"Devotion" to Mary...

[Zenas]

There is no need for explanation. Similarities can be found in a great many things. But that proves nothing. The onus is on you to prove it beyond those similarities.

First, this is not my idea. The concept of Mary being an antitype of the ark is old as Athanasius of Alexandria, and it is alive and well among the majority of Christians today. It's not exactly new, despite the surprised tone of some of the posts on this topic.

I can't prove it any more than I can prove men have walked on the moon, and I know several skeptics who refuse to believe that bit of history. If you choose to disbelieve it, that is your prerogative. However, most right thinking people, especially people who don't have an agenda on the issue, would say the language in Luke 1 has too many similarities to the language in Exodus 40 and 2 Samuel 6 for it to be a mere coincidence.

 

[DHK]

First, this is not my idea. The concept of Mary being an antitype of the ark is old as Athanasius of Alexandria, and it is alive and well among the majority of Christians today. It's not exactly new, despite the surprised tone of some of the posts on this topic.

What do you mean by "Christians"? Almost ALL evangelical Christians oppose this concept. It is RCC teaching, which the Orhodox accept. And that is not most Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. When you start spiritualizing the Bible in such a way you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say. You might as well call Satan, Jesus. In fact there are those that do believe that it was Satan that actually made the atonement for our sins. It is becoming a more popular belief, as heretical as it is. But when you spiritualize the Bible you are apt to believe anything.

I can't prove it any more than I can prove men have walked on the moon,

History, by observation, knows that men have walked on the moon.
This is the same type of proof we accept for the resurrection of Christ. We accept the testimony of eye-witness accounts.

However, most right thinking people, especially people who don't have an agenda on the issue, would say the language in Luke 1 has too many similarities to the language in Exodus 40 and 2 Samuel 6 for it to be a mere coincidence.

There are similarities between my wife's Ford van, and my mother's walker. They both have four wheels. Two women operate both. Both are closely related to me. Does that mean that the Ford van evolved from the walker?

"However most right thinking people, especially people who don't have an agenda on the issue would say that there are too many similarities between the two for it to be more than a mere coincidence."

 

[Revmitchell]

First, this is not my idea. The concept of Mary being an antitype of the ark is old as Athanasius of Alexandria, and it is alive and well among the majority of Christians today. It's not exactly new, despite the surprised tone of some of the posts on this topic.

ummm..... no it isn't. In fact you all are very few and it is heretical.

I can't prove it any more than I can prove men have walked on the moon, and I know several skeptics who refuse to believe that bit of history. If you choose to disbelieve it, that is your prerogative.

Then you have based it on your own desire rather than sound scripture.

However, most right thinking people, especially people who don't have an agenda on the issue, would say the language in Luke 1 has too many similarities to the language in Exodus 40 and 2 Samuel 6 for it to be a mere coincidence.

The agenda is your to be sure. And seeing any relationship to Mary is just weird.

 

[Zenas]

To DHK and RevMitchell, I would suggest this. Find someone who knows a little about literature but knows nothing about the Bible. It shouldn't be hard to do in today's secular culture. Give him Exodus 40:34, 2 Samuel 6:9-16 and Luke 1. Ask him if he thinks Luke was borrowing concepts from the earlier passages. I think you know what the answer would be.

 

[Amy.G]

First, this is not my idea. The concept of Mary being an antitype of the ark is old as Athanasius of Alexandria, and it is alive and well among the majority of Christians today. It's not exactly new, despite the surprised tone of some of the posts on this topic.

DHK is right. This idea most certainly not alive and well among evangelical Christians. It reeks of Rome.

I can't prove it any more than I can prove men have walked on the moon, and I know several skeptics who refuse to believe that bit of history. If you choose to disbelieve it, that is your prerogative. However, most right thinking people, especially people who don't have an agenda on the issue, would say the language in Luke 1 has too many similarities to the language in Exodus 40 and 2 Samuel 6 for it to be a mere coincidence.

Why can't you prove it? If it is such a commonly held belief among Christians, there surely is some documentation of it. I'm sure there is plenty of information on the web you could find and post here.

 

[Marcia]

First, this is not my idea. The concept of Mary being an antitype of the ark is old as Athanasius of Alexandria, and it is alive and well among the majority of Christians today. It's not exactly new, despite the surprised tone of some of the posts on this topic.

Do you mean the ark is an antitype of Mary?

However, most right thinking people, especially people who don't have an agenda on the issue, would say the language in Luke 1 has too many similarities to the language in Exodus 40 and 2 Samuel 6 for it to be a mere coincidence

Such as......?

 

[Revmitchell]

To DHK and RevMitchell, I would suggest this. Find someone who knows a little about literature but knows nothing about the Bible. It shouldn't be hard to do in today's secular culture. Give him Exodus 40:34, 2 Samuel 6:9-16 and Luke 1. Ask him if he thinks Luke was borrowing concepts from the earlier passages. I think you know what the answer would be.

That is your defense? Quite the intellectual gymnastics

 

[Amy.G]

Your contempt for Catholics has not led you to murder -- so far.

Darron I have no contempt for Catholics. I despise the heretical Catholic teachings. I have no malice in my heart for any individual who has been deceived by these teachings. My contempt is for the teachings alone.

You obsessive Catholic bashers turn a blind eye to yourselves. Your contempt for Catholics has thus far led you to dig up dirt on Catholics and air it, and stretch the truth to make more such dirt.

No one has been bashing Catholics, only the Catholic doctrines. Are we not commanded to defend the faith?

You people go against the teachings of the Bible with your actions against Catholics.

There have been no actions against Catholics, only discussion of the false and heretical Catholic teachings.


We are not going against the teachings of the Bible by exposing false teachings.

Would you defend the Pharisees so fiercely if we were discussing all of their false teachings?

Paralleling your alleged sentiment, if I do not try to bring to your attention the evil you have joined into, I would be negligent.

What evil is there in exposing false teachings?

Most of my husband's family is Catholic. I have no murderous desires toward them. I want them to come to a knowledge of the truth. I cannot battle their heretical beliefs if I don't know what they are. That's what we're discussing here.

If someone here wants to harm someone because they're Catholic, then that one isn't a Christian.

I really don't understand why you're so angry.

 

[Zenas]

DHK is right. This idea most certainly not alive and well among evangelical Christians. It reeks of Rome.




Why can't you prove it? If it is such a commonly held belief among Christians, there surely is some documentation of it. I'm sure there is plenty of information on the web you could find and post here.

I didn't qualify "Christians" by using the word "evangelical." I was referring to all Christians. You are right, only a small minority of evangelicals accept this. However, only a small minority ever heard of it. You're also right that there is plenty of information on the web about this. Just go to Google and type in something like "ark of the covenant as a type of Mary." You will get quite a bit.

 

[Amy.G]

I didn't qualify "Christians" by using the word "evangelical." I was referring to all Christians. You are right, only a small minority of evangelicals accept this. However, only a small minority ever heard of it. You're also right that there is plenty of information on the web about this. Just go to Google and type in something like "ark of the covenant as a type of Mary." You will get quite a bit.

The burden is on you. I'm not going to waste my time on such foolishness.

 

[Revmitchell]

I didn't qualify "Christians" by using the word "evangelical." I was referring to all Christians. You are right, only a small minority of evangelicals accept this.

Then how do you reconcile that with your earlier statement?

"and it is alive and well among the majority of Christians today"

 

[Zenas]

Do you mean the ark is an antitype of Mary

The type comes before the antitype. For example, Aaron is a type of Christ, our high priest. Christ is the antitype. The ark is a type of Mary; Mary is the antitype.

 

[Revmitchell]

The type comes before the antitype. For example, Aaron is a type of Christ, our high priest. Christ is the antitype. The ark is a type of Mary; Mary is the antitype.

Baptist my foot!

 

[Darron Steele]

... the only difference between
a) those murdering thugs, versus
b) people here who love to dig up and air dirt about Catholics, and stretch the truth to make more such dirt, and invite others to join them,
is the degree. It was the same motive: contempt for Catholics.

If someone was to obsessively do this stuff about Alive In Christ, Steaver, or you, all of you would see what it was about. You would know that no matter how s/he rationalized it or spiritualized it, it was maliciously-motivated.

Unprovoked railing against anyone just for jollies, and soliciting the same by others, is wrong regardless of who it is done against. Acting on grudges is wrong regardless of who it is done against.

Catholics are mistaken people -- but they are people. They ought to be treated like it.

Luke 6:31 "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (KJV) applies to Catholics just it would apply to you folks.

I have shown you all what is wrong with this. You folks seek to justify it and rationalize it and spiritualize it and make it appear to be something good. Not one of you folks' rationalizations, spiritualizations, or sugar-coatings would fool the Lord; He is omniscient and impartial.

If He decides to get your attention in real life, you will have no basis to whine that you were not warned.

Darron I have no contempt for Catholics. I despise the heretical Catholic teachings. I have no malice in my heart for any individual who has been deceived by these teachings. My contempt is for the teachings alone.

No one has been bashing Catholics, only the Catholic doctrines. Are we not commanded to defend the faith?

There have been no actions against Catholics, only discussion of the false and heretical Catholic teachings.


We are not going against the teachings of the Bible by exposing false teachings.

I have already covered this.

If you refuse to see it, I do not see how I can make it any clearer.

Eagerly digging up dirt against anyone, airing it, and stretching the truth to make more dirt against people is acting with hostility toward them. Encouraging others to join them is so as well.

You may not feel contempt for Catholics -- just their teachings. Fine. I feel the same.

Therefore, with someone with nothing against Catholics, but dislike for their precepts, I cannot defend their precepts -- nor what these threads are created for.

You are posting to someone who has helped pass out Gospel tracts in a region where Catholicism is different. Let me be more specific: you are posting to someone who passed out Gospel tracts to adherents of a Catholic group right after a meeting -- in Latin America. That can be dangerous. I dare say that there is something different between
a) digging up dirt on Catholics, airing it, stretching the truth for more dirt, and inviting others to do the same on a place where Catholics are mostly silenced, versus
b) actually doing something for Catholics.

Would you defend the Pharisees so fiercely if we were discussing all of their false teachings?

There are no Pharisees alive.

There are living Catholics.

What evil is there in exposing false teachings?

Again, nothing is being "exposed" here.

Who here does not know about the behavior of many Catholics which is very similar to idolatry? We all know about it.

Nothing has been "exposed" here. That claim is to sugarcoat something worse.

I have covered all this. If you refuse to see it, I cannot be any clearer.

Most of my husband's family is Catholic.

If you showed this thread to them, I doubt that they would sense love for them by those who started or enjoy this thread and others like it.

If I was to show this to my Catholic friends or Catholic acquaintances, they would recognize this as Catholic bashing. They would not see this as an effort to `show them the truth for their good.' They would recognize this as what it is: someone crazed with a desire to say whatever bad things about Catholics they can come up with, and get others to do likewise.

I have no murderous desires toward them. I want them to come to a knowledge of the truth. I cannot battle their heretical beliefs if I don't know what they are. That's what we're discussing here.

If someone here wants to harm someone because they're Catholic, then that one isn't a Christian.

Well, something we can agree on.

If someone here wants to smear someone because their Catholic, and urge others to feel contempt for people who are Catholics, would that come under condemnation from you?

So far, I have seen a lot of defenses for exactly that conduct.

Just because a grudge has not so far led to murder does not make acting on the grudge okay. The news article ought to be a warning to anyone who likes these sorts of discussions. Granted, no one here is likely to murder a Catholic -- but they ought to be concerned about exactly how far indulging their grudges might take them.

I mean, thus far their grudges have led them to want to come up with bad things to say about Catholics and get others to do likewise -- in other words, to rail against Catholics and invite the same from others. That is wrong -- but how much farther will they go?

I really don't understand why you're so angry.

Amy, I am not angry.

I am sad.

I am sad that because of stuff like this thread, many Catholics are led to think that Bible-centered Christians normally hate Catholics.

I am sad that the people who do this stuff are so filled with contempt for Catholics.

It saddens me that their contempt for Catholics outweighs desire to do what is right and shun actions that are wrong.

It grieves me to see people behave so hatefully and masquerade it as something good.

It grieves me to see their obstinacy in it.

Further, I worry that having been warned, they will persist in their obstinacy, and will be dealt with about this by God Himself.

I am not going to spend much more time with this. I do not have time to argue with people who insist that what is wrong is sometimes okay. As much as I would like to help such people, there is only so much I can do.

 

[Zenas]

Then how do you reconcile that with your earlier statement?

Because, like most evangelicals, I don't accept the proposition that Catholics and Orthodox are non-Christian. I lump them all together as Christians, just like Billy Graham Chuck Colson do. Since Catholics and Orthodox comprise the great majority of Christendom, my statement is correct.

 

[Revmitchell]

Because, like most evangelicals, I don't accept the proposition that Catholics and Orthodox are non-Christian. I lump them all together as Christians, just like Billy Graham Chuck Colson do. Since Catholics and Orthodox comprise the great majority of Christendom, my statement is correct.

The term "Evangelical" has been broadened to a much larger inclusiveness to the point it means little to nothing. Mary worship is heretical as is works based faith. The very foundations of Catholicism is a non starter.

 

[DHK]

Because, like most evangelicals, I don't accept the proposition that Catholics and Orthodox are non-Christian. I lump them all together as Christians, just like Billy Graham Chuck Colson do. Since Catholics and Orthodox comprise the great majority of Christendom, my statement is correct.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Zenas changes the Biblical meaning of the word "Christians" and then immaturely gloats: "I win! I win!"

No, you still have lost. Changing the meaning of the word "Christian" to mean "Christendom" does not make you right.

 

[Revmitchell]

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Zenas changes the Biblical meaning of the word "Christians" and then immaturely gloats: "I win! I win!"

No, you still have lost. Changing the meaning of the word "Christian" to mean "Christendom" does not make you right.

I am having trouble believing he/she is Baptist

 

[Alive in Christ]

Darron...

"Who here does not know about the behavior of many Catholics which is very similar to idolatry?"

No.

It IS idolatry.

It isnt *close to* idolatry, and it isnt *almost* idolatry, and it isnt *similar to" idolatry.

It is pure, 100% IDOLATRY and it is 100% GODDESS WORSHIP

 

[steaver]

Darron;

Your contempt for Catholics has not led you to murder -- so far. Hopefully, you are a lot farther away than those thugs were.

You obsessive Catholic bashers turn a blind eye to yourselves. Contempt for Catholics led those thugs to murder one. Your contempt for Catholics has thus far led you to dig up dirt on Catholics and air it, and stretch the truth to make more such dirt.

The cause of both was the same: contempt for Catholics. Just because you have not indulged your grudge as far as those thugs did does not mean you should not be concerned.

Ok, I and others have been very polite with you trying to have you understand the difference between contempt of persons and contempt of doctrines.

Nowhere will you find any of my postings showing a contempt for the person committing the offense. I am calling you out, show me the post or appologize. If you cannot prove your acusation and refuse to retract then I am asking the moderators to give you warning for slandering me.

Again, nothing is being "exposed" here.

Who here does not know about the behavior of many Catholics which is very similar to idolatry? We all know about it.

Nothing has been "exposed" here. That claim is to sugarcoat something worse.

I have covered all this. If you refuse to see it, I cannot be any clearer.

I knew about the Catholic doctrine of idolatry, but I never read those prayers posted in the OP. So it was beneficial to me for my further understanding of just how serious the idolatry is. What gets surger coated is the idolatry when people try to defend it by saying 'oh they just pray to Mary like we would ask another saint to pray for us'. That is surger coating!

Idolatry has been exposed here in this thread. You and I may already know about it, but there are always new folks looking in who are learning and need to see the truth of what is happening in the world we live in concerning religion.

:jesus: