Generally it is from a comparison of the Visitation and II Samuel 6. One can take a type of Mary in the Ark as Mary/Ark travel through the hill country of Judea and when Elizabeth/David sees Mary/Ark proclaims "who am I that the Mother/Ark of my Lord shall come to me?". Then Mary/Ark resides in the house of Zechariah/Obededom for three months.
An impressive video on a thorny topic. Add also a hint from Exodus 40:35. I think it is significant that Luke is interested in the Temple, at chapters 1 & 2, & 24. He is the Temple, & the True Ark: the Ascension, which is liturgical in language, looks back to Psalm 132. It is Jesus - not Mary - Who is "full of grace and truth", & the fullness of the Glory dwells in Him. The "Marian distinctives" are independent of the apologetic for them.
Keep in mind also that the Ark carried the 10 commandments, Aaron's staff, and the manna. Mary was carrying Jesus. The 10 Commandments are fulfilled in the living Word of God, the priesthood of Aaron was replaced by Christ's high priesthood, and the Christ was the bread of life from which those who partake will never die. The association of Mary as Ark is not centered on Mary but was a Christological reference.
My understanding of the issue of the Immaculate Conception is that the Orthodox also believe that Mary did not sin. The point of contention beyond that between Catholic and Orthodox is the issue of Original Sin. At least how I understand it from the EO that I have spoken with.
I will use the purity of the materials of the Ark, and heard this back in the mid 90s sometime, in order to explain this, but won't force the explanation because it's a strained comparison.
That sounds right on the Orthodox. Shea does make an interesting point in vol 2 of the book that since the Orthodox did not develop the doctrine of original sin as did the West follwing St. Augustine, one should not expect the Immaculate Conception to develop since it is built around Mary being preserved from original sin.
There are times when I believe people carry types to far. Once they leave the historical context of the type they can muddy up the water by stretching the type and forcing the type on passages that do not apply. GBU
I believe that they are getting the idea that Mary is the "ark of the covenant" from Revelation11:19-12:2. Isn't that the source?
danheg 2 years ago
Generally it is from a comparison of the Visitation and II Samuel 6. One can take a type of Mary in the Ark as Mary/Ark travel through the hill country of Judea and when Elizabeth/David sees Mary/Ark proclaims "who am I that the Mother/Ark of my Lord shall come to me?". Then Mary/Ark resides in the house of Zechariah/Obededom for three months.
labarum312 2 years ago
@labarum312
An impressive video on a thorny topic. Add also a hint from Exodus 40:35. I think it is significant that Luke is interested in the Temple, at chapters 1 & 2, & 24. He is the Temple, & the True Ark: the Ascension, which is liturgical in language, looks back to Psalm 132. It is Jesus - not Mary - Who is "full of grace and truth", & the fullness of the Glory dwells in Him. The "Marian distinctives" are independent of the apologetic for them.
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 year ago
Robert Payesko's three-volume work on Mary is well worth seeing BTW
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 year ago
Keep in mind also that the Ark carried the 10 commandments, Aaron's staff, and the manna. Mary was carrying Jesus. The 10 Commandments are fulfilled in the living Word of God, the priesthood of Aaron was replaced by Christ's high priesthood, and the Christ was the bread of life from which those who partake will never die. The association of Mary as Ark is not centered on Mary but was a Christological reference.
labarum312 2 years ago
Comment removed
DeiVerbum777 2 years ago
My understanding of the issue of the Immaculate Conception is that the Orthodox also believe that Mary did not sin. The point of contention beyond that between Catholic and Orthodox is the issue of Original Sin. At least how I understand it from the EO that I have spoken with.
I will use the purity of the materials of the Ark, and heard this back in the mid 90s sometime, in order to explain this, but won't force the explanation because it's a strained comparison.
BeingBob 2 years ago
As for Dr White's blog. That was truly painful to read.
BeingBob 2 years ago
That sounds right on the Orthodox. Shea does make an interesting point in vol 2 of the book that since the Orthodox did not develop the doctrine of original sin as did the West follwing St. Augustine, one should not expect the Immaculate Conception to develop since it is built around Mary being preserved from original sin.
labarum312 2 years ago
I meant "vol. 2 of the series" above.
labarum312 2 years ago
There are times when I believe people carry types to far. Once they leave the historical context of the type they can muddy up the water by stretching the type and forcing the type on passages that do not apply. GBU
Bingolly1 2 years ago
I agree. It's the "sometimes a circle is just a circle" thing.
labarum312 2 years ago
certainly not 'apple pie' :)
mapollo 2 years ago