Refuting C.Pio on Mary and the Ark of the Covenant Parallelism
It is either a Fallacy, a simple Joke or both.
[Mr. Soliman's word are in Red]
[Mr. Soliman's word are in Red]
Before we respond to the second counterargument of C. Pio on kecharitomene, we shall deal first to one of his articles that an anonymous poster has requested me to respond to. It's about Mary being the the Ark of the New Covenant (read here).
This is a classic case of Moving the goal post fallacy, wherein when Person X makes a claim and Person Y refutes it but, Person X moves on to a new or revised Post without responding to Person Y’s refutation.
Mr. Soliman earlier claims that Catholics are inconsistent in applying the TERM (full of grace) between two persons [between Mary and Stephen], by refuting his baseless belief and challenging him to show-cause (proof) to substantiate his claim of Catholic misapplication of one term, he quickly moves on to the other claim (without giving an outright answer raised by his opponent).
He wrote before:
But now, Mr. Soliman sings a new song: [W]e shall deal first to one of his articles that an anonymous poster has requested me to respond to.
Contrary to the one he first wrote: One of the articles of C.Pio that the anonymous reader wishes me to respond, is about the Greek word “Kecharitomene”
Basically, C. Pio (and other Roman Catholic apologists like him) draws a parallel between the events that had happened to the Ark of the Covenant in 2nd Samuel 6:2 to 14 and the events that had happened to Mary during Christ's conception in Luke 1:39-45, 56. Their conclusion therefore, having what is seemingly similar between the two, is that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.
Who’s who in other Roman Catholic Apologist who typifies Mary as a New Ark of the Covenant? One famous Roman Catholic Apologist who draws parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant is no other that Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373). He is considered to be a renowned Christian theologian, a Church Father, the chief defender of Trinitarianism against Arianism in the First Council of Nicaea. He is also celebrated by many Protestants (I don’t know if Mr. Soliman is included to this group) who label him "Father of The Canon" because he is the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. This defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics once wrote:
"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 [Ark of the] 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" [Homily of the Papyrus of Turin]
This parallelism is used to support the Immaculate Conception since the Ark of the Covenant contains pure materials so that the Lord can dwell in the midst of His people, Mary is likewise has to be pure (sinless) so she can be a worthy vessel for the incarnate Son of God. TRUE! This is what Athananius of Alexandria saw, which he passed-down to generation next to him [2Tim.2:2] all the way down to the current age.
This is also called as typology wherein certain people, objects, or events in the Old Testament are said to be a pre-figuration of things in the New Testament. In fairness there are valid typologies like the one presented in Galatians 4:21-31.
Typology was taken from the Greek word tupos (type) and was first coined by Apostle Paul. This term “type” specifically appears in Romans 5:14, where Apostle Paul calls Adam a “type” of Christ:
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgressions of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Christ himself gave some sample of typology; in Matthew 12:40, Jesus teaches us that the story of Jonah and the great fish is a prefiguration of Jesus in the tomb (and his resurrection).
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Other good examples are John 3:14 [the bronze serpent is a type of Christ] and 1Peter 3:19-21 [the Flood is a type of baptism].
However, typologies can be misapplied most especially when an interpreter of the Bible is subjective. The one presented by C. Pio is one of the subjective misapplications.
If I am wrong and Mr. Soliman is right in accusing me of being subjective misapplications in showing Mary parallel with the Ark of the Covenant, so MUST with Athananius, the great first defender of Christ’s divinity against the second-century heretics, the "Father of The Canon" for being the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today against all Gnostic Gospel (eg. Gospel of Judas etc) that deceived Early Christians. But anyways, to whom shall we believe, to Mr. Soliman or to Athananius the man guided by the Holy Spirit and was proven to be in him?
I say it misapplied because the parallelism is selective. C. Pio does not seem to present us a counterpart […]
The parallelism is SELECTIVE? In John 3:14, Christ typified the bronze serpent to prefigure his redemptive act on the cross, BUT he did not mention that this bronze serpent was DESTROYED [2Kings18:1-19]. So using the premise of Mr. Soliman, Christ is guilty of misapplication.
We can also counter C. Pio's parallel chart of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant (actually it is parroted once again from his foreign sources) by presenting a just-as-absurd typology on Mary's husband Joseph
An old style Straw-man fallacy. He simply ignores my actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated and misrepresented version and he is suggesting to draw conclusion according to his own-unheard-typology-which-is-truly-absurd: THIS IS NO LONGER a FALLACY THIS IS a CLEAR JOKE (LOL).
By the way, he mentioned that I parroted this typology from foreign sources; yes I admit, but I am sure Mr. Soliman also knew that Christian teachings plus the Bible (the one used by Mr. Soliman itself) is not originated here in the Philippines, It came from foreign sources.