Brothers and sisters in Christ,

I am still prayerfully working on my research and personal review of the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ”. When I am released to share it with you, I pray you will take it in the spirit it is intended; that is to share what I believe to be the truth of Holy Scripture as it pertains to this particular worldwide media presentation of the last 12 hours of the earthly life our precious Lord, Jesus Christ [the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of all mankind].

It is my strong belief and deep spiritual conviction that the tremendous impact this Hollywood movie has had on the world and on believers, in particular, must be tempered and measured by the actual word of God.

Fictional or so-called “artistic license” taken with the real truth of the suffering of our Lord and Savior, Jesus of Nazareth, [the Messiah of Israel, the Son of the Living God, the Word made flesh], must be of real concern to every born-again child of God. If the depicted events that occurred from Gethsemane to Calvary are not biblically complete or accurate, or are possibly deliberately misleading, then I believe that we have an obligation to set the record straight. The eternal fate of many unsaved souls depends on an authentic telling of the biblical narrative. “Make-believe” can never become an acceptable substitute for “making believers”. Let the veracity of God’s Holy Word be the final arbiter of the events surrounding the REAL passion, crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As God is our Father and we are His children, we can settle for no less!

If you do not wish to partake in the discussion of this issue or other relevant “Passion” commentary, then I suggest you stop reading here. I would strongly recommend, however, that you at least go back and pray, read, study and meditate upon the four gospels in the New Testament that describe the actual events leading to the sacrifice of the Lamb of God on Mount Calvary. You owe it to yourself [and to the Lord] to compare those precious holy words to the Hollywood script of that sacred event. You will be shocked at the major discrepancies and biblical deletions that were made by the makers of that film.

Any assertion that this production is “faithful” to the biblical text is patently misleading. Just because one quotes isolated scriptures or generally follows the storyline contained in the Gospels, does not necessarily make one “faithful” to the intent and integrity of Holy Writ. Remember, even the devil can accurately quote scripture [as he did to our Lord Himself during the temptations]; it’s all in the context and faithful adherence to God’s revealed truth that really matters.

I realize this is a spiritually sensitive matter for all of us, but I expect those of you who have been receiving material from me to be willing to hear out a possibly differing viewpoint when it is accompanied by relevant, contextual scripture. As Paul, the apostle commended the Bereans for their biblical follow up to his comments, I, a mere layman and student of the Bible, also encourage you to double check everything presented to you and to check the scripture quotes to see if they are in fact being correctly cited and spiritually applied.

Let us reason together and if necessary, agree to disagree.

Prayerfully, your brother in Christ, the soon and coming King,

Here is the Introduction to my review of Mel Gibson’s film, ‘The Passion of the Christ’.

It is Part 1 of a series and includes a sample of a biblical/scene comparison chart that I am developing for your study and consideration.

I pray that you will receive understanding and spiritual insight rather than offense and rebuke by this project. That is my intention.

God bless you all,

REVIEW OF MEL GIBSON’S FILM ‘THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST’ - PART 1

Researched, compiled, revised and edited by Carlos Campos, a redeemed sinner, saved by the grace, mercy, love, blood, suffering, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of the Living God of Israel to whom alone belongs all the glory, power, majesty, allegiance, praise and worship.

Introduction: *WARNING…do not proceed further if you are so spiritually or ‘religiously’ sensitive that consideration of a differing biblically-based viewpoint is out of the question. This review is intended solely for mature believers or seekers who wish to avail themselves of a full-gospel New Testament perspective, regardless of the traditions of human-based religious institutions.

The following is a selective sample of various comments by Catholic and non-Catholic reviewers of the film that reflect my reaction to Gibson’s movie. Sources will be credited at the conclusion of this series in a bibliography. I have taken some liberty to intersperse my own comments when deemed necessary to conform them to my understanding of New Testament scripture. As a serious Bible student and believer for over 24 years, I feel compelled to address this issue, only because very few of my fellow believers (and a scant number of Christian apologists) are rising to the defense of the Holy Scripture, and by extension, to the defense of the Christian Gospel. A gospel that is so poorly depicted and distorted in this media presentation that has so dramatically impacted our nation. No claim of inspiration is made other than that the Lord has provided His Holy Word to all of us to feed upon and to spiritually thrive upon as we journey towards fulfillment of His calling and purpose in our lives.

Whatever is stated here should and must be weighed and measured by the very Word of God and that will remain your responsibility to perform for “man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4)

Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ projects a world in which demonic powers and evil, faithless humans blow by blow and wound by wound gradually destroy the body of Jesus of Nazareth. As David Elcott has observed, the film encourages viewers to take sides in a war of good vs. evil, a cosmic battle of belief vs. the powers of darkness. One is either a follower of Jesus or a pawn of Satan. For some this dualism seems to reach out from the screen into reactions to the movie. A viewer either praises the film or is aligned with the sinister forces that oppose it. Fans of the film pillory critics of this Hollywood production as enemies of the New Testament.

The film begins at a zenith with its opening, though incomplete reference to the Prophet Isaiah’s 53rd chapter and spirals downward from there with its unrelenting concoction of out-of-context biblical references and disproportionate doses of extra-biblical, spurious source material. “I wanted to be true to the Gospels,” Gibson has said of his goals in creating “The Passion of the Christ.” In an introduction to a book about his movie, he wrote, “Holy Scripture and ‘accepted visions’ of the Passion were the only possible texts I could draw from to fashion a dramatic film.” But because scripture is silent on certain details of the Passion, several scenes in the movie aren’t found in the Bible. Some of Gibson’s additions are quite plausible embellishments of brief biblical mention but most came from other ‘religious’ sources, namely the visions of the mystic nuns Sister Anne Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. And a few scenes, apparently, are outright fabrications—often artistically daring ones. There is a biblical saying that aptly summarizes the problem, “a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf” which speaks of the leaven (false teachings) of the Pharisees, a legalistic sect of early Judaism (from which the Apostle Paul originated before his dramatic conversion to Christianity on the road to Damascus).

The film is leavned/polluted with many non-biblical elements. In principle there is nothing wrong for a screenwriter to contextually augment the rather meager passion narratives. Indeed, choices such as staging, lighting, costuming, etc. make the supplementing of the biblical texts inevitable. But in Gibson’s gospel, these unbiblical features are so interwoven with scenes from one synoptic Gospel or another that the unwary viewer, already experiencing sensory overload because of the film’s vivid brutality, is unlikely to detect them or ponder their significance. In a word, it is deception and what’s worse, it so maligns God’s sacred texts (God’s inspired Word) that it crosses the line into spiritual deception which can have eternal consequences; not only for the perpetrator, but for the innocent or biblically illiterate masses of believers and potential converts to Christianity. I am in wholehearted agreement with the following Catholic statement:

“It is not sufficient for the producers of passion dramatizations to respond to responsible criticism simply by appealing to the notion that “it’s in the Bible.” One must account for one’s selections”. (U.S. Catholic Bishops, Criteria for the Evaluation of Dramatizations of the Passion (1988).

Is it acceptable for a filmmaker - even though he regularly repeats the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ died for the sins of all humanity - to so poorly combine elements from the four Gospel accounts and to add many scenes not found in the New Testament with the result that the wickedness of Jewish characters is magnified? Can such directorial choices simply be overlooked because they occur in a movie about Christ? Why has Gibson chosen to select and combine in the way he did? What is the source of the extra-biblical material in Gibson’s film?

There is an author at work who ought to have received the major screenwriting credit for the film. Indeed, it is obvious upon close examination that Gibson has actually created a cinematic version, not so much of the Christian Gospels but of the so-called mystic nun’s (Anne Catherine Emmerich) purported visions of the death of Jesus.

The Passion According to Anne Catherine EmmerichAnne Catherine Emmerich lived between 1774 and 1824. An Augustinian nun in Westphalia, Germany who was renowned as a mystic and stigmatic, her dreams or visions of the life of Christ were collected after her death and published. Living when Catholics and some uneducated Christians simply took it for granted that Jews were collectively cursed for the crucifixion of Jesus, her narratives emphasize Jewish evildoing. Probably the most disturbing indication of Emmerich’s attitudes toward Jews is found in a reported vision that occurred in 1819. A recently deceased Jewish widow takes Emmerich’s spirit on a journey to a distant Jewish city:

“The soul of the old Jewess Meyr told me on the way that it was true that in former times the Jews, both in our country and elsewhere, had strangled many Christians, principally children, and used their blood for all sort of superstitious and diabolical practices. She had once believed it lawful; but she now knew that it was abominable murder. They still follow such practices in this country and in others more distant; but very secretly, because they are obliged to have commercial intercourse with Christians.” [4] Given this matter-of-fact repetition of the blood libel, followed by racist descriptions of Jews with “hooked noses” (whose degree of bend indicates their degree of evilness), [5] it is not surprising that Emmerich’s account of Jesus’ passion prominently features negative images of Jews, including a close association with the demonic:

In the Christian world […] erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability [for the crucifixion] have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people. Pope John Paul II, Oct. 21, 1997

“At the same moment I perceived the yawning abyss of hell like a fiery meteor at the feet of Caiaphas; it was filled with horrible devils; a slight gauze alone appeared to separate him from its dark flames. I could see the demoniacal fury with which his heart was overflowing, and the whole house looked to me like hell. […]I remember seeing, among other frightful things, a number of little black objects, like dogs with claws, which walked on their hind legs; I knew at the time what kind of wickedness was indicated by this apparition, but I cannot remember now. I saw these horrible phantoms enter into the bodies of the greatest part of the bystanders, or else place themselves on their head or shoulders.” [6]

While Gibson did not include this scene, its worldview of a cosmic battle between demonic powers and Jews against the forces of believers in Christ certainly permeates his film. Indeed almost all of the film’s extra-biblical scenes mentioned above are derived from Emmerich. To them one could add the picture of Herod as effeminate, of Barabbas as bestial (which makes the crowd’s preference of him even more vile), and of Jesus’ arm being dislocated by his crucifiers in order to line up with pre-drilled holes in the cross. The film’s arrangement of the different Gospel elements is also indebted to Emmerich. The Passion of the Christ is a filmed version of Emmerich’s imaginative interpretation of the Gospels. The film is so dependent on her that it could have been aptly titled “The Passion According to Emmerich”.

It is thanks to Emmerich’s influence, for example, that the film exaggerates Gospel passages that describe Jesus as struck by Jewish individuals and turns them into a severe assault upon Jesus. All the Gospels describe some violence being inflicted on Jesus when he is brought before the high priest. In the synoptics, he is spat upon, blindfolded, struck on the face, and slapped (Mt. 26:67-68, Mk. 14:65; Lk. 22:63-65), although in John a single soldier only strikes Jesus once with his hand (Jn.18:22 ).

However, in Emmerich, Jesus is brutally abused at this juncture, a scene that is clearly echoed in the film: “[A] crowd of miscreants— the very scum of the people—surrounded Jesus like a swarm of infuriated wasps, and began to heap every imaginable insult upon him. […] [They] pulled out handfuls of his hair and beard, spat upon him, struck him with their fists, wounded him with sharp-pointed sticks, and even ran needles into his body; […] around his neck they hung a long iron chain, with an iron ring at each end, studded with sharp points, which bruised and tore his knees as be walked. […] After many many insults, they seized the chain which was hanging on his neck, dragged him towards the room into which the Council had withdrawn, and with their sticks forced him in, […] A large body of councilors, with Caiaphas at their head, were still in the room, and they looked with both delight and approbation at the shameful scene which was enacted, […] Every countenance looked diabolical and enraged, and all around was dark, confused, and terrific. [7] ”

Gibson has been quoted as saying that Emmerich “supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of.” [8] He also carries what he considers to be her relic, which he showed during a recent television interview. [9] This raises the possibility that Gibson has relied so heavily on Emmerich because he believes she was gifted with a historical vision of the first-century. Whether this is true or not, Gibson claimed in the same television interview that he saw nothing anti-Semitic in her writings. However, from a Catholic perspective it seems undeniable that both Emmerich and Gibson have failed to “avoid absolutely any actualization of certain texts of the New Testament which could provoke or reinforce unfavorable attitudes toward the Jewish people.” [10].

Historical ErrorsThe Passion of the Christ’s filming in ancient languages gives the film the veneer of historical verisimilitude that may mislead some viewers into thinking they’re watching a documentary. And despite claims that the film is the most accurate portrayal of the death of Jesus ever filmed, The Passion of the Christ contains many historical errors and omissions.

For instance, although graphic and bloody, the movie shows Jesus carrying a complete cross and not simply a crossbeam; the nails are driven through his palms, not his wrists; and Gibson adds a footrest to the cross, which is unattested in Roman literature or archaeological studies that instead describe a projecting seat. [11] It is also noteworthy that those crucified with Jesus are not scourged, even though that was the standard Roman procedure. The film’s depiction of the mechanics of crucifixion is more derived from traditions of Christian art than from historical knowledge. An artistic judgment is also evident in the scourging scene where, although Jesus’ flesh is torn to ribbons so that his ribs are visible, his loincloth seems amazingly resistant to the whips.

More importantly, the film totally reverses the relationship of Pilate to Caiaphas. It is an undisputed historical fact that Caiaphas was dependent on the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, to retain his position as high priest. Since Caiaphas held the high priesthood throughout Pilate’s eleven-year tenure as prefect, but was quickly removed when it ended, it seems clear that the two collaborated closely. There was surely no possibility that Caiaphas could even imagine revolting against Roman rule, as the film contends. The result of this historical fantasy is that the Jewish leader is made the driving force behind Jesus’ execution.

Also significant is the historical fact that the Passover festival was an especially volatile time since it celebrated freedom from foreign domination. Jerusalem overflowed with Jewish pilgrims from around the Empire, and it was the usual practice for Roman governors to station soldiers in the Temple precincts to prevent any uprising. [12]

Statement by Richard Leonard, S.J., Director of the Australian Catholic Film Office:To realize their insights into the Jesus story on screen, all these directors, bar Pasolini, and now including Gibson, commit a fundamental and serious sin. They collapse the four canonical Gospels into one, as though they are identical stories about Jesus. Then they take whatever they want from this biblical smorgasbord. Unlike the church in its liturgical traditions in Holy Week, “The Passion of the Christ” liberally jumps between all the narratives with no regard for any particular Gospel.

The Second Vatican Council in its decree “On Divine Revelation” and the Pontifical Biblical Commission have warned that this process does a disservice to the integrity each of the texts, and can do harm to the portrait of Jesus it paints.

What we have in the Gospels are four highly stylized, inspired portraits of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. The differences between these accounts are especially evident when they turn to the passion of Jesus.

In Mark Jesus suffers grievously and feels abandoned on the cross. Matthew sees Jesus as the rejected Messiah of Israel and is noted for its anti-Jewish tone. Luke has Jesus reach out to Gentiles and sinners, even on the cross, and then reconcile himself to his death. John’s Jesus is poised, controlled and majestic as he enters into his suffering and death.

Each of these inspired narratives comes out of a particular historical context and community which contributed to the final work we have today. But “The Passion of the Christ” rolls them all into one. It takes the suffering of Mark, the blame-game of Matthew and the compassion of Luke and, very broadly indeed, follows the events and characters recorded by John. “The Passion of the Christ” interprets and selects material from its Gospel sources in a way that does not honor the original meaning or intention of the Gospels, and cannot be seen as the “historically accurate” account of the first Good Friday, which the director has claimed it to be.

There are just too many of these errors to list, but three will do. “The Passion of the Christ” continues the calumny against Mary Magdalene by casting her as the woman taken in adultery in John 8. The film argues that all three versions of his last words recorded over the four Gospels were said by Jesus from the cross. Worst of all it changes the tearing of the veil of the temple into a fully-fledged earthquake that physically breaks up the temple floor.

The second sin Gibson and his colleagues commit with the passion story is the insertion of extraneous material they inflict on the already homogenized narrative that they have created. In Gibson’s case this material is key to understanding his film and why he made it in the first place.

We know that Gibson was drawn to make this film after a spiritual awakening. His is on record as saying that one of the texts that affected him most deeply on this laudable journey was “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Written in 1824 by the German mystic Catherine Emmerich, this book records her private revelations and visions about the suffering and death of Jesus.

In many instances Emmerich’s work varies significantly in detail and tone from any of the Gospels and unfortunately Gibson has incorporated a number of scenes from this book into his film: a confrontation after the arrest between a chained Jesus and Judas; a much larger role for Pilate’s wife; a tender meeting between Jesus and his mother; a raven picking out the eyes of the bad thief; and a waterfall of blood pouring over the Roman Centurion as he pierces Jesus’ side. As befits Catholic spirituality of the time, Emmerich was obsessed with the details of how Jesus suffered, and for how long. So is Gibson. I never thought the scourging at the pillar would end. This particular episode is unrelentingly violent.

*PART TWO TO FOLLOW…..

I find it pretty amazing that the best opportunity for evangelizing didn’t even carry “The Message”. Unbelievers are just as confused leaving the theater as when they went in. HOPEFULLY, they will ask questions. Like um … WHY did he have to suffer and die?

Then apparently, just like you, they either came into the theatere late, or didn’t bother reading the subtitles of the lines spoken by the Satan character in the Garden of Gethsemanie (sp?) sequence which opened the film.

Anyone who read those subtitles would’ve known IMMEDIATELY why Jesus had to suffer and die. The vast majority of viewers, Christian and non-Christian alike —including virtually all the non-Christian movie critics— certainly seemed to get that Message.

Maybe that was because they arrived on time and paid attention.

Mr. Esparolini, Thank you for clearing that up regarding my comment that people aren’t getting “the message”… like WHY did Jesus have to die. Le ME clarify what I meant by “why” and it has nothing to do with subtitles. Again, there is NO salvation message here. I’ve known “Jesus died for my sins” all my life but I never really understood what that meant until I learned about the Holiness of God. The unregenerate are seeing this movie 2 and 3 times and still don’t turn from their sin, either because they don’t understand what sin is, or because it has already been paid for and there isn’t anything required on their part. Yes, Grace is free, but a saving faith is one that leads to repentance. I believe The Passion could convict some Christians who have become rather lax in spending time with God or being obedient into doing that, but it is NOT a life changing evangelistic tool! I think after a month of shows the reviews are in and we can be certain there is NO revival. (Sales for the “Dolorous Passion” by Anne Catherine Emmerich, Mr. Gibson’s mystic nun that gave him visions and ideas for the movie, have skyrocketed though)! Quite the contrary, this movie serves only to reassure non-Christians that God is a god of love.. only. All I hear and read is that they see how much God loves THEM… not a peep about how offensive sin is to HIM. That, sir, gives unbelievers a false sense of security and a very dangerous gospel. Worse than none at all because now they think they are right with God and no reason to seek His face or any further knowledge of Him. Only Satan could come up with a scheme as clever as that! And as an added bonus, get all the Christians to take some unsaved person to see “The Crucified Christ”. I’m not buyin’ it. I’ll just read His Word which has the power to both save AND sanctify. “Sanctify them by the truth; your WORD is TRUTH”. John 17:17

You may have just discovered Old Testament typology, John, but that doesn’t mean you can recognize the Roman Church’s compulsive abuse of it.

Which, of course, is based on the early church fathers’ “compulsive abuse of it.” :-) The “Roman Church” —along with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, btw— merely preserved, passed on, and developed that “compulsive abuse.” :-)

Your selection from the “on and on” list concludes with the dogma-serving presumption known as Ark-of-the-Covenant Mary.

The Ark of the Covenant was the meeting place where God Himself appeared above the Mercy Seat between the two cherubims. He was present there, in His Glory, to speak to His people and to receive the atoning blood sacrifice. There were no birthing or maternal elements in the Ark’s design, construction, and worship instructions which prefigure Mary.

Harmon, in ancient Christian typology a type was BY DEFINITION a foreshadow of a future reality, not a photographic image of it. I’m sure you would agree, for example, that David was a type foreshadowing Jesus. Yet David never walked on water, fed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, or rose from the dead. Moreover, he committed both murder and adultery. Likewise, just because “the Ark’s design, construction, and worship instructions” do not prefigure Mary it does not follow that the Ark itself does not prefigure Mary.

As for your argument that “there were no … maternal elements in the Ark’s design,” you conveniently forget that the Ark was a container carrying the Word of God, just as Mary’s womb was a container carrying the Word of God. Once again, as the early church fathers argued —and it was they, not I who came up with the “dogma-serving presumption known as Ark-of-the-Covenant Mary”— the Ark foreshadowed Mary ONLY in the sense that BOTH carried the Word of God. This parallelism was one of the chief reasons the early church insisted on referring to Mary as Theotokos, “God-bearer.”

The bottom line, Harmon, is that your dispute is not really with how modern-day Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians interpret the Bible when it comes to Mary, but with how the early church fathers and the entire ancient orthodox Christian community in both the West and the East (later to become known respectively as “Roman Catholic” and “Eastern Orthodox”) which followed them interpreted the Bible when it comes to Mary.

Here are but two examples of the early church’s view of Mary, including Mary as the “Ark of the New Covenant”:

Athanasius, Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, AD 373:

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.

Athanasius, Prayer to Mary, [undated, 4th century AD]:

… It becomes you to be mindful of us, as you stand near Him Who granted you all graces, for you are the Mother of God and our Queen. Help us for the sake of the King, the Lord God Master Who was born of you. For this reason you are called ‘full of Grace’…

Athansius was hardly alone in seeing a parallelism between Mary and the Ark and other “Marian fantasies” in the Bible. Many of his contemporaries and predecessors also “indulged” in them. To wit:

Augustine of Hippo, Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary, 415 AD:

Blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay you with praise and thanksgiving for having rescued a fallen world by your generous consent? …accept then such poor thanks as we have to offer, unequal though they be to your merits. Receive our gratitude and obtain by your prayers the pardon of our sins. Take our prayers into the sanctuary of heaven and enable them to bring about our peace with God…Holy Mary, help the miserable, strengthen the discouraged, comfort the sorrowful, pray for your people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God. May all who venerate you, feel now your help and protection. …Make it your continual care to pray for the people of God, for you were blessed by God and were made worthy to bear the Redeemer of the world, who lives and reigns for ever.

Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 130 AD:

As Eve was seduced by the speech of an angel, so as to flee God in transgressing his word, so also Mary received the good tidings by means of the angel’s speech, so as to be God within her, being obedient to this word. And though the one had disobeyed God, yet the other was drawn to obey him; that of the virgin Eve, the virgin Mary might become the advocate and as by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved- a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’ obedience.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 100 AD:

For whereas Eve, yet a virgin and undefiled, through conceiving the word that came from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One to be born of her should be the Son of God, answered, Be it don to me according to thy word. And so by means of her was he born, concerning whom we have shown so many Scriptures were spoken; through whom God overthrows the serpent, and those angels and men who have become like to it, and on the other hand, works deliverance from death for such as repent of their evil doings and believe in him.

Epiphanius, Against Eighty Heresies, 374 AD:

Eve was called the mother of the living…after the fall this title was given to her. True it is…the whole race of man upon earth was born from Eve; but in reality it is from Mary the Life was truly born to the world. So that by giving birth to the Living One, Mary became the mother of all living.

The New Testament never suggests that Mary is the “New Ark of the Covenant,” but emphatically declares, rather, that Jesus, not Mary, is the full focus of the type.

The New Testament as understood in the context of the Old most certainly does make that suggestion, especially in Luke’s narrative of the Annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel. But the suggestion is implicit as opposed to explicit, just as the Bible’s prohibition against abortion as murder is implicit as opposed to explicit, and the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity is implicit as opposed to explicit.

Jesus, not Mary, is the propitiation (Romans 3:25) or mercy seat, the covering of the Ark itself which was sprinkled with the atoning blood.

Agreed. No one said otherwise. But that is hardly relevant to the fact that both the Ark and Mary contained the Word of God

With reference to the Ark’s contents, Jesus, not Mary, is the “living bread which came down from heaven (John 6:51)”; Jesus, not Mary, came “to fulfill” the law (Matthew 5:17); Jesus, not Mary, is the “High Priest , who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens (Hebrews 8:1).” Finally, there is nothing of Mary in the Book of Hebrews’ description (9:23,24) of Christ’s sacrificial fulfillment of the Old Testament..

Agreed. No one said otherwise. But that is hardly relevant to the fact that both the Ark and Mary contained the Word of God.

The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant was itself holy, perfect and complete because it was dedicated to God alone. To suggest that Mary typologically fulfills the place reserved for the God of Glory on earth and for His Son in Heaven is worse than a perversion of typology.

Which means what, exactly, therefore? That Mary never carried the Incarnate Word of God? Hmmm. Sounds like we’re back to that old Gnosticism bugaboo, Harmon.:-)

IMO, your problem lies chiefly in your faulty and undemonstrated presupposition that all typology in the OT must apply only to Jesus specifically. This makes no sense at all when one considers that the earthly city of Jerusalem in the OT is a type which foreshadows the New Jerusalem, and the twelves elders of the OT foreshadow the twelve Apostles. So there are indeed other types in the OT which prefigure other NT realities and persons in addition to the Lord Jesus.

…Putting the blessed, human mother of Jesus in the places where God alone dwells is blasphemy.

“The places where God alone dwells”? You mean, like Heaven? That’s funny, my Bible says the very opposite —especially in St. John’s vision of Heaven in Revelation. What were all those angels, elders, martyrs, and Apostles doing there in a place “where God alone dwells”?

Nevertheless, mariolatrous brainwash will never allow this one glorious, fact to take root in your heart —Old Testament typology points directly, exclusively, and ultimately to the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ alone.

“Exclusively”? Not according to the ancient Christians, who, btw, saw Mary as intimately united with her Son and as playing a crucial integral role in salvation history. So your problem isn’t with me, but with them.

Harmon drones on….

But a “container” does not a mother or an Ark of the Covenant make. In light of what the New Testament has revealed about the Christ-centeredness of the Ark,…

But how does the Christ-centeredness of the Ark in any way mitigate it as a type foreshadowing the one who carried Him, as the Word of God Incarnate, in her womb?

So far, all your “rebuttals” amount to forms of Argument of Silence —e.g., the Bible doesn’t explicitly say so therefore it can’t be true. The last time I looked, an Arguments of Silence was an informal fallacy.

…the ‘container-carrier’ gambit is a dead bulb—your list of devotional exclamations from early marian ‘authorities’ notwithstanding.

“Authorities” who were far more competent at “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” than you (or I) can ever hope to be. Apparently, they didn’t consider it a “dead bulb.”

That was your hand-polished bugaboo… and here it comes, once again, juggling the claim that the Godhead includes Mary.

Whoever said that the Godhead includes Mary??? Documentation, please.

It was God alone who dwelt between the cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies on earth (Ps 99:1), and it was the Lord Jesus alone who entered once into the heavenly Holy place (Hebrews 9:11,12,23,24). Mary was not prefigured in the God of Glory who was present over the Ark, nor did Mary, in her person, accompany the Lord Jesus into the heavenly holy place with His blood offering.

But notice, please, that nowhere does Scripture say that God was the Ark. However, I never said that “Mary was …prefigured in the God of Glory who was present over the Ark.” Nor did I say that “Mary, in her person, accompan[ied] the Lord Jesus into the heavenly holy place with His blood offering.”

I only said that in her maternity as the Theotokos the Ark prefigured her. This is the same point Athanasius made in the quote I gave you. I suggest you take it up with him. ;-)

And your problem is that you don’t see scripture as preeminently Christ-centered.

How in the world did you draw that hasty leap-in-logic conclusion from ANYTHING I said???

All typology works together for one purpose, to illuminate and to proclaim the Person and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Of course. Where have I said otherwise?

…The New Jerusalem is a bride prepared for the Lamb (the Lord Jesus): ….

Exactly. And guess what, Harmon? The bride of the Lamb is not Jesus. So you just made my case that not all OT types image/foreshadow the Person of Jesus “exclusively” (your word, not mine), but of many New Covenant realities. Please make up your mind about what your position is vis OT typology.

IMO, the real problem here, Harmon, is that you’re so wedded to your post-Reformation anti-Marian ideology that you can’t see any Marian aspects in OT typology even when they bite you on the tuchus.

Here’s a bit of news for you: That ideology didn’t exist outside the Anabaptist and Gnostic lunatic fringe until after the magisterial Reformers —nearly all of them Marians, even Calvin— went to their Heavenly rewards. IOW, anti-Marianism is a novelty, and a novelty which places you outside the orbit of 2,000 years of Christian consensus. Both historically and biblically, it’s no more valid than the imprecations of John Nelson Darby.

I suggest you do your homework on the subject. You can begin with the works of the early church fathers —especially their commentaries on Scripture— and the studies of noted Patristic scholars like the late J. N. D. Kelly (specifically, chapter 18, “Mary and the Saints” in Early Christian Doctrines) and Jaroslav Pelikan (specifically, Volume One of his series The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine). FYI, both Kelly and Pelikan were/are Protestants (Anglican and Lutheran respectively).

Via con Dios, amigo!

But how does the Christ-centeredness of the Ark in any way mitigate it as a type foreshadowing the one who carried Him, as the Word of God Incarnate, in her womb?

…And, again, the purpose of the Tabernacle and the Holy of Holies was not to house the human Mary who was not prefigured in the Holy place where the atoning blood was sprinkled….

But ONCE AGAIN that was not the ONLY purpose of the Ark. The Ark also functioned as the bearer —container, carrier, “womb”— of the Written Word.

…The type simply doesn’t make it as a marian metaphor with Container Mary carrying Content Jesus.

But you still have not explained why it does not, much less cannot. Merely pointing to other purposes and functions of the Ark is not a counter-argument. Once again, the fact that the Ark did not in every respect prefigure Mary in every respect is wholly irrelevant. As I pointed out previously, neither did Moses, Melchizedech, or David in every respect prefigure Jesus in every respect. Yet would you likewise deny that Moses, Melchizedech, and David were not types of Christ? You never answered that question the last time I posed it. So please answer it now: “Yes” or “no.”

Your typology includes Mary in the Godhead.

How so unless the Ark is a type of the Godhead??? So far, you’ve cited nothing from Scripture which shows this. All you’ve cited is Scripture which —as I already knew— shows that the Ark was a place and an object which God overshadowed.

…your Mary-centered, negatively-formed, question-answer asserts that Mary, by carrying the Incarnate Word, does indeed typologically occupy the place reserved for the God of Glory over the Ark.

ROTFL I don’t see how unless I claimed that the Ark too “occup[ied] the place reserved for the God of Glory over the Ark”! Either you can’t distinguish between an object and an entity which overshadows the object, or you think I can’t.

…nowhere does it say that Mary was the Ark, but it does say that God was present over the Ark….

Just as Scripture also says that God was also present over Mary: “….the power of the Most High will overshadow you…” (Luke 1:35, RSV)

Funny how that language (specifically the word episkiazo) mimicks the same language in the OT when God’s presence in the Shekinah cloud overshadows the Ark and the Tabernacle, and later in when He overshadows (episkiazo again) the Mount of Transfiguration in Matt. 17: 5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:34.

Here’s another instance of OT mimickry:

Luke 1: 43 — “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (RSV)

2 Sam. 6:9 — And David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” (RSV)

Coincidence? I don’t think so. I suspect that both Luke and the Holy Spirit knew very well what they were doing!

…Mary (as you should know, by now) was never present over the Ark which prefigured the Lord Jesus.

Of course not, especially if the Ark prefigured Mary as well. Once again, I never said the Ark overshadowed the Ark. LOL

No, amigo, you make up your mind. You agree that “All typology works together for one purpose, to illuminate and to proclaim the Person and the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” and then you eat your agreement, “…that not all OT types image/foreshadow the Person of Jesus “exclusively” (your word, not mine), but of many New Covenant realities.”

[sigh] To the black-and-white Nominalist mind which can see only in terms of “either/or” instead of “both/and,” nuance is an alien concept indeed.

Please explain how the two notions necessarily contradict each other rather than complement each other. (This should be interesting.)

Show us how the Bride has an exclusive purpose apart from the Person of Jesus?

I never said it did. So please explain how this is at all a relevant response to my point that the Bride is not the Lamb. As I said, in response to your assertion that all OT types foreshadow Christ “exclusively,” the earthly Jerusalem did not prefigure Christ Himself but rather the New Covenant reality of the Heavenly Jerusalem. What part of that did you not grasp?

Now that you’re clinging to an argumentum ad verecundiam,…

How is it an “appeal to irrelevant authority” to cite historical evidence to make an historical point? Methinks you don’t know the meaning of the alleged fallacy you name.

…notice the lack of marian spin in Calvin’s commentary on Luke 11:27 (“Blessed is the womb”). ;-)

But you conveniently overlook the presence of at least one “marian spin” elsewhere in Calvin’s writings:

On Matthew 1: 25: The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband … No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words … as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin … What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us … No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. —Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle; Eerdmans, 1949; p. 107

Harmon,

Play nicely please. Your posts continue to be abrasive & rude. This is a public site and you are a bad example to nonbelievers. People with positions that are solidly rooted in the Bible don’t have to resort to such tactics. Your credibility has eroded. John, thank you for staying above board.

Lee

I am not working for John!!

I am not working for John!!

(Hey John, was it $10 per post, or per line?)

Just the shadow of a whip and the two of you are down the conspiracy track like horses on steroids. So where’s the “rude” list, Lee?

“Above.” :-) Check the rebuke posted by Lee (March 27, 2004 04:19 PM). It just imploded.

John,

Spoken like a true gentleman. Bravo.

Now, I gotta go… I’ve imploded and I think that’s a really really bad thing.

Lee

Now we’re talkin’. Harmon, that was a very nice thing to say to John. Thank you.

Sorry, John, for the delay—

But ONCE AGAIN that was not the ONLY purpose of the Ark. The Ark also functioned as the bearer —container, carrier, “womb”— of the Written Word.

Marian Catholicism can’t survive without a multi-purpose Ark—hence the need to fabricate a marianized metaphor that morphs from “container” to “carrier” to “womb.” The Hebrew Epistle knows nothing of this twisting of typology but srtikingly shows how the Ark is dedicated to and fulfilled by Christ’s sacrifice, not Mary’s motherhood.

…The type simply doesn’t make it as a marian metaphor with Container Mary carrying Content Jesus.

But you still have not explained why it does not, much less cannot. Merely pointing to other purposes and functions of the Ark is not a counter-argument…Yet would you likewise deny that Moses, Melchizedech, and David were not types of Christ? You never answered that question the last time I posed it. So please answer it now: “Yes” or “no.”

“Merely pointing to other purposes and functions of the Ark is not a counter-argument”? Who’s pointing? Whose counter-argument? Allow this authoritative explanation from scripture to clear your head:

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; (Hebrews 9:11,12,23,24)

That Moses, Melchizedech, and David are types of Christ does nothing to encourage the marianizing of the Ark. You wrote, “the fact that the Ark did not in every respect prefigure Mary in every respect is wholly irrelevant.” Moses, Melchizedech, and David “did not in every respect prefigure” Christ. That doesn’t mean thesepersons (like marianized Arks) can be typologically exploited to pump up Catholic dogma.

Funny how that language (specifically the word episkiazo ) mimicks the same language in the OT when God’s presence in the Shekinah cloud overshadows the Ark and the Tabernacle, and later in when He overshadows ( episkiazo again) the Mount of Transfiguration in Matt. 17: 5, Mark 9:7, and Luke 9:34.

Your proof-texting appeal to “mimicry” is a standard Catholic evasion of the passage fron the Epistle to the Hebrews revealing how the Lord Jesus fulfills the type. It displays a magnificent Christ-centeredness which cuts down your fuzzy and eisegetically marian “place and an object which God overshadowed.”

Here’s another instance of OT mimickry: [Luke 1: 43; 2 Sam. 6:9] Coincidence? I don’t think so. I suspect that both Luke and the Holy Spirit knew very well what they were doing!

And you can be sure they weren’t laying a track of “OT mimicry” to arrive at the cult of Mary. The Holy Spirit uplifts the Person of Jesus Christ, not Mary, when proclaiming the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice as it specifically and exclusively relates to “the first covenant” and its “ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.”(Hebrews 9:1-15).

[sigh] To the black-and-white Nominalist mind which can see only in terms of “either/or” instead of “both/and,” nuance is an alien concept indeed. Please explain how the two notions necessarily contradict each other rather than complement each other. (This should be interesting.)

What’s “interesting” is a) this pretentious, diversionary bunny trail through contradiction and complementarity, and b) the way ‘gray’ marian minds have been nuanced all the way into Leo XIII’s hyper-marian fiction, ‘Thus as no man goes to the Father but by the Son, so no man goes to Christ but by His Mother.”

Show us how the Bride has an exclusive purpose apart from the Person of Jesus?

I never said it did.

O course you did, and you do, because this is precisely the pseudo-typological point you’re sweating:

“…As I said, in response to your assertion that all OT types foreshadow Christ ‘exclusively,’ the earthly Jerusalem did not prefigure Christ Himself but rather the New Covenant reality of the Heavenly Jerusalem. What part of that did you not grasp?The only part you grasp is that the words “earthly Jerusalem” are not the words “Christ Himself.” Your earthly Jerusalem is fufilled by “rather the New Covenant reality of the Heavenly Jerusalem” in a literary category removed from the Person of Christ. The Word of God doesn’t share your truncated view of typologocal fulfillment, nor does it leave us with a decontexted, Esparolinian New Jerusalem. The Word does sing of the city’s exclusive and ultimate destination in the Lamb (the Person of the Lord Jesus Himself):

“The twelve gates were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.” —Revelation 21: 21-23

How is it an “appeal to irrelevant authority” to cite historical evidence to make an historical point? Methinks you don’t know the meaning of the alleged fallacy you name [argumentum ad verecundiam].

“Argumentum ad verecundiam, in logic, fallacious argument in which appeal is made to respect for great men to prove a point.” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia, Vol. 1, p.507). And you cited Calvin as a Marian spinner? :

“Then, what shall I say of the blasphemies which rung in the public hymns, and which no pious man is able to hear without the utmost horror? We all know the epithets which they applied to Mary - styling her the gate of heaven, hope, life, and salvation; and to such a degree of infatuation and madness had they proceeded, that they even gave her a right to order Christ!” —The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543), John Calvin, 3 “Reformation Required Without Delay”

But you conveniently overlook the presence of at least one “marian spin” elsewhere in Calvin’s writings:

“Conveniently” overlooked only in the frantic reaching of your mind. Neither commentary (Luke 11:27/Matthew 1: 25) displays a Calvin who obsessively hyper-venerates Mary “to such a degree of infatuation and madness” as de Liguori, John Paul II, or “The Passion of the Christ’s” Mel Gibson.

This, is marian spin:

For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race. (Benedict XV, Litterae Apostolicae, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918, AAS 10, 1918, 182)

How is it an “appeal to irrelevant authority” to cite historical evidence to make an historical point? Methinks you don’t know the meaning of the alleged fallacy you name [argumentum ad verecundiam].

“Argumentum ad verecundiam, in logic, fallacious argument in which appeal is made to respect for great men to prove a point.” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropedia, Vol. 1, p.507)

The definition of the Argumentum ad Verecundian fallacy which you cite is both incomplete and somewhat inaccurate.

The following definition, written by Florida A&M University philosophy professor Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, provides a more thorough and standard representation of the fallacy. The same treatment can be found in any basic Logic textbook —such as Copi and Cohen’s ubiquitous college edition, Introduction to Logic— which you surely would know if you had one.

You can see the full version of Labossiere’s definition from which these extracts are taken at http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

(Italics added for emphasis; bracketed items added for clarity; ellipses indicate text snipped to save space):

—-begin Fair Use extracts—-

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards [for VALID appeals to authority] are widely accepted:

[1] The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question:

Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person’s reliability in the area….

Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person’s expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.

[2] The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise:

If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.…

[3]There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question:

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and “supported” by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and “supported” by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

… It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.

[4]The person in question is not significantly biased:

If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim….

….It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.

[5]The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline:

Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable. What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called “chromabullet therapy” and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his “expertise.” After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.…

A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.

This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim. This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like “I have a book that says…”, or “they say…”, or “the experts say…”, or “scientists believe that…”, or “I read in the paper..” or “I saw on TV…” or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the patient has good reason to accept the doctor’s conclusion. As another example, if a person’s computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

——-[end Fair Use extracts]——

In light of Labossiere’s definition of the Argumentum ad Verecundian fallacy above, please explain how my citation of the testimony of early church fathers on either Mary (a subject on which they were surely highly qualified!) or the post-Reformation novelty of anti-Marian ideology meets any of the criteria for that fallacy.

[to be continued]

(Sorry, Harmon, for the delay… It took me a couple of days to clean up all of the patronize. It was on the carpet, the dog… what a mess!)

“I’m certainly no more “abrasive” or combative than John.”

So, a member of the “marian cult” is your standard for personal internet behavior? Should you perhaps answer to a higher standard, especially on a public forum?

So, a member of the “marian cult” is your standard for personal internet behavior?

ROTFL!!!

Now I gotta go and bake some cakes for my rotating, spot-lighted, 30-foot-tall solid gold Mary statue. (Did I mention the giant mirrored disco ball hanging over her head?) ;-)

But first I gotta light some incense at her feet. (Too bad I’m allergic to the stuff, but no one said being a Mary Cultist was easy!)

Hebrews 9 draws an explicit connection (an anathema to your marian mission) between the Ark and the Lord Jesus:

3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.

But….but….but it STILL doesn’t IDENTIFY the Ark of the Covenant Type AS the Lord Jesus HIMSELF, or as anyone else for that matter.

“[Drawing] an explicit connection between the Ark and the Lord Jesus” is not the same thing as identifying the Ark AS the Lord Jesus. Nor is it the same thing as excluding any role played by His mother.

Once again, the writer of Hebrews mentions the Ark only in v. 9:4 and only in passing. He didn’t elaborate on the Ark as a type, and wrote nothing at all about what or who that object itself as a type foreshadowed —as opposed to what its position and/or function(s) in the Tabernacle foreshadowed. He certainly had plenty of opportunity to do so, no?

So that silence hardly qualifies as “an anathema [of my] marian mission” —and it’s actually the early church fathers’ “marian mission” since I got it from them! LOL— or as “an anathema” of anything else. (Of course, I’m always amused to the point of ROTFLMBO whenever any self-ordained anti-papal pope with a Bible takes it upon him-or-herself to issue anathemas. One would think the Apostles themselves had passed on to him or her their authority to bind or loose. Too much! LOL)

You may not like the facts, Harmon, but that doesn’t make them anything less factual. One of those facts is that the early church fathers —who were steeped in in-depth study of the Old Testament long before there was a New Testament canon— did indeed understand several OT types and many messianic prophecies as referring to or including Mary and her role in salvation history, beginning with Genesis 3:15:

“…I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall [crush] your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (RSV)

To them, “the seed” of “the woman” was obviously Christ and therefore, to them, “the woman” was obviously His mother. From this, they also extrapolated that Eve was another type of Mary —or, more precisely, an anti-type since Eve disobeyed God and brought death into the world, while Mary obeyed Him and brought new life through Jesus into the world. Hence in their view Mary was the New Eve (which name they explicitly called her) every bit as much as Jesus was the New Adam.

Contrary to your anti-Marian prejudices, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches didn’t invent such interpretations out of thin air and whole cloth. Those ancient churches have merely preserved and developed what had been established as Christian orthodoxy during the earliest Patristic period, beginning with the first generation after the Apostles —if not before.

So my “marian mission” (whatever that is) has a far more ancient and orthodox pedigree than your “marian mission,” which seems to be to reduce Jesus’ mother to a bystander and/or an incubator.

You had written: “Here’s a bit of news for you: That ideology didn’t exist outside the Anabaptist and Gnostic lunatic fringe until after the magisterial Reformers —nearly all of them Marians, even Calvin— went to their Heavenly rewards. IOW, anti-Marianism is a novelty , and a novelty which places you outside the orbit of 2,000 years of Christian consensus. Both historically and biblically, it’s no more valid than the imprecations of John Nelson Darby.”

I had replied: “Now that you’re clinging to an argumentum ad verecundiam, notice the lack of marian spin in Calvin’s commentary on Luke 11:27 (” Blessed is the womb” ). ;-)”

You responded: “How is it an “appeal to irrelevant authority” to cite historical evidence to make an historical point? Methinks you don’t know the meaning of the alleged fallacy you name.”

Calvin was the marian authority specified in your original statement,…

Don’t play dumb, Harmon. You know as well as I do that I was not citing Calvin as a “marian authority.” I was merely providing an example of what I said in the very same post before I quoted him, namely that anti-Marian ideology “didn’t exist outside the Anabaptist and Gnostic lunatic fringe until after the magisterial Reformers —nearly all of them Marians, even Calvin— went to their Heavenly rewards. IOW, anti-Marianism is a novelty..”

The sole purpose of quoting Calvin’s commentary supporting Mary’s perpetual virginity was to show that he was not a knee-jerk anti-Marian and therefore a Marian of sorts, albeit to a much lesser degree than the Council of Trent fathers or even Martin Luther. IOW, he was a selective Marian, but a Marian nonetheless when compared to his modern-day spiritual heirs.

… and Calvin was the subject of my reply. Using any truly Roman Catholic standard you’d care to apply, Calvin fails miserably as a popish “Marian.” In other words, he’s an irrelevant, questionable and/or inappropriate authority.

But NOT when it comes to making the historical point that the Reformers —including Calvin— were not nearly as hostile to Mary as their modern-day disciples are. The quote by Calvin demonstrates that. The fact that you don’t like what the quote says is irrelevant, and it certainly doesn’t make my citation of the quote either questionable or inappropriate.

Hebrews 9 draws an explicit connection (an anathema to your marian mission) between the Ark and the Lord Jesus:

3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.

But….but….but it STILL doesn’t IDENTIFY the Ark of the Covenant Type AS the Lord Jesus HIMSELF, or as anyone else for that matter…

Once again, the writer of Hebrews mentions the Ark only in v. 9:4 and only in passing. He didn’t elaborate on the Ark as a type, and wrote nothing at all about what or who that object itself as a type foreshadowed —as opposed to what its position and/or function(s) in the Tabernacle foreshadowed…

So my “marian mission” (whatever that is) has a far more ancient and orthodox pedigree than your “marian mission,” which seems to be to reduce Jesus’ mother to a bystander and/or an incubator.

On March 23 I had written: “The New Testament never suggests that Mary is the ‘New Ark of the Covenant,’ but emphatically declares, rather, that Jesus, not Mary, is the full focus of the type.” You ignore the “focus” and your attempt to reshape the argument around the non-issue of identifying the Ark “AS” the Lord Jesus is just plain sleazy. All you’ve done is cunningly establish that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not write the words, “Jesus fulfills the type of the Ark.” But the writer does (Praise be to God!) draw a direct connection between significant detail of the physical Ark and Jesus’ atoning blood sacrifice. Catholic Mary is nowhere to be found in this scripture, either explicitly or implicitly.

A Christian reading this Christ-centered passage will rejoice that the meaning confirms Jesus’ emphasis, “‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures (Luke 24:44,45).” To a type-fixing mariolator, on the other hand, the Spirit-inspired linkage between the Old Testament figure of the Ark and the redemptive work of the Lord Jesus is, very much, an anathema [“something which is greatly disliked or disapproved of:”— Cambridge International Dictionary of English]. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be engrossed in a frantic attempt to disassociate Him from the spiritual import of the Ark, its contents and its service which is clearly developed in Hebrews 9:1-15.

The final defence for your marian fantasies may be patristic, but the Bible is the final authority both for evaluating your defence and for exposing the mariolatry oozing from every pore of the tradition you stand upon. The Word of God does not contain your caricature of the blessed Mary, the mother of Jesus, as “a bystander and/or an incubator.” What the Gospels do tell us about her stands in stark contrast to the crypto-deific “Queen of Heaven” who rules the Roman Catholic Church:

“The foundation of all our confidence is found in the Virgin Mary. God has committed to her the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation . For this is His will: that we obtain everything through Mary . Sweet heart of Mary, be my salvation! “—Pope Pius IX

“When the Holy Spirit finds Mary in a soul, He flies to it. He enters therein and communicates Himself to that soul in abundance.” —- St. Louis de Montfor

“We cannot enter a house without first speaking to the porter. Similarly, we cannot enter heaven without calling upon the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary who is the Portress of Heaven.” —- St. John Vianney

“Do you wish to know the most initmate perfections of Jesus and the most hidden attractions of His Love? Then seek them in the Heart of Mary!.” —-St. Peter Julian Eymard

“In danger, anguish, or doubt, think of Mary and call upon her! Following her, you will never lose your way. Praying to her, you will never sink into despair. Contemplating her, you will never go wrong.” —-St. Bernard

“If you want to grow in perfection, you cannot advance by yourselves - you need a guide. Hence, when you go to God, go through Mary and with Mary!” —- St. Maximilian Kolbe

“Therefore, miserable will he be, says Our Queen, and miserable unto all eternity, who in this life, having it in his power to invoke me, is miserable enough not to invoke me and thus is damned.” — St. Bridget of Sweden

“The salvation of each individual is attached to the Hail Mary.” — St. John Capistrano

“Not only do they offend thee, O Lady, who outrage thee, but thou art also offended by those who neglect to ask thy favors … He who neglects the service of the Blessed Virgin will die in his sins … He who does not invoke thee, O Lady, will never get to Heaven … Not only will those from whom Mary turns her countenance, not be saved, but there will be no hope of their salvation … No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.” — St. Bonaventure

“Mary became for herself and for all men the cause and foundation of salvation.” — St. Francis de Sales

“She opens the abyss of God’s mercy to whomsoever she wills, when she wills, and as she wills, so that there is no sinner however great who is lost if Mary protects him … All men: past, present, and to come, should look upon Mary as the means and the negotiator of the salvation of all ages.” — St. Bernard

“God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary.” — St. Thomas Aquinas

“No one can enter into Heaven except through Mary, as entering through a gate.” — St. Bonaventure

“Mary is called “the Gate of Heaven” because no one can enter Heaven but through her means.” — St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

“Holy Scripture was written for Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary.” — St. Bernard

“He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost.” — Ignatius of Antioch,

=============================You had written: “Here’s a bit of news for you: That ideology didn’t exist outside the Anabaptist and Gnostic lunatic fringe until after the magisterial Reformers —nearly all of them Marians, even Calvin— went to their Heavenly rewards. IOW, anti-Marianism is a novelty , and a novelty which places you outside the orbit of 2,000 years of Christian consensus. Both historically and biblically, it’s no more valid than the imprecations of John Nelson Darby.”

I had replied: “Now that you’re clinging to an argumentum ad verecundiam, notice the lack of marian spin in Calvin’s commentary on Luke 11:27 (” Blessed is the womb” ). ;-)”

You responded: “How is it an “appeal to irrelevant authority” to cite historical evidence to make an historical point? Methinks you don’t know the meaning of the alleged fallacy you name.”

Calvin was the marian authority specified in your original statement,…

Don’t play dumb, Harmon. You know as well as I do that I was not citing Calvin as a “marian authority.” I was merely providing an example of what I said in the very same post before I quoted him…

Don’t play dumber than dumb, John. “Example” Calvin had to have the color of authority in your mind or you wouldn’t have named him as an “example.”

The sole purpose of quoting Calvin’s commentary supporting Mary’s perpetual virginity was to show that he was not a knee-jerk anti-Marian and therefore a Marian of sorts, albeit to a much lesser degree than the Council of Trent fathers or even Martin Luther. IOW, he was a selective Marian, but a Marian nonetheless when compared to his modern-day spiritual heirs.

Only now is this stuff about “sole purpose,” “knee-jerk antiMarian” and “lesser degrees” beginning to crawl forth; it was nowhere to be found in the “bit of news for you” paragraph. And you’re deceiving yourself if you think that a tepid “Marian of sorts” was speaking from Calvin’s The Necessity of Reforming the Church.

… and Calvin was the subject of my reply. Using any truly Roman Catholic standard you’d care to apply, Calvin fails miserably as a popish “Marian.” In other words, he’s an irrelevant, questionable and/or inappropriate authority.

But NOT when it comes to making the historical point that the Reformers —including Calvin— were not nearly as hostile to Mary as their modern-day disciples are. The quote by Calvin demonstrates that. The fact that you don’t like what the quote says is irrelevant, and it certainly doesn’t make my citation of the quote either questionable or inappropriate.

Once again, you squirm. First, you placed a marian Calvin within what you termed the “orbit of 2000 years of Christian consensus.” Despite your effort to modify that statement by installing a scale of marianity in it, you’ve failed to make a case for Calvin as a mainstream Catholic marian. The fact remains that he “denounced the marian epithets, ‘gate of heaven, hope, life, and salvation,’ all of which are now firmly enshrined in dogma and aglow in the Catholic cult of Mary.” So in light of your fat recital of Labossiere’s definition of the Argumentum ad Verecundian fallacy, and in the context of your first mention of Calvin as some kind of orbital marian, Calvin was an irrelevant, questionable and/or inappropriate authority.

==========================So, Harmon, when are you going to be consistent and start your on-line campaign to exhort the Orthodox about “feeding” their “marian addiction” with their “campy” “queen of heaven” icons? :-)

It was a Catholic who introduced us to his “rotating, spot-lighted, 30-foot-tall solid gold Mary statue,” so my consistency is a small matter. However, there’s overwhelming evidence that Romish idols are consistently more ubiquitous, consistently more tacky and consistently more effective in embodying the blasphemous spirit that created them.

…There’s plenty of kitsch proliferating in both our camps, amigo. :-)

It’s not my camp, compadre, so you can forget about losing me in a defence of generic non-Catholic trinket shops.

Nevertheless, after doing an extensive Google search (using the keywords “Mary,” “crucifix,” “cathedral,” “Wambierzyce,” and “Poland”) I have not been able to ascertain if the photo is authentic and/or if the caption given to the photo by the Fundamentalist web site which posts it is at all accurate…

…Nevertheless, from a Polish travel web site here’s a description of a Catholic Basilica located in Wambierzyce:…

…But wait!!! Here’s a link to that very same Basilica, Harmon!!!…

http://www.mateusz.pl/goscie/wambierzyce/html_a/ebaz.htm

There are several pages of photos of the Basilica, officially named the “Archdiocesan Shrine of God’s Mother, Queen of Families.” And guess what, Harmon? Nary a “Mary crucifix” amongst them!…

You silly, frenetic Clouseau! You can be absolutely certain that when the blasphemous image was found during a surf some time ago, my own search was “extensive” and included all the Wambierzyce sites mentioned above. I had then, and continue to have now, doubts about its authenticity if only because of the horrific enormity of the abomination displayed. But, hoax or fact, there it is —exactly what it was intended to be—a graphic slap at your lame, parody of Mary-worship.

So the ‘Wambierzyce image’ offends shifty Catholic correctness? What makes you think that countless carnival-style renderings of the Lord Jesus and His wonderful mother are any less monstrous in the sight of God. The picture belongs in the same hall of blasphemy as Benedict XV’s statement in the caption beneath it:

“She suffered so much for us, almost to the point of dying with Her suffering and dying Son. Therefore we may rightfully say that she has, with Christ, redeemed the human race.”

The bottom line is that no Catholic Bishop in his right mind —not even the Looney Left feminist prelate running the Archdiocese of L.A.— would approve the display of such a statue. Methinks, my friend, that you’ve been had. :-)

The bottom line is that you’ve been had, John. I posted a grotesque JPEG. You, your Bishops and Benedict XV are dogmatically and devotionally ensnared in what the JPEG conveys.

So you two, did you like the movie or not?

You’re ending the exchange with a finger-pointing and a fit of self-righteous dismay ?

You spend a lot of time rolling on the floor laughing, so we know your response to Lee, who had referred to you as a member of “the marian cult,” was meant to be humorous—even as it poured scorn on the idea of mariolatry: “ROTFL!!! Now I gotta go and bake some cakes for my rotating, spot-lighted, 30-foot-tall solid gold Mary statue. (Did I mention the giant mirrored disco ball hanging over her head?) ;-)”

I submitted a sequence of images to answer your sardonic trivializing of Mary-worship. The first four were typical, schlocky marian idols. No problem for you—except to complain that I hadn’t attacked Orthodox Church icons.

The fifth image, a photo of Mary on a crucifix, began with the comment, “Tacky as all get-out, I’ll grant you,” and then the enigmatic, “And —at least on a superficial level— blasphemous, or worse.” We’re left in the dark as to what constitutes “a superficial level of blasphemy,” or what could be “worse” than blasphemy.

I then tell you that I have doubts about the photo’s authenticity (not the accuracy of what it signifies) and you call the integrity police, launch a sanctimonious lecture, damn my conscience, and accuse me of “pulling a scam.” Your cake-baking jocularity had dropped stone cold dead.

The truly viscious “scam,” dear opponent, is projected from the first four statues of Catholic Mary whose “authenticity” you wouldn’t think to question. Their creators have never seen the historical Mary which means that those who “venerate” these idols are paying, and then praying to a false likeness of her.

The blasphemous photo of Mary on a crucifix (much like your madonna with the “giant mirrored disco ball hanging over her head”) graphically captures a vibrant dogmatic, devotional reality within Roman Catholicism.

But the big mystery behind this outburst of offended piety is what your righteous revulsion was doing when you read those Mary-worshipping citations which attribute to Catholic Mary the redemptive, mediating work that the Word of God reserves for the Lord Jesus Christ alone: “In danger, anguish, or doubt, think of Mary and call upon her! Following her, you will never lose your way. Praying to her, you will never sink into despair. Contemplating her, you will never go wrong.” —-St. Bernard “If you want to grow in perfection, you cannot advance by yourselves - you need a guide. Hence, when you go to God, go through Mary and with Mary!” —- St. Maximilian Kolbe “Therefore, miserable will he be, says Our Queen, and miserable unto all eternity, who in this life, having it in his power to invoke me, is miserable enough not to invoke me and thus is damned.” — St. Bridget of Sweden “The salvation of each individual is attached to the Hail Mary.” — St. John Capistrano “Not only do they offend thee, O Lady, who outrage thee, but thou art also offended by those who neglect to ask thy favors … He who neglects the service of the Blessed Virgin will die in his sins … He who does not invoke thee, O Lady, will never get to Heaven … Not only will those from whom Mary turns her countenance, not be saved, but there will be no hope of their salvation … No one can be saved without the protection of Mary.” — St. Bonaventure “Mary became for herself and for all men the cause and foundation of salvation.” — St. Francis de Sales “She opens the abyss of God’s mercy to whomsoever she wills, when she wills, and as she wills, so that there is no sinner however great who is lost if Mary protects him … All men: past, present, and to come, should look upon Mary as the means and the negotiator of the salvation of all ages.” — St. Bernard “God has entrusted the keys and treasures of Heaven to Mary.” — St. Thomas Aquinas “No one can enter into Heaven except through Mary, as entering through a gate.” — St. Bonaventure “Mary is called “the Gate of Heaven” because no one can enter Heaven but through her means.” — St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori “Holy Scripture was written for Mary, about Mary, and on account of Mary.” — St. Bernard “He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost.” — Ignatius of Antioch.

“that icons viewed “windows” to Heaven” should read “that icons are viewed as ‘windows’ to Heaven.”

…and then the enigmatic, “And —at least on a superficial level— blasphemous, or worse.” We’re left in the dark as to what constitutes “a superficial level of blasphemy,” or what could be “worse” than blasphemy.

The key word, obviously, is “superficial,” which means “on the surface” or “by all appearances” or, as the American Heritage Dictionary puts it, “apparent rather than actual or substantial.”

The reason for that designation is simple: Unlike Harmon, I’m neither omniscient nor infallible so unless or until I can read what the artist who created it has actually said was the intention or meaning of the sculpture I can have no idea what he or she REALLY had in mind.

For example, unlike Harmon’s hasty conclusion that the sculpture is to be interpreted literally —i.e., superficially— as Mary being crucified instead of Christ— the statue could have any one of several possible meanings. For example:

(1) The sculpture may be a protest by some feminist artist who feels that women are “crucified” by the “male chauvinist pigs” running Poland.

(2) The sculpture may be a monument to women who suffered martyrdom under some past tyranny. (Note that the woman “on” the cross is wearing 18th or 19th century clothing rather than the biblical-era garb normally attributed to the Virgin Mary.)

(3) The sculture may be a symbolic reminder to Christian women that the Cross was intended for them as well as for men.

(4) The woman “on” the cross may not be on the cross at all, but rather in front of it. Her posture can therefore be interpreted as an imitation of Jesus’ willingness to sacrifice Himself.

(5) The sculpture could be a reminder that women too (not only men) must take up their crosses and follow Jesus.

(6) The sculpture might be a reminder to Christian women that they should regard themselves as “crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2: 20)

(7) On that last note, of course, the sculpture could very well be showing Mary crucified —however, NOT as “another redeemer” but rather (again) to symbolize what St. Paul said about all Christians in Gal. 2: 20, “I am crucified with Christ, but it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me.” (As the first Christian, Mary just happened to become “crucified with Christ” before Paul or anyone else.)

The point of this exercise is that Harmon has no better idea of what the sculpture means than I do. So to take any other position than that “at least on a superficial level” the sculpture in question might be “blasphemous, or worse” would be both presumptuous and irresponsible, two concepts which IMNSHO Harmon needs to incorporate into his conscience.

But the big mystery behind this outburst of offended piety is what your righteous revulsion was doing when you read those Mary-worshipping citations which attribute to Catholic Mary the redemptive, mediating work that the Word of God reserves for the Lord Jesus Christ alone:

‘Tis no big mystery at all. Harmon failed to include references to the original sources of his quotes. I’m not in the habit of commenting on out-of-context snippets without being able to re-read them in those sources. The reason is simple: Unless interpreted in their contexts their actual meaning cannot be determined, nor can any arguments or evidences presented by the writers in support of them be evaluated.

Of course, my bet is that just like the typical rabid anti-Christian Net-atheist who takes great joy in “proving” that the Bible “says” all kinds of nonsense that it really doesn’t, Harmon hasn’t actually read the sources. Most likely he just copied and pasted them from some Know Nothing Party web site. Thus he has no more of an inkling about their true meaning than I do.

I have been “stuck” on your site for over an hour now - reading post after post. I went and saw The Passion last week - There were parts I liked, parts I disliked and parts I did not understand (why was Judas led away by Satan and his devil children???). Overall I went into the movie slightly scared of what I was about to witness (In fact I prayed for protection before the film began). Before the film opened last February I was constantly thinking about it - mostly in a negative context - I had paranoid thoughts about WHAT exactly it was (this was long before I realized others were skeptical). Was this film tied into some Mary cult??? Was it a precursor to something big???? Was it something that George W. Bush and the Christian Right were to benefit from and eventually help them to establish a Theocracy in America and thus “become” the “Anti-Christ” system????? For all you high and mighty PROTESTANTS (I would consider myself very NON-CATHOLIC by the way) quoting Luther and Calvin ( two VERY questionable characters if you read ANYTHING on the two of them!!!) you sound very mean spirited and thus I wonder if you are already under the “spell” of Right Wing Christian Fundamentalism - which really could be THE force of darkness spoken of by Jesus and the Prophets. I know I sound a little paranoid but you almost have to be a little paranoid in this day and age. The United States is the ONLY nation on earth proclaiming itself to a CHRISTIAN NATION and the Religious Right are about one or two steps away from having total control of the Government of the United States - doesn’t this ring ANY alarm bells. For two decades these Pharisees have been rallying against “Homosexuals” ” Pornographers” “Hollywood” and “Liberals” while getting stinking rich. It’s a huge smokescreen and it’s about time we begin to question it. The two most important things I would recommend are to “Go into your closet and pray” and “Become like little children” - thus if all of this is true you will know when it comes down. Beware of False Prophets (i.e. The Vatican, Christian Fundamentalists, Charismatics, Luther, Calvin, and a host of others) - “TEST THE SPIRITS!!!” Hopefully I am wrong but maybe I’m right. Who knows. Only God knows for sure. God Bless you all and God help us all as well. Thanks. I know it was a bit of a rant but I had to get it off my chest. Thanks.