a foolish man epostle.

Repent epostle. Reject Mary. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior before its to late. For you will spend Eternity in the Lake of Fire with Satan if you keep on deceiving people with the lies of the Catholic Church.
Deal with the verses I used, or prove they are used incorrectly. Better yet, ignore the post, it's for serious bible students open minded enough to ponder insights they have never seen before.
 
Last edited:
Sep 16, 2014
1,278
23
0
Scriptures say Jesus was born without sin and Catholics say that Mary was born without sin.

Scriptures say Jesus is our Mediator and Catholics say Mary is our Mediator.

Scriptures say Jesus can hear our Prayers and Catholics say Mary can hear our Prayers.

Scriptures say Jesus can answer our Prayers and Catholics say Mary can answer our Prayers.

Scriptures say Jesus arose into Heaven and Catholics say that Mary was assumed into Heaven.

The Catholic Church has made Mary EQUAL to Jesus Christ!

The Catholics believe and teach that Mary is equal to God.

Its interesting you NEVER refute anything we say with Scriptures from God. All you do epostle is give us your opinion.

Lets see you refute the fact that Mary was a sinner. Show us Scriptures that say Mary was born without sin. Being full of Grace does not say Mary was sinless. Show us where in the Scriptures does God say being full of Grace means one is without sin!
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
Teaching Mary was without sin is going against God and His Truth in the Scriptures. Teaching that Mary is our Mediator is going against God and His Truth in the Scriptures.

What you Catholics do not realize is that by teaching Mary was without sin and teaching that Mary is our Mediator will keep you from accepting Salvation from God.

Jesus was born without sin. Jesus never sinned because He is God.

The Catholics teach Mary was born without sin.

The Catholics have put Mary equal to God. To the Catholics Mary is equal to God.

Jesus is our Mediator between us and God.

The Catholics teach Mary is our Mediator between us and God.

The Catholics have made Mary equal to God.

Therefore by making Mary equal to God the Catholics have made Mary their God.

Its these two teaching that will keep the Catholics from receiving Salvation. Its these two teaching that will keep the Catholics from receiving the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Its these two teaching that will keep the Catholics from entering into Heaven.

As long as the Catholics keep believing and teaching these two Doctrines, we True Christians cannot call them our Brothers in Christ.

You cannot serve two Masters. You cannot serve Mary and God.

The Catholics have made their choice by serving Mary. They serve Mary every time they Pray the Hail Mary. They serve Mary every time they bow down to a statue, picture, or medal of Mary. Its Mary who is the god of the Catholics.
You haven't a clue what Catholicism teaches, just nonsense that you have been told or from protty cult hate propaganda.
 

epostle

Senior Member
Oct 24, 2015
660
15
18
James 2:24 has to be the most misunderstood verse in the Bible. Works salvationists misinterpret it to mean that we are saved by works.
I never met a "works salvationist".
In the first place, James is not using the word "justified" to mean "accounted as righteous" but is "shown to be righteous." James is discussing the proof of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18), not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God (Romans 4:2-3). Works bear out the justification that already came by faith. In James 2:14, we read of one who says-claims he has faith but has no works (to back up his claim). This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" He is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. So James does not teach that we are saved by works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine. Simple!
Good works are acts of love we do by the grace of Christ. I agree with most of what you say, but faith and love (or works) are inseparable. Francis Beckwith has the best explanation I have seen.

Francis Beckwith resigned on May 5 as president of the Evangelical Theological Society. One week earlier the Baylor University philosophy professor rejoined the Roman Catholic Church, his home until age 14. He spoke with Christianity Today editor David Neff about the reaction to his decision, theological misconceptions, and evangelical strengths and weaknesses.

What good things from the evangelical community will you take back with you to Roman Catholicism?


A number of things. First, I think of the evangelical emphasis on the importance of Scripture. Much of what I see in the Catholic Church is formed by my evangelical experience. When I recite, for instance, the Apostles' Creed, I think it's more of a cognitive experience for me than with people who have been Catholic for some time. Emphasis on the written word comes from my evangelical background—that is, when I read these things, I'm really interested in what the text is saying, not just the mystical part, which is certainly also appropriate. For instance, after reading the Apostles' Creed, I turned to my wife and I said, "You know, there are only two proper names in the creed—Pontius Pilate and Virgin Mary. I don't know if anyone's ever noticed that."


I still consider myself an evangelical, but no longer a Protestant. I do think I have a better understanding of what sometimes the Catholic Church is trying to convey. Protestants often misunderstand. The issue of justification was key for me. The Catholic Church frames the Christian life as one in which you must exercise virtue—not because virtue saves you, but because that's the way God's grace gets manifested. As an evangelical, even when I talked about sanctification and wanted to practice it, it seemed as if I didn't have a good enough incentive to do so. Now there's a kind of theological framework, and it doesn't say my salvation depends on me, but it says my virtue counts for something. It's important to allow the grace of God to be exercised through your actions. The evangelical emphasis on the moral life forms my Catholic practice with an added incentive. That was liberating to me.


Some of the people who have been critical say, "You've gone into the oppressive works system of Catholicism." That's not the way I look at it at all. I look at it as a chance to do good. My own work apart from God's grace doesn't matter for my salvation; what matters is the sort of person I become by allowing God's grace to work through my obeying his commandments and taking the sacraments. Unfortunately, the view of justification is sometimes presented clumsily by some Catholic laypeople...
Q&A: Francis Beckwith | Christianity Today


Eph. 2:8-9 – Paul teaches us that faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works, as we will see below. The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first. This, of course, must be true, because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not of grace (more on that later). But faith alone does not justify. A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. James 2:24.

2 Cor. 13:5 – Paul also admonishes us to examine ourselves, to see whether we are holding to our faith. This examination of conscience is a pious Catholic practice. Our faith, which is a gift from God, must be nurtured. Faith is not a one-time event that God bestows upon us.


Gal. 5:6 – thus, the faith that justifies us is “faith working through love,” not faith alone. This is one of the best summaries of Catholic teaching. Faith and love (manifested by works) are always connected. Faith (a process of thought) and love (an action) are never separated in the Scriptures. Cf. Eph. 3:17; 1 Thess. 3:6,12-13; 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 John 3:23; Rev. 2:4-5,19. Further, all faith (initial and perfected) are gratuitous gifts from God, and not earned or merited by any human action. God effects everything, both the willing and the achievement. But God also requires human action, which is necessary to perfect our faith.

James 2:17,26 - James clearly teaches that faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. Works are a cause, not just an effect, of our justification because good works achieve and increase our justification before God. Scripture never says anything about “saving faith.” Protestants cannot show us from the Scriptures that “works” qualify the “faith” into saving faith. Instead, here and elsewhere, the Scriptures teach that justification is achieved only when “faith and works” act together. Scripture puts no qualifier on faith. Scripture also never says that faith “leads to works.” Faith is faith and works are works (James 2:18). They are distinct (mind and action), and yet must act together in order to receive God’s unmerited gift of justification.

Matt. 5:2-11 - Jesus' teaching of the beatitudes goes beyond faith - being pure, merciful, and peacemakers are all good works. They are acts of the will that are necessary for a right relationship with God.


In James 2:21, notice closely that James does not say that Abraham's work of offering up Isaac resulted in God accounting Abraham as righteous. The accounting of Abraham's faith as righteousness was made in Genesis 15:6, many years before his work of offering up Isaac recorded in Genesis 22. The work of Abraham was essential, not because it had some kind of intrinsic merit to save him, but because it proved or manifested the genuineness of his faith. Romans 4:2 - "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God" 4 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it (faith, not works) was accounted to him for righteousness." Paul and James do not contradict each other. They are just explaining saving faith from two different perspectives. The harmony of Romans 4:2-3 and James 2:21,24 is seen in the differing ways that Paul and James use the term "justified." Paul, when he uses the term, refers to the legal (judicial) act of God by which He accounts the sinner as righteous. James, however is using the term to describe those who would prove the genuineness of their faith by the works that they do.
Gen. 12:1-4 – Abram is justified here, as God promises to make his name great and bless the families of the earth through his seed. Abram is justified by his faith in God. Heb. 11:8-10 confirms Abraham's justification occurred here, before Gen. 15:6 (later) by referring to Gen. 12, not Gen. 15. Abraham's justification increased over time because justification is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process of growing in holiness.

Gen. 14:19, 22-23 - Abram is also justified here, by being blessed by the priest-king Melchizedek. Melchizedek calls Abram blessed and Abram gives him a tenth of everything.


Gen. 15:6 – Abram is further justified here, as God promises him that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars. Because the Scripture says, “He believed the Lord, and He reckoned it to him as righteousness,” Protestants often say this was Abram’s initial justification, and cite Rom 4:2 to prove Abram was justified by his faith. Yes, it is true Abram was justified by his faith, but he was justified 25 years earlier in Gen. 12:1-4, as Heb. 11:8-10 proves.


Gen. 22:1-18 – Abraham is further justified here, this time by works, when he offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God. James 2:21 proves this as James writes, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” James then confirms this by writing, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (James 2:23). These verses prove that justification before God is an on-going process, not a one-time event of accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, and is accomplished by faith and works.


In the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Greek word for justified "dikaioo" #1344 is:

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

God is said to have been justified by those who were baptized by John the Baptist (Luke 7:29). This act pronounced or declared God to be righteous. It did not make him righteous. The basis or ground for the pronouncement was the fact that God IS righteous. Notice that the NIV reads, "acknowledged that God's way was right.." The ESV reads, "they declared God just.." This is the sense in which God was justified, "shown to be righteous" not accounted as righteous.

Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is justified/vindicated/shown to be right by her deeds."

Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is vindicated, substantiated, evidenced by works (James 2:14-24). The word "alone" in regards to salvation through faith "in Christ alone" conveys the message that Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not on the merits of our works. It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not by the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24; 5:1); yet the faith that justifies is never alone (solitary, unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine (James 2:14-24). *Perfect Harmony.*
"Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9" refers to works of the law, not good works.

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 - Paul's phrase for "works of the law" in the Greek is "ergon nomou" which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent ("hrvt ysm") meaning "deeds of the law," or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use "ergon nomou." He uses "ergois agathois." Therefore, Paul’s "works of the law" and James' "works" are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
 
Sep 16, 2014
1,278
23
0
There are Works we do because we have received Salvation, like feed the poor. We do not do Works to get brownie points with God. Its all about where your Heart is epostle.

All i see is you are trying to earn brownie points with God by doing Works to gain His Favor.

Its interesting you do say, "because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God".

If you really do believe, espotle, the Scriptures are the Inspired Word of God then why do you teach the opposite of what the Inspired Scriptures teach?

Romans 3:10 clearly says "None are righteous, not one". If none are Righteous then this also includes Mary. Mary was never righteous then.

Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12 says all have sinned. If ALL have sinned then Mary was a sinner.

You cannot have your cake and eat it also epostle. You cannot say the Scriptures are the inspired word of God and then turn around and contradict what God says in the Scriptures.

Let me ask you a question epostle:"do we receive Salvation while here on this World or do we receive Salvation after we die"?
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,805
26,648
113
It helps to understand typology as a basic principle in understanding the Old Testament and how it is revealed in the NT. Once that is understood, you can then apply the same types to the Ark of the New Covenant. Marian doctrines will never make any sense unless those two steps are taken first. Everything else is a waste of time. It takes some reading and an open mind. Don't use Jesus' mother as a bat to beat Catholics with, I'll just ignore it.

The first Christians followed their Master in reading the Bible this way:
In the letter to the Hebrews, the Old Testament tabernacle and its rituals are described as "types and shadows of heavenly realities" (8:5), and the law as a "shadow of the good things to come" (10:1). Saint Peter, in turn, noted that Noah and his family "were saved through water," and that "this prefigured baptism, which saves you now" (Pt 3:20—21). Peter's word translated as "prefigured"is actually the Greek word for "typify," or "make a type." The apostle Paul, for his part, described Adam as a "type" of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:14).

So what is a type? A type is a real person, place, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something greater in the New Testament. From "type" we get the word "typology," the study of Christ's foreshadowing in the Old Testament.

128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,[SUP]104[/SUP] and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.
129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.[SUP]105[/SUP] Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament.[SUP]106[/SUP] As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.[SUP]107[/SUP]130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone."[SUP]108[/SUP] Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God's plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.CCC

Again,we must emphasize that types are not fictional symbols. They are literally true historical details. When Saint Paul interpreted the story of Abraham's sons as "an allegory"(Gal 4:24), for example, he was not suggesting that the story never really happened; he was affirming it as history, but as history with a place in God's plan, history whose meaning was clear only after its eventual fulfillment.

Typology unveils more than the person of Christ; it also tells us about heaven, the Church, the apostles, the Eucharist, the places of Jesus' birth and death, and the person of Jesus' mother. From the first Christians we learn that the Jerusalem temple foreshadowed the heavenly dwelling of the saints in glory (2 Cor 5:1—2; Rev/ 21:9-22); that Israel prefigured the Church (Gal 6:16);,that the twelve Old Testament patriarchs prefigured the twelve New Testament apostles (Lk 22:30); and that the ark of the covenant was a type of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Rev11:19; 12:1-6,13-17). In addition to Old Testament types explicitly discussed in the New Testament, there are many more that are implicit but obvious. For example, Saint Joseph's role in the early life of Jesus clearly follows the patriarch Joseph's role in the early life of Israel.
  • The two men share the same name;
  • both are described as "righteous," or "just";
  • both receive revelations in dreams;
  • both find themselves exiled to Egypt;
  • and both arrive on the scene in order to prepare the way for a greater event—in the patriarch Joseph's case, the exodus led by Moses, the Deliverer; in Saint Joseph's case, the redemption brought about by Jesus,the Redeemer.

Marian types abound in the Old Testament. We find Mary prefigured in Eve,the mother of all the living; in Sarah, the wife of Abraham, who conceived her child miraculously; in the queen mother of Israel's monarchy,who interceded with the king on behalf of the people of the land; and in many other places, in many other ways (for example, Hannah and Esther). The type addressed most explicitly in the New Testament, the ark of the covenant, I will discuss in greater detail... Here I will merely point out that, as the ancient ark was made to bear the old covenant, so the Virgin Mary was created to bear the new covenant.

Luke weaves additional parallels into the story of Mary—types that could be overlooked if one is unfamiliar with the Old Testament. After Moses died, Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. Joshua established the Ark of the Covenant in Shiloh, where it stayed for more than 200 years. One day the Israelites were losing a battle with the Philistines, so they snatched the ark and rushed it to the front lines. The Philistines captured the ark, but it caused them great problems, so they sent it back to Israel (1 Sm 5:1-6:12).

David went out to retrieve the ark (1 Sm 6:1-2). After a man named Uzzah was struck dead when he touched the ark, David was afraid and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" He left the ark in the hill country of Judea for three months. We are also told that David danced and leapt in front of the ark and everyone shouted for joy. The house of Obed-edom, which had housed the ark, was blessed, and then David took the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6:9-14).

Compare David and the ark to Luke’s account of the Visitation:

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." (Lk 1:39-45)


  • Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. I have been to both Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided), and they are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea
  • When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke is telling us something—drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.
  • When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb—and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark.
  • The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.
  • When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.
  • The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22).
It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl.

The Old Testament tells us that one item was placed inside the Ark of the Old Covenant while in the Sinai wilderness: God told Moses to put the stone tablets with the Ten Commandments inside the ark (Dt 10:3-5). Hebrews 9:4 informs us that two additional items were placed in the Ark: "a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded."
Notice the amazing parallels:
  • In the ark was the law of God inscribed in stone; in Mary’s womb was the Word of God in flesh.
  • In the ark was the urn of manna, the bread from heaven that kept God’s people alive in the wilderness; in Mary’s womb is the Bread of Life come down from heaven that brings eternal life.
  • In the ark was the rod of Aaron, the proof of true priesthood; in Mary’s womb is the true priest. In the third century, St. Gregory the Wonder Worker said that Mary is truly an ark—"gold within and gold without, and she has received in her womb all the treasures of the sanctuary."

This is how the earliest Christians, who were Jews and knew the OT very well, viewed the scriptures. Nobody worships the Ark, but there can be no denying it was a sacred object, and not just a box.




I never met a "works salvationist".
Good works are acts of love we do by the grace of Christ. I agree with most of what you say, but faith and love (or works) are inseparable. Francis Beckwith has the best explanation I have seen.

Francis Beckwith resigned on May 5 as president of the Evangelical Theological Society. One week earlier the Baylor University philosophy professor rejoined the Roman Catholic Church, his home until age 14. He spoke with Christianity Today editor David Neff about the reaction to his decision, theological misconceptions, and evangelical strengths and weaknesses.

What good things from the evangelical community will you take back with you to Roman Catholicism?


A number of things. First, I think of the evangelical emphasis on the importance of Scripture. Much of what I see in the Catholic Church is formed by my evangelical experience. When I recite, for instance, the Apostles' Creed, I think it's more of a cognitive experience for me than with people who have been Catholic for some time. Emphasis on the written word comes from my evangelical background—that is, when I read these things, I'm really interested in what the text is saying, not just the mystical part, which is certainly also appropriate. For instance, after reading the Apostles' Creed, I turned to my wife and I said, "You know, there are only two proper names in the creed—Pontius Pilate and Virgin Mary. I don't know if anyone's ever noticed that."


I still consider myself an evangelical, but no longer a Protestant. I do think I have a better understanding of what sometimes the Catholic Church is trying to convey. Protestants often misunderstand. The issue of justification was key for me. The Catholic Church frames the Christian life as one in which you must exercise virtue—not because virtue saves you, but because that's the way God's grace gets manifested. As an evangelical, even when I talked about sanctification and wanted to practice it, it seemed as if I didn't have a good enough incentive to do so. Now there's a kind of theological framework, and it doesn't say my salvation depends on me, but it says my virtue counts for something. It's important to allow the grace of God to be exercised through your actions. The evangelical emphasis on the moral life forms my Catholic practice with an added incentive. That was liberating to me.


Some of the people who have been critical say, "You've gone into the oppressive works system of Catholicism." That's not the way I look at it at all. I look at it as a chance to do good. My own work apart from God's grace doesn't matter for my salvation; what matters is the sort of person I become by allowing God's grace to work through my obeying his commandments and taking the sacraments. Unfortunately, the view of justification is sometimes presented clumsily by some Catholic laypeople...
Q&A: Francis Beckwith | Christianity Today


Eph. 2:8-9 – Paul teaches us that faith is the root of justification, and that faith excludes “works of law.” But Paul does not teach that faith excludes other kinds of works, as we will see below. The verse also does not say we are justified by “faith alone.” It only indicates that faith comes first. This, of course, must be true, because those who do works outside of faith are in a system of debt, not of grace (more on that later). But faith alone does not justify. A man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. James 2:24.

2 Cor. 13:5 – Paul also admonishes us to examine ourselves, to see whether we are holding to our faith. This examination of conscience is a pious Catholic practice. Our faith, which is a gift from God, must be nurtured. Faith is not a one-time event that God bestows upon us.


Gal. 5:6 – thus, the faith that justifies us is “faith working through love,” not faith alone. This is one of the best summaries of Catholic teaching. Faith and love (manifested by works) are always connected. Faith (a process of thought) and love (an action) are never separated in the Scriptures. Cf. Eph. 3:17; 1 Thess. 3:6,12-13; 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 John 3:23; Rev. 2:4-5,19. Further, all faith (initial and perfected) are gratuitous gifts from God, and not earned or merited by any human action. God effects everything, both the willing and the achievement. But God also requires human action, which is necessary to perfect our faith.

James 2:17,26 - James clearly teaches that faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. Works are a cause, not just an effect, of our justification because good works achieve and increase our justification before God. Scripture never says anything about “saving faith.” Protestants cannot show us from the Scriptures that “works” qualify the “faith” into saving faith. Instead, here and elsewhere, the Scriptures teach that justification is achieved only when “faith and works” act together. Scripture puts no qualifier on faith. Scripture also never says that faith “leads to works.” Faith is faith and works are works (James 2:18). They are distinct (mind and action), and yet must act together in order to receive God’s unmerited gift of justification.

Matt. 5:2-11 - Jesus' teaching of the beatitudes goes beyond faith - being pure, merciful, and peacemakers are all good works. They are acts of the will that are necessary for a right relationship with God.


Gen. 12:1-4 – Abram is justified here, as God promises to make his name great and bless the families of the earth through his seed. Abram is justified by his faith in God. Heb. 11:8-10 confirms Abraham's justification occurred here, before Gen. 15:6 (later) by referring to Gen. 12, not Gen. 15. Abraham's justification increased over time because justification is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process of growing in holiness.

Gen. 14:19, 22-23 - Abram is also justified here, by being blessed by the priest-king Melchizedek. Melchizedek calls Abram blessed and Abram gives him a tenth of everything.


Gen. 15:6 – Abram is further justified here, as God promises him that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars. Because the Scripture says, “He believed the Lord, and He reckoned it to him as righteousness,” Protestants often say this was Abram’s initial justification, and cite Rom 4:2 to prove Abram was justified by his faith. Yes, it is true Abram was justified by his faith, but he was justified 25 years earlier in Gen. 12:1-4, as Heb. 11:8-10 proves.


Gen. 22:1-18 – Abraham is further justified here, this time by works, when he offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God. James 2:21 proves this as James writes, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” James then confirms this by writing, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (James 2:23). These verses prove that justification before God is an on-going process, not a one-time event of accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, and is accomplished by faith and works.


"Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9" refers to works of the law, not good works.

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 - Paul's phrase for "works of the law" in the Greek is "ergon nomou" which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent ("hrvt ysm") meaning "deeds of the law," or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use "ergon nomou." He uses "ergois agathois." Therefore, Paul’s "works of the law" and James' "works" are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
Why do you keep responding with your so-called shotgun style when you have complained against it from others so many times?