Answering the objection that Mary was only the ark for a moment, not perpetually.

 Obj: Mary was only the ark of the covenant while bearing Jesus, not after.

Ans: The ark lives in God’s temple as Rev. 11:19 says. From that, it follows that the ark has no more of an earthly use but a heavenly use. An earthly use rots away as Mt. 6:19 says, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy…” but heavenly use is “where moths and vermin do not destroy” (Mt. 6:20). 

That which does not rot away is perpetual. So then the ark is perpetual.

If the ark is perpetual, Mary being the ark is perpetual.


Obj to the Ans: The ark never had an earthly use but always had a heavenly use, even when it was still on earth with the Israelites. 

Moreover, Exodus 40:34 says, “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.” That which has the cloud covering like so is of heavenly use, not earthly use.

Ans: Luke 1:35 is where the angel told Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”

If the ark in Exodus is heavenly when it was with the Israelites, then Mary is heavenly when bearing Jesus. This follows from comparing the cloud which covered the ark in Exodus and the overshadowing of Mary in Luke.

Moreover, it is said that the ark has no more of an earthly use because it is no longer on earth but is now in heaven.

That which is heavenly can have effects on earth in its capacity of being heavenly. For example, God, who is heavenly, has effects on earth in His capacity of being heavenly, while himself not being earthly. So too, it is possible the ark or Mary has effects on earth in their capacity of being heavenly, while themselves not being earthly.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

  Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims] : Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other]. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other]...
Read more

Q: "Why does Paul mention James before Peter (Galatians 2:7-9) and why is Peters' name used as "Cephas" instead sometimes?"

  Firstly, if the hidden assumption behind the question here is, “Any name mentioned first in a list of names necessarily means that the person holding that name mentioned first is superior to all others in that list” then we should recognize that the assumption is not always true. Now, of course, Peter’s name is mentioned first when it comes to the listing of apostles, and that’s a case to be made for his superiority among the apostles. But, this type of conclusion is made with (1) the additional biblical and historical data that shows Peter was in fact the leader of the apostles, and (2) the fact that Peter is consistently mentioned first not only one time, but many times over and over, making it more likely. Second, I want to recognize that this is a good question, and we can actually see the logical pattern as to how Paul lists the four people (me [Paul], James and Cephas and John), as opposed to being merely random. But before that, it is important for us readers to recognize ...
Read more

Reflections on pridefulness versus humbleness.

 I just noticed recently that I am prideful. The pride that I have is implicit in my mind. This implicitness is why I am prideful. If I realized that I am prideful, I would have tried to stop my prideful actions or thoughts or words immediately. I did not give enough thought into how my actions are prideful. Perhaps they are not prideful actually, but just seem prideful from a third person perspective. People can find me to seemingly be prideful in anything I do so it is impossible to not seem prideful, but there exists a spectrum in which pride falls into. Pride can be seemingly miniscule or it can be absolutely puffed up. I would hope that a person who views me would at least seemingly assume that I am prideful in a miniscule manner as opposed to being absolutely puffed up.  The contrast to pridefulness is humbleness.  Humbleness does not always involve being quiet. For example, when a person asks me if I won my basketball game yesterday, it would not necessarily be hum...
Read more