A Bible Study - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians Only

[athanasius]

I like that Athanasius, I am a great believer in these small details, the bible is absolutely full of things below the surface like this (like the names of prophets) which are another reason to see the Spirit all through it.

I just wanted to parralel two verses - I had never paid attention to this one in Luke before but I love it now:
Luke 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
2nd Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Oh glorious certainty, what proofs visible and invisible our Father gives to us that we might know the certainty of the gospel.


I am working on the next post now Luke 5-25.

awesome point! Well said!

 

[*Paul*]

Luke 1:5-6 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

They were both righteous before God walking in all the commandments and ordinances, Paul had this same boast, Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. This doesn’t mean they were not sinners but they also obeyed the law bringing offerings for sin before God too which was an ordinance. Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (also Gal.2:16) But what a happy marriage it is when both partners are so dedicated to the Lord.

Luke 1:7-14 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.

This has its parallels in the Old Testament, as it was with Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Elkanah and Hannah, Manoah and his wife. Epistle to Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. (with God nothing is impossible, what reason have we ever to doubt Him?) What an awesome sight an Angel must be, I notice how that whenever one appears in scripture the righteous are often afraid and faint. When you parallel this with todays visitiations that people claim something doesn’t add up. Today when you hear of someone being visted by an angel they describe a warm fuzzy feeling and being surrounded by acceptance and love and there are usually common themes in their messages which betray their true identity. But being visited by a holy angel usually has a very different effect altogether. Notice also the faith of Zacharius, he had evidently been praying for an offspring for the angel says “thy prayer is heard” – God is a miracle working God. We should then wait patiently for the Lords answer, and leave to his own wisdom the time and manner that He will give us what He deems right in His infinite wisdom and knowledge. John already has His name chosen presumably by God, his name is John (the God given or God is gracious).
I love the way the child is described as one that will bring joy and gladness to his father: Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.
Proverbs 23:24 The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

God clearly thinks of the unborn as living beings for from the womb John the baptist is a temple of the Holy Ghost. John was to be such a man who had no time for the earths vanities and was a high example of dying to self, like Jesus he had a mission and he knew it and pursued it adamantly.

Luke 1:16-17 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

I believe that this explains Jesus comment:
Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
I believe his ministry acted as a plough on mens hearts ready for the seeds planted in hearts by Jesus ministry.

Luke 1:18-20 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.

Here Zacharius sought to get further confirmation than the angels word thus in a sense insulting him. Consider the reaction of Mary and Abraham, Mary had a bigger miracle to comprehend but she simply submitted herself to the truthfulness of the messenger and sought not to test him. Abraham too “staggered not at the promise through unbelief but was strong in faith giving glory to God”. But everything is to be to Gods glory, making Zacharius dumb until the birth of John would be a further sign to the people of Israel of the importance of this child.

Luke 1:21-25 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless. And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

She may have hidden herself that she might spend her time more entirely. in giving praise to God for his mercies, and that she might have the fullest proof of the accomplishment of the promise before she appeared in public or spoke of the mercies of God but I can only guess. Barrenness was a great reproach among the Jews. Because fruitfulness was promised to the righteous


Let me know if this is too long, it may be beneficial to keep it narrower to a few passages at a time so that we don't skip over important thing which I fear I may have done here, it's so hard to do the Word of God justice.

 

[*Paul*]

Gosh ok somethng from the Gospels. How about Luke 1 and 2??

I didn't realise it was Luke 1 & 2 only, thats fine, i was a bit daunted by doing the whole gospel but just thought to myself bit by bit and you'll be there before you know it.

Good idea.

 

[athanasius]

They were both righteous before God walking in all the commandments and ordinances, Paul had this same boast, Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. This doesn’t mean they were not sinners but they also obeyed the law bringing offerings for sin before God too which was an ordinance. Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (also Gal.2:16) But what a happy marriage it is when both partners are so dedicated to the Lord.

This has its parallels in the Old Testament, as it was with Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Elkanah and Hannah, Manoah and his wife. Epistle to Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. (with God nothing is impossible, what reason have we ever to doubt Him?) What an awesome sight an Angel must be, I notice how that whenever one appears in scripture the righteous are often afraid and faint. When you parallel this with todays visitiations that people claim something doesn’t add up. Today when you hear of someone being visted by an angel they describe a warm fuzzy feeling and being surrounded by acceptance and love and there are usually common themes in their messages which betray their true identity. But being visited by a holy angel usually has a very different effect altogether. Notice also the faith of Zacharius, he had evidently been praying for an offspring for the angel says “thy prayer is heard” – God is a miracle working God. We should then wait patiently for the Lords answer, and leave to his own wisdom the time and manner that He will give us what He deems right in His infinite wisdom and knowledge. John already has His name chosen presumably by God, his name is John (the God given or God is gracious).
I love the way the child is described as one that will bring joy and gladness to his father: Proverbs 10:1 The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother.
Proverbs 23:24 The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him.
God clearly thinks of the unborn as living beings for from the womb John the baptist is a temple of the Holy Ghost. John was to be such a man who had no time for the earths vanities and was a high example of dying to self, like Jesus he had a mission and he knew it and pursued it adamantly.
I believe that this explains Jesus comment:
Matthew 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
I believe his ministry acted as a plough on mens hearts ready for the seeds planted in hearts by Jesus ministry.

Here Zacharius sought to get further confirmation than the angels word thus in a sense insulting him. Consider the reaction of Mary and Abraham, Mary had a bigger miracle to comprehend but she simply submitted herself to the truthfulness of the messenger and sought not to test him. Abraham too “staggered not at the promise through unbelief but was strong in faith giving glory to God”. But everything is to be to Gods glory, making Zacharius dumb until the birth of John would be a further sign to the people of Israel of the importance of this child.
[/B]
She may have hidden herself that she might spend her time more entirely. in giving praise to God for his mercies, and that she might have the fullest proof of the accomplishment of the promise before she appeared in public or spoke of the mercies of God but I can only guess. Barrenness was a great reproach among the Jews. Because fruitfulness was promised to the righteous


Let me know if this is too long, it may be beneficial to keep it narrower to a few passages at a time so that we don't skip over important thing which I fear I may have done here, it's so hard to do the Word of God justice.

OOH I loved your insight! Good points especially for the unborn in LK 1:15. I agree with you about some of the Modern day supposed angel apparitions that hit the new age. They do not line up with Scripture.

here is some other things:

Here is a good question: Notice the parrellel between the annuciatiions of the birth of John the baptist and Jesus. These are known as Dyptychs. Both Zechariah and Mary adress the Angel with a question. However, the angels response to Zachariah is different than his repsonse to Mary's. Why is that. Theologians suggest that Zechariahs was different because he seemd to demand proof(presumably because of his lack of faith) he will be unable to talk, whereas Mary seemed to respond in wonder and awe.

Here is a question that many people debate. Was John the first great new testament Prophet or voice or was he the last great old testment prophet. All of this depends on how you see the thematic scheme of salvation history and the coming of the kingdom. Most prefer him to be the first new testmant prophet. I am hanging on the edge of this question and leave myslef open to either side.

One thing is for sure: On a theological level these verse of preparation show us that time is part of the salvific order of Gods plan. And he save the world through a serius of acts and preparations in salvation history. timing is essential to Gods plan. Just as creation was not just carried out in one sudden act so to the new creation of Christ through the world and the new plan of redemption will be carried out by a serius of acts in time.

At least that my take.

 

[athanasius]

Next we get into the fun stuff and alot of how the Catholics see Mariology and its realtionship between true Christology LK 1:26-56 playout in the plan of salvation history.

 

[*Paul*]

Here is a good question: Notice the parrellel between the annuciatiions of the birth of John the baptist and Jesus. These are known as Dyptychs. Both Zechariah and Mary adress the Angel with a question. However, the angels response to Zachariah is different than his repsonse to Mary's. Why is that. Theologians suggest that Zechariahs was different because he seemd to demand proof(presumably because of his lack of faith) he will be unable to talk, whereas Mary seemed to respond in wonder and awe.

I feel it is because Zacharius did not take the angels word for it but asked for proof. Mary simply trusted and obeyed. I think i said that in the post. "Dyptychs"? That sounds welsh, what does it mean?

Here is a question that many people debate. Was John the first great new testament Prophet or voice or was he the last great old testment prophet.

Well I am firmly of the opinon that He was an old testament prophet, I never even realised it was debated. The shed blood is the blood of the new covenant, this had not been done yet. Jesus operated under the Old Covenanent, this was so until the veil was rent and men could approach God by a new and living way the beginning of this dispensation of the Spirit began at pentecost.

All of this depends on how you see the thematic scheme of salvation history and the coming of the kingdom. Most prefer him to be the first new testmant prophet. I am hanging on the edge of this question and leave myslef open to either side.

I was oblivious to this Athanasius.

At least that my take.

Thats a good take, I learned from that. Thanks,

 

[*Paul*]

Next we get into the fun stuff and alot of how the Catholics see Mariology and its realtionship between true Christology LK 1:26-56 playout in the plan of salvation history.

Oh dear, I had a gut feeling something was coming, we may get stuck on this one lol.:run:

 

[athanasius]

I feel it is because Zacharius did not take the angels word for it but asked for proof. Mary simply trusted and obeyed. I think i said that in the post. "Dyptychs"? That sounds welsh, what does it mean?


Well I am firmly of the opinon that He was an old testament prophet, I never even realised it was debated. The shed blood is the blood of the new covenant, this had not been done yet. Jesus operated under the Old Covenanent, this was so until the veil was rent and the dispensation of the Spirit began at pentecost.

I was oblivious to this Athanasius.



Thats a good take, I learned from that. Thanks,

The defination of Diptych is a hinged two leaved tablet with either parrellel pictures or words. It is aword used to describe the parrelles or types of the bible in certain circles.


Thanks for the input I have learned much from you too.

 

[*Paul*]

The defination of Diptych is a hinged two leaved tablet with either parrellel pictures or words. It is aword used to describe the parrelles or types of the bible in certain circles.

Well I certainly understand that concept - it is massivly important to how I understand the Old testament and the New testamant, (the new is in the old concealed the old is in the new revealed). Types, shadows, parrallels all show the common Author of the scriptures. There is so much, even to the smallest details, it's so exiting. No one could ever convince me that it is not the word of God it's just too amazing.

 

[athanasius]

Well I certainly understand that concept - it is massivly important to how I understand the Old testament and the New testamant, (the new is in the old concealed the old is in the new revealed). Types, shadows, parrallels all show the common Author of the scriptures. There is so much, even to the smallest details, it's so exiting. No one could ever convince me that it is not the word of God it's just too amazing.

If you feel this way (which is cool) then you will certainly find intersting the diptych Catholics see in the next few verse relating to Mary and the Ark of the covenant.

 

[may]

Waite a minute May! Your a JW. Jw's are not protestant or Catholic or Orthodox. So why are you posting on here in the first place???

very true ,we are not part of christendom we stick to the bible and what it really teaches . I thought you were after what the bible teaches , but maybe you prefer traditions and creeds , so i am gone now .

 

[*Paul*]

Excuse me but was a post of mine deleted or am I imagining it?

 

[MaddLlama]

Excuse me but was a post of mine deleted or am I imagining it?

There are no deleted posts at all in this thread.

 

[*Paul*]

There are no deleted posts at all in this thread.

Ok ....thanks :run:

 

[*Paul*]

If you feel this way (which is cool) then you will certainly find intersting the diptych Catholics see in the next few verse relating to Mary and the Ark of the covenant.

I was listening to Gary Matatics (?) speak briefly on this subject today so I know a little of what to expect , i'l let you lead with this one as I can't decide how many verses to comment on next.

 

[athanasius]

I was listening to Gary Matatics (?) speak briefly on this subject today so I know a little of what to expect , i'l let you lead with this one as I can't decide how many verses to comment on next.

Ok. Matatics was very good at one time. I have a debate with him and a baptist minister debating the Sacrifice of the Mass from 1991. He eventually left he Catholic chruch and became a rad trad. But his mariology is still probably quite good. I am currently taking a coarse in Mariology and New testmant so I see how the they both intertwine. Have you ever heard Dr scott Hahn(a Catholic biblical scholars and former presbyterian) explain role of the Virgin. His book "Hail holy Queen the Mother of God in the Word of God" is quite good. It may take me a while(Slow typer) but I will post a study on luke 1:26-50.

 

[*Paul*]

Ok. Matatics was very good at one time. I have a debate with him and a baptist minister debating the Sacrifice of the Mass from 1991. He eventually left he Catholic chruch and became a rad trad.

He left the Cathoilc church? This debate I was listening too is a few years old but I think it from the mid nineties. He seemed so convinced. What is a rad trad?

But his mariology is still probably quite good. I am currently taking a coarse in Mariology and New testmant so I see how the they both intertwine. Have you ever heard Dr scott Hahn(a Catholic biblical scholars and former presbyterian) explain role of the Virgin. His book "Hail holy Queen the Mother of God in the Word of God" is quite good. It may take me a while(Slow typer) but I will post a study on luke 1:26-50.

I've never read anything of Scott Hahns apart from somebodys quote on here. Former presbyterian - that is some switch. Let me guess - he read the church fathers and realised the Cathoilc church is the historic one true church?

 

[athanasius]

LK 1:26-56.

Here we see the angel Garbrial tell Mary of her vocation to be thje Mother of God. There are many many things to exegete here. These passages that Luke penned show us a deeper undertanding of the role of the Blessed Virgin on several levels. 1) They show her to be the New Ark of the New covenant 2) They typologically reveal her as the new eve, als o in connection to Rev 12. 3) They show her special privliges and graces that were given to her by God as she is given the title "Full of Grace'. That title(Full of grace) along with these two fullfillments of Eve and the Ark of the covenant would be spoken about by the early fathers and is one way how we Catholics and the early church viewed Mary as sinless(immaculate conception) and it also relates to our dogma of the Bodily assumption of Mary. Now giving that it may take me while but I will try to in the next few hours, give biblilcial/typological/historical/miraculous reasons for this.

 

[athanasius]

He left the Cathoilc church? This debate I was listening too is a few years old but I think it from the mid nineties. He seemed so convinced. What is a rad trad?

I've never read anything of Scott Hahns apart from somebodys quote on here. Former presbyterian - that is some switch. Let me guess - he read the church fathers and realised the Cathoilc church is the historic one true church?

matatics really was good. he became a radical Traditionlist. Or rad trad. That means he took a crazy unorthodox view of the Pope and Church and eventually said all kinds of wierd stuff. He is more like a sedevacantist now. Almost Catholic. His early Stuff is very good though. Hahn was a devout anti-catholic who upon studying "the bible" and then reading the Catholic side of arguments as well as protestant(he taught in a protestant seminary) and studying the early Christians converted. He does a whole lot of Catholic biblical studies. He's great and matatics used to be his best friend when they were both staunch calvinist. when Hahn converted Matatics(then calvinist) tried to persuade Hahn that he was biblically wrong. They would converse and eventually Matatics embraced the catholic faith. Hahn is wonderful. A great book to read on the blessed Virgin is called "Catholic for a reason II Scripture and the mystery of the Mother of God". That book is indespensible and loaded with Scripture and typology and Hahn writes in it and so does his grad students. Hahns conversion story can be found online.

 

[athanasius]

Ok Paul I hope this helps us dig deeper into the meaning behind the sacred scripture and its relationshiop to Jesus the Lord and Savior and Mary his/and our Queen Mother. You may dissagree with my opinons and thats totally ok. I will not get offended. I just hope I can shed some light on the deeper exegesis of these crucial passages that Catholic scripture Scholars and theologians have found. If I am not clear in my presentation please let me know. After this we can go on to the rest of the Gospel(Which I think you will discover we have more in common than not in interpretation). Do not be afraid to dissagree or to politley argue. I respect you very much and I know you love the scripture too and I can always learn alot from you too. I know all this is like a ton of stuff at once. I love the sacred scripture. I read amnd pray the bible. I have taken coarses in New testament that I loved and have brought me closer to Jesus by a deeper study of his Word. I also am curently taking a coarse in Mariology so I can see how the two can intermingle doctrinally since we review the same text we studied in scripture coarses in class. Feel free to dialogue and give me your input on these passages. This will be fun. God bless you.


In LK 1:26-56 we see alot going on here. There is much typologically that can be revealed. For instance. Dr Luke describes the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New ark of the covenant. We see St. Luke purposely using language that parallels and is drawn from 2 Sam referring to the Ark of the covenant. Compare 2 Sam to Lk 1

2 Sam 6:2--david arose and went to Judah

Lk:1:39--Mary arose and went o to hill country Judah

2 Sam 6:9--How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?

Lk 1:43--why is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me

2 Sam 6:10-house of obededom

Lk 1:40-house of Zechariah

2 Sam 6:11--Ark was there 3 months

Lk 1:56--Mary stays 3 months with elizabeth

2 Sam 6:12-David rejoices

Lk 1:47 Marys Spirit rejoices

2 Sam 6:16--leaping and dancing

Lk 1:41-the babe leaps in Elizabeth's womb.

Also:

Ex 40:34-35-the glory cloud “overshadows” the ark of the covenant

Lk 1:35 the same(Greek) word is use to describe Mary being "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit.

It would seem that Luke is showing us that Mary is the new Ark. Quite clearly then Mary is seen as the new ark of the new covenant.

Another typological example:

The old ark carried 3 things. The Manna, the Rod of Aaron,(A sign of priesthood and authority) and the Ten Words of God or ten commandments.

The New ark, Mary carries the fulfillment of the 3. She carries Jesus Christ who is the Word of God in the flesh(JN 1:1-14) Jesus is the Manna from heaven(Jn 6:49) and he rules with a "Rod" of iron (Rev 12:5) and is our High "Priest"(Heb 3:1) Mary is really the new Ark in a real way .

Another example of typological fulfillment is the "New Eve" Parallel that Luke presentsm to us in his Gospel and John perfects in his Gospel and Revelation. Apostolic tradition recognized Mary as the new Eve . Fathers Mathetes(Late 1st century), St Justin Martyr, and St Ireneaus(Mid second century), and Tertullian(mid 3rd century) show us that it was believed that Mary is the typological fulfillment of Eve. But in a reversed way.

In Gen 3 we have one Women(Eve) and one Man(Adam) who "disobeyed" God and instead listened to one unholy Angel(satan) and ate one food from one tree that brought death to all.

In Luke the fulfillment of this happens but in reverse and holy way. This is how God restores the first creation. In Lk we have One woman(Mary) who is visited by one Holy angel(Gabriel) who obeys God(unlike Eve) and has one Man(Jesus) who gives us life by his death on a one tree(the Cross) and gives us one food united to that tree for the Life of all(Holy Communion).

So Catholics and the church fathers such as Irenaeus also see Mary as the New Eve just as Jesus is the New Adam. These typological fullfillments will relate to why we believe she is sinless and her bodily assumption. But for now I have said a handful. A great englishmen named John Henry Newmann wrote about Mary as the new Eve in the 1800’s.