Throwing Down the Gauntlet: Episode 2, Part 3

This is the third part of a now 4 part Episode. My original intent was to only have 3 parts but, in the course of correcting all of the SDA's theological (as well as logical) errors, I was forced to do more explaining in order to properly set Catholic teaching up against Mr. Bohr's heretical claims. So, without further ado, I give you part 3:

@ 27:27 – “Not only, according to the Gospels, was Mary greatly blessed but, we also find that Mary was ‘highly favored’ by God. Notice what we find, in Luke chapter 1 and verse 28 – and we are using the New King James Version…Now there’s one version of the Bible that gives a different translation, and that is, the Douay version of the Roman Catholic Church. It actually is a translation that is based on the Latin Vulgate which was translated by Jerome…around the year 325, approximately. In the Latin Vulgate it translates instead of ‘highly favored one,’ it translates ‘gratia plena’ which means ‘Mary full of grace.’ And the idea is that Mary is full of grace and therefore she’s a dispensary of Grace…she can pour out and give Grace to the people that come to her after her Assumption into heaven, supposedly.”

Let’s start off with the obvious and address Mr. Bohr’s (and all other Protestants) misuse of the term we hear in Luke 1:28. To begin with, the Greek term used here for Mary is κεχαριτωμενη, or kecharitomene - it’s the perfect past participle of the word χαριτόω, or charitoo. As such, the perfect past participle denotes the fact that the action has already taken place or has been completed; according to Strong’s Concordance, it has a possible meaning of “to make graceful,” or to “peruse with grace.” Another interesting fact is that this word is only used twice in all of the New Testament, once in Luke 1:28 and then the second time in Ephesians 1:6, which states:

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

The Greek word for grace that is used here is translated as εχαρίτωσεν or, echaritosen, a direct variant of the word charitoo. How interesting then is it that the root word of kecharitomene is used to denote the grace of Christ? Additionally, it is from the word charis, which can also mean grace,  that we get the word charisma and, for all of us Catholics out there, this is where we get the word chrism for the 3 types of oils used in baptism, confirmation and the anointing of the sick in order to bestow the Holy Spirit!

Much to Mr. Bohr’s credit, he easily nails the fact that the early Church used the phrase “full of grace” as early as 325 A.D., compared to the New King James Version, which Mr. Bohr has chosen to use Scripture passages from, and which was originally published in 1982. This not only gives weight to the historicity of Catholic belief, since the Church has viewed Mary as being “full of grace” for over 1,680 years but, it solidifies the relatively new view of Mary that Mr. Bohr is so intent on portraying. Indeed, Saint Jerome did translate kecharitomene as “full of grace” when he penned the Latin Vulgate, and in doing so, he established what the early Church taught, understood and believed when it came to Mary and her special role in the economy of salvation. Mr. Bohr has no wiggle room here when it comes to debating what the Catholic Church as ALWAYS taught in regards to Mary, therefore a distinction has to be made: do we use a version of Sacred Scripture that has been around for over 1,600 years (Latin Vulgate) from a church that’s close to 2,000 years old or, do we use another version of Scripture (NKJV) that has been around for 30 years and in use by a Protestant denomination that has existed for only 150 years?

Moreover, Protestant versions of early bibles conclusively demonstrate that non-Catholic Christians of the 16^th century believed that Luke 1:28 was properly translated as “full of grace.” Protestant biblical translator and theologian John Wycliffe, who’s handwritten English bible manuscripts was completed in the late 14^th century, also translated kecharitomene as being “full of grace.” Same with William Tyndale who is credited with publishing the first English bibles in 1526. His translation of kecharitomene, is more in line with Catholic teaching than that of most non-Catholic Christian bibles of today. Ironically, when King James authorized his version of the bible in 1604, Tyndale’s version was one of the official reference materials to be used for proof reading the text of this new version of the Bible!

Additionally, Mr. Bohr makes the audacious and bold statement that because we Catholics believe that Mary is full of grace, that she has become a depot of grace which “she pours out” to people who come to her. This is an absolutely abhorrent view of what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary as well as the communion we share with the Saints in heaven. No other reference need be mentioned here as much as the Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution document, Lumen Gentium, which states unequivocally in paragraph 60 the following (with my emphasis):

There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, "for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all". The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power. For all the salvific influence of the Blessed Virgin on men originates, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on His mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ.

Properly translated, Mary can only bestow Christ’s blessings because Christ - as the one and only mediator - allows it to be so. Mary DOES NOT have the power, by her own accord, to give out any sort of grace, blessing, merit or salvific action, only Christ has that power and He can choose how, when, where, and through whom, He channels His grace. The same is true for our communion with the Saints, CCC # 957 (with my emphasis):

…we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself.”

Therefore, Catholic teaching dictates that Christ is the true source of all grace; Protestantism does not contradict this self-evident truth instead, Protestants tend to LIMIT the ability of Christ – as our one and only mediator – to use His grace through the Saints and, more specifically, His beloved mother. The real question is not if Jesus uses Mary, the angels, and Saints but, if Christ does have the ability to use them to fulfill His will, why wouldn’t he?

Bonus point of truth: The first King James Bible, published in 1611, included all of the Apocryphal works that so many non-Catholic Christians say are not inspired. If the bible says not to add or take away (Deuteronomy 12:32 & Revelation 22:18-19) what does this say for those Protestants that exclusively use the KJV?

@ 29:02 – “Now, Luke chapter 1 and verse 30 underlines the fact that she found grace in the eyes of the lord, she found favor, she doesn’t give favors…In actual fact, the bible makes it very clear that there is only one who is full of grace and that is, Jesus Christ. Notice John chapter 1 and verse 14…”

As stated above, when the angel Gabriel refers to Mary as kecharitomene, it doesn’t mean that she was filled with grace/favor at that moment because it denotes that fact that Mary already had grace even before the annunciation. Therefore Mary ALWAYS HAD this merited grace by virtue of who she was to be, namely, the Mother of God. It wasn’t that she somehow “found” grace, because in Luke’s Gospel, there are no works or actions that Mary had done - up until verse 30 - to merit any favor or grace from God and, by solely that measure, we must conclude that Mary already had and was filled with grace. It is precisely because she was filled with God’s grace from the moment of her conception that we can say she was not only impeccable but redeemed as well. In Romans 6:14, Paul states:

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

As part of Pauline theology, this notion of grace as a means of undoing sin abounds in St. Paul’s writings. Paul states repeatedly that it is through the grace of Christ that sin is undone (see Rom. 5:17, Rom. 5:20-21 and, 2Tim. 1:9). The same can also be said for death, in Ephesians 2:8-10 we see that it is by the grace of God that we are saved. St. Paul continues to repeat this message several times throughout the New Testament (see Eph. 2:5, Acts 15:11 and, Titus 2:11;3:7). Therefore, if the grace of Christ removes sin and death, does it not make sense that Mary – who was full of His grace (literally) – was entirely expunged of sin and consequently saved as well? This is the point that all Protestants ironically fail to grasp since most non-Catholic denominations claim to receive justification by “grace alone,” or, sola gratia.

I say it is ironic due to the fact that this is exactly the same means by which Mary, who was gratia plena, was compulsorily redeemed and perfectly chaste her entire life. The concept is the same it’s just that most Protestants (as stated earlier) LIMIT Christ to confirm to their personal beliefs in light of personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Hence, if Mary did find favor with God, it was from all time. And, if such grace preceded her birth, then one cannot argue the fact that her favor within God’s grace was much more than that of any other of God’s creatures.

Mr. Bohr states that the bible mentions that there is “only one who is full of grace,” that being, Jesus Christ and goes on to quote John 1:14. However, Mr. Bohr ignorantly omits – as he is prone to do – that there is in fact one other person that the bible says is “full of grace.”  Acts 6:8 says the following:

And Stephen, full of grace and power, wrought great wonders and signs among the people.

Wait a minute, I’m confused! Mr. Bohr said that “only one” person was filled with grace but, Acts 6:8 says that there is also another person who is filled with grace, St. Stephen, the Protomartyr. Interestingly enough, just one verse earlier, St. Stephen is noted to be among the number of faithfully obedient men in Jerusalem. Obedient, faithful AND filled with grace? Smacks strikingly similar to the characteristics of Mary, doesn’t it?

Why would Mr. Bohr not mention this passage, that there is in fact a human being that was also filled with grace? The reason is simple, because if we can establish that a human can be filled with grace, per the Bible, then we can easily apply that concept to Mary! This is the slippery slope that Mr. Bohr does not want to tread on, because if a simple human being can be filled with grace then how much more would Mary - who Jesus Christ chose and loved from the beginning of time - have been filled with such grace?

In case there be any question about a “difference” of grace in these two passages, according to the Greek Concordance, the word that is used in both Acts 6:8 and in John 1:14 is χάριτος, or charitos. In other words, the same word used to describe Jesus as being full of grace, also describes St. Stephen as having been filled with grace. Therefore, when Mr. Bohr asks at the 29:59 mark, “who is the one ‘full of grace?’” He is only half right in saying that it is Jesus because the Bible also states that Stephen was full of grace as well.

@ 30:12 – “Another interesting characteristic about Mary, is that Mary knew her bible, she knew the Old Testament Scriptures…You can imagine Jesus sitting on the knee of Mary as Mary reviewed the stories of the Old Testament which pointed to the Messiah…we find very clearly that Mary had a very good knowledge of the Old Testament and she shared this knowledge with Jesus…”

Mr. Bohr correctly states that Mary knew her Old Testament Scripture – not “her bible,” he also correctly states that Mary extensively uses Old Testament passages in her Magnificat.

@ 32:33–33:34  -  Mr. Bohr waxes lyrical about the fact that the Gospel nativity scenes are centered around Jesus and not Mary.

As I stated here at 7:06 (second paragraph), the New Testament is centered around Christ – not Mary. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise; this would be like reading St. Paul’s letter to the Church at Corinth and being astonished that Judas Escariot isn’t mentioned once in this epistle.

@ 33:53-35:18 – “Do you know that Mary also suffered with Jesus?...Some people believe that Mary was actually co-redemptrix with Jesus, co-redeemer, because she experienced suffering and agony…but does this raise Mary to the level of  co-redemptrix?...”

See here at 19:34 and at 19:37.

@ 40:47- “Mary did not understand the Scripture that spoke about the Messiah…”

This is a really interesting shift in Mr. Bohr’s view about Mary’s Scriptural aptitude! Just moments ago, he commented about how well Mary knew her Old Testament Scriptures but now, that Mary is confused as what her son has told her, well, that’s because she didn’t know her Scriptures! The fact of the matter is that Mary also “ponders in her heart” the meaning of Gabriel’s visit in Luke 2:19 as well as in Luke 2:51. This doesn’t mean that Mary didn’t know her scriptures so therefore she had to into deep contemplation as Mr. Bohr so succinctly put it - as he reads yet another passage from Desire of Ages - but, what this demonstrates is the Christian discipline to trust in God even if you don’t understand what it is that He wants from you or is asking of you.

And this is exactly what Mary does: she doesn’t understand why/what God is asking or telling her yet she remains faithfully obedient and trusting to God…all the way to Calvary. This is the message behind Luke 2:51 and we see it repeated again and again with the Apostles throughout the Gospels when they don’t understand Jesus’ words or actions and yet, the faithful 11 stay with Him and are commissioned by Jesus to authoritatively baptize and teach all the nations the new Faith that has been deposited in them.

@ 43:04-45:12 – Mr. Bohr describes the Wedding at Cana.

There are certain things here that Mr. Bohr chooses to gloss over when it comes to the Wedding feast that Mary and Jesus both attended. For starters, Mr. Bohr unashamedly refuses to take the Gospel of John within its proper context. Ironically, of all of the 4 Gospels, it is in the Gospel of John that we have certainty as to how Mary is to be viewed; indeed, the Gospel of John reflects the view of the St. John the Apostle so therefore, we have a more intimate look at who Christ is and, in his first miracle, John explicitly tells us a lot about relationship between Jesus and Mary.

In John 1:1, we read:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This instantly harkens any Christian reader back to Genesis 1:1, which states:

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…

Here we see John cleverly using biblical typology. He is insinuating that, much like the creation narrative in Genesis, here too we have a type of “new creation” or “new beginning” that God is fulfilling and, a thorough reading of John chapter 1, gives us many instances that parallel Genesis:

In Genesis 1:2, we see that the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the waters and, in John 1:32-33, we take notice that St. John (the Baptizer) makes particular mention that when he was baptizing Jesus with water, the Spirit came upon Him.

Genesis 1:3-4, describes how God created the light and separated it from the darkness. In John 1:4-5, Jesus is described as the light of the human race which no darkness can overcome.

Genesis 3:7, the man and the woman use fig leaves to hide their nakedness. In John 1:48, Jesus tells Nathaniel that he saw him “under a fig tree.” *

However, there are 4 distinct instances that elude with 100% certainty to Jesus’ coming into this world as a type of “new creation.” Specifically speaking, there are 3 different verses in the first chapter of John, these being verses 29, 35 and 43, that directly point us to the story of Creation. In John 1:29 we read:

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

In John 1:35, we are told:

The next day John was there again with two of his disciples…

And, finally, John 1:43:

The next day he  decided to go to Galilee, and he found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow me."

Do we notice anything similar in these 3 different verses that per chance parallel the creation narrative of the book of Genesis? Of course we do! We can easily see that by John using the phrase, “the next day,” he is mimicking the creation of days by God in Genesis chapter 1! This is yet another parallel implored by John to draw his readers attention of who Christ is and, as we shall shortly see, why this “new creation” or, “new beginning,” is so important for the Christian to understand.

In the same manner that we have seven days laid out in Genesis chapters 1 & 2, John also goes about laying out seven days in the beginning of his Gospel. As I’ve already mentioned above, we can see that John has laid out 4 days in the first chapter: there is a FIRST DAY that occurs before John 1:29 and then, a SECOND DAY occurs when we first hear “the next day” at verse 29. At John 1:35, we again are told that there is another “next day” thus signifying a THIRD DAY, and then, there is one more “next day” at John 1:43 thereby denoting a FOURTH DAY. As we continue reading John’s Gospel, we come to chapter 2 in which the very first verse reads as follows:

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there…

So what do we have? In John chapter 1, we are told of 4 days in which the character of Jesus is slowly revealed to us and then, at the start of chapter 2, we are told that, three days afterwards, there was a wedding feast at Cana. Three days after the fourth day would be the SEVENTH DAY, that is, the Sabbath. In Genesis the Sabbath is the final step of creation in which God makes a Covenant with all of His creatures, thereby making it holy, perfect and – most importantly - His. Suffice it to say that the same thing is going on in the Gospel of John on this new seventh day that John has laid out for us and, there is one big similarity between what John writes and the book of Genesis when it comes to Mary.

At the 43:22 mark, Mr. Bohr made particular mention at the fact that Jesus called his mother “woman” when he said, “he’s not being disrespectful, this was a common way of sons addressing their mothers.” Mr. Bohr is simply trying to get away from the fact that this so-called “common way” of speaking, is actually alluding to a higher purpose in the Gospel of John. One way that this is illustrated is by the simple fact that NO WHERE in the Gospel of John is Mary ever once mentioned by name, every time she appears she is always addressed as “woman,” moreover, if in fact sons calling their mother woman was common, why didn’t any other 3 evangelists ever have Jesus calling Mary women in their Gospels? Additionally, the name Mary is used 15 times to denote women in John’s Gospel, second only to Luke who uses the name Mary 17 times. So it wasn’t like John was a stranger to that name and yet, never once is it used as a name for Jesus’ mother!

The reason behind this is a simple one that, apparently, Mr. Bohr either chose to ignore or completely dismissed. By his current track record of the previous 2 posts, I’m guessing the former is the case. The reason why Mr. Bohr chooses to reject the reality of why John uses the term woman for Mary is because at this Wedding feast, Mary is symbolically seen as the New Eve. Let me explain.

From the onset of the Book of Genesis, the woman of the creation narrative is never named she is only referred to as “woman” or, “the woman,” indeed, Adam calls her woman because “she came out of man” (Genesis 2:23).  It isn’t until Genesis 3:20, after the expulsion from Eden, that we finally find out that the woman’s name is Eve. If in fact John is attempting to depict Jesus’ coming as a new creation or new beginning by explicitly setting up parallels between the story of Creation and his Gospel, then without a doubt, Mary has to be a New Eve since we can clearly see that we have 7 days and a woman in both stories. If Mary is the New Eve, then surely Jesus is the New Adam. As St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22:

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

In case there be any doubt, 1 Corinthians 15:45:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Who is the New Adam? Jesus Christ Himself. Who is the New Eve? Mary! Mr. Bohr HAS TO deny this parallelism because to call Mary the New Eve is to give Mary certain characteristics that do not conform with the SDA (nor Protestant) view of Mary. Here are a couple of glaring similarities:

In the creation narrative in Genesis the two primary characters are a man and a woman. At the Wedding feast at Cana the only two characters named are Jesus and his mother - not even the bride nor the bridegroom of the wedding are ever mentioned.

If the first Adam let the serpent convince him and the first Eve to sin at a tree. The New Adam fulfills what the first Adam couldn’t do and He fulfilled it at a tree (the cross) with the New Eve there with Him.

If the first Eve was set against the serpent (Genesis 3:15), then it is the New Eve’s seed that is destined to crush the head of the serpent.

As stated above, the woman in Genesis is given a name only AFTER she has been cast out of Eden and God’s good graces, by John not ever mentioning Mary by name, he is conscientiously and purposefully depicting Mary as the antithesis of the first Eve.

If the first Adam sinned, then the New Adam, Jesus Christ, was sinless. In the same manner, if the first Eve sinned, then the New Eve has to be sinless as well.

It’s for that last reason that Mr. Bohr intentionally doesn’t go any further than what the words say in the John’s Gospel at the Wedding feast. Because if he were to dive deeper into Scripture, instead of superficially reading words, he would HAVE TO come to this conclusion and this is exactly the same conclusion that the Early Church Fathers arrived to:

…and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' And by her has He been born

St. Justin Martyr, Dialgue with Typho chapter 100, circa 150 A.D.

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin… indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first.”  

St. Ireneaus, Against Heresies Book III para. 4 circa 200 A.D.

…why is Christ called Adam by the apostle, unless it be that, as man, He was of that earthly origin? And even reason here maintains the same conclusion, because it was by just the contrary operation that God recovered His own image and likeness, of which He had been robbed by the devil. For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death… As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel. The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.

Tertullian, On The Flesh of Christ, chapter 17. 202 A.D.

“Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary.”

St. Jerome, Epistle 22, para. 21. Circa 400 A.D.

Speaking of St. Justin, St. Ireneaus and Tertullian, Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman writing his Letter to Doctor Pusey in 1865 – right around the time of the invention of the Seven Day Adventist church - said the following regarding the Early Father’s view of Mary as the Second Eve:

“Now what is especially noticeable in these three writers, is, that they do not speak of the Blessed Virgin merely as the physical instrument of our Lord's taking flesh, but as an intelligent, responsible cause of it; her faith and obedience being accessories to the Incarnation, and gaining it as her reward. As Eve failed in these virtues, and brought on the fall of the race in Adam, so Mary by means of them had a part in its restoration. . . . not to go beyond the doctrine of the Three Fathers, they unanimously declare that she was not a mere instrument in the Incarnation… they declare she co-operated in our salvation not merely by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon her body, but by specific holy acts, the effect of the Holy Ghost within her soul; that, as Eve forfeited privileges by sin, so Mary earned privileges by the fruits of grace; that, as Eve was disobedient and unbelieving, so Mary was obedient and believing; that, as Eve was a cause of ruin to all, Mary was a cause of salvation to all; that as Eve made room for Adam's fall, so Mary made room for our Lord's reparation of it; and thus, whereas the free gift was not as the offence, but much greater, it follows that, as Eve co-operated in effecting a great evil, Mary co-operated in effecting a much greater good.”

So, there we have it. Proof positive from, not only a biblical stand point but a historical one as well, for the reason as to why the Catholic Church HAS ALWAYS viewed Mary in such a special light and as the New Eve which, therefore, makes her mother to us all. This is why we as Catholics believe that Mary is our spiritual mother; The fact of the matter is that when Jesus gives up his mother to His beloved disciple in John 19:27, right before giving up His spirit at the cross, it is actually St. John himself who tradition has it was the beloved disciple! How much more powerful does this make Mary in John’s Gospel if he is telling us that Christ gave him His mother moments before He died?

Think about that, if Mary doesn’t have an extra special place in God’s grand scheme, why did John, unlike the other evangelists, even mention this? Why would St. John need to point out that the woman of the “new creation/beginning,” is now his mother if not for that fact that now she is in fact our new spiritual mother?  Therefore, as modern day disciples of Christ, He has commended His mother to be ours as well - just like he commended her to His disciple close to 2,000 years ago.

Bonus point of truth: It is from the view of Mary as the New or Second Eve that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception springs forth. For if Mary is the converse of Eve, then it is only natural that she had to of never sinned, hence the reason that Mr. Bohr didn’t go to any further into the Wedding Feast at Cana. Additionally, John 9:31 & James 4:3,  state that God does not listen to those who are sinners or those who supplicate with wrong intentions, therefore, by Mary requesting Jesus to do something about the wine shortage at the Wedding feast, we have to arrive at the conclusion that she wasn’t sinning nor was she presuming to wield “special claims and rights,” as Mr. Bohr states it at the 45:54 mark, upon Jesus in order to manipulate Him – as if anyone could manipulate God!

*Although the fig tree can be interpreted as a symbol of Messianic peace (see Micah 4:4 & Zechariah 3:10), the use by the evangelist aptly coincides with Genesis.

End of Part 3

Throwing Down the Gauntlet: Episode 2, Part 2

In the last installment of this Throwing Down episode, we went over several of the issues that the Seventh Day Adventists have concerning Mary. As it was noted, most - if not all - of their gripes with the Virgin Mother have distinct Catholic underpinnings which, try as they may, cannot be undone by simplistic, out of context and incomplete readings of Holy Scripture. We continue here with the second part of this four part episode in which we will analyze Mr. Bohr's attempts to do away with the historically accurate title "Mother of God" for Mary as well as trying to strip Mary of her all important place within Christianity by debasing and relegating her as just a simple, young woman who is nothing out of the ordinary.

@17:45-20:21, “Now a question that always comes up…is whether Mary was “the mother of God.” You say that sounds almost blasphemous…Mary was not the mother of God, because we know from Scripture that Jesus actually pre-existed Mary…John 17 verse 5…John 8 verse 58…John 1 verses 1 through 3…I’d like to read to you a very interesting statement that we find in the devotional book ‘Lift Him Up’…”

It was a Church Council in 431 A.D at Ephesus that gave Mary the title of Mother of God or, Theotokos, that is, “God-bearer” instead of Nestorian heretical term Christotokos, which meant “birth-giver of Christ.” The Nestorian heresy maintained that Mary only gave birth to the human nature of Christ and not the entirely God AND human nature of the infant Jesus. The Council Fathers stated that the term “Christotokos” separated Christ’s dualistic nature; 20 years after Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 would produce the doctrine of Jesus’ hypostatic union, meaning that in Christ there are 2 natures – one human and one divine; this was later reaffirmed again at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. Take note that from the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. to Constantinople II in 553 A.D., 228 years had passed and there were still some heretical factions within Christendom that did not accept Christ to be “of the same essence” with the Father as well as wholly rejecting the Trinitarian formula!

By the year 431 A.D., the Bible had already been canonized for close to 3 decades, thanks to the early Catholic Church, and it was specially due to the misinterpretation of Scripture that led to the ecumenical council at Ephesus. Indeed, a reading of Nestorius’ Second Letter to Cyril at the Council of Ephesus surmises this premise conclusively, for we see that Nestorius’ personal view of what the nature of Christ was - based on his view of Scripture - was what ultimately biased his take on Holy Writ. It’s a good thing that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was around to hammer out this basic Christian fundamental belief of the nature of Christ, right, Protestants?

Additionally, it took two Church Fathers at the Council at Chalcedon, Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, to come up with what would be called The Formula of Union which states (with my emphasis):

We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her…

As for Mr. Bohr’s statement that Mary cannot be the mother of God because Jesus existed before everything, Cyril of Alexandria wrote several letters to Nestorius in regards to his heretical notions and, in doing so, Cyril also addresses Mr. Bohr’s statement. In St. Cyril’s first letter, written in 430 A.D., he says the following (my emphasis in bold):

“…for the Scripture hath not said that the Word united to Himself the Person of a man, but that He hath been made Flesh. And the Word's being made Flesh is nought else than that He partook of flesh and blood in like way with ourselves and made our body His own and proceeded Man of a woman, not casting away the being God and His Generation of God the Father, but even while in assumption of flesh remaining what He was.

Thus does the declaration of the exact Faith everywhere set forth to us, thus shall we find that the holy Fathers thought, thus were they bold to call the holy Virgin Mother of God: not as though the Nature of the Word or His Godhead took a beginning of Being from the holy Virgin, but in that the holy Body souled with a reasonable soul was born of here, whereunto the Word united Personally is said to have been born after the Flesh.”

Plainly stated, the blessed virgin didn’t originate God the Son, she gave birth to the body in which God was inside of, CCC #495 states this as succinctly and as simple as possible:

Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God” (Theotokos).

What is even more interesting is that by making the statement that “Jesus actually pre-existed Mary,” Mr. Bohr unwittingly and stupidly repeats the words of Nestorius! For it was Nestorius himself that declared,

“No one can bring forth a son older than herself.”

See how the enemies of the Church conjure up old heresies anew! How fitting that Mr. Bohr would use the SAME EXACT wording in our modern time that the Catholic Church condemned over 1,450 years ago. The most relevant fact about this heretical notion is that it is clear that even to this day Mr. Bohr didn’t learn the lesson from the Council of Ephesus as well as what the Catholic Church determined was the truth; as such, let me reiterate Christian history…

The title Mother of God or, Theotokos, was given to Mary NOT TO glorify her but, to glorify Him! The Council stated that the title of Mother of God, unifies Jesus to BOTH of His natures. Mary DID NOT give birth solely to Jesus’ human nature, she gave birth to Jesus as both man and God so, therefore, when Mr. Bohr states at the 18:00 mark that, “in the strictest sense of the word, Mary was not the Mother of God,” he is wrong because in birthing BOTH natures of Christ she birth God as well.  What Mr. Bohr is failing to see is that the blessed mother did not give birth to the eternal Trinity (God) but, she birth the second person of the Godhead; she wasn’t the creator of the Son, she was the conduit through which God the Son made Himself man. She gave birth to God the Son and, as such, is the Mother of God. To believe that God had a creator is simply foolish, however, to state that Mary is the Mother of God, is to state that Jesus HAS TO BE both man via His mother and God via His divine origin. Therefore, the title given to Mary is an extremely apt reflection of who her Son is.

Moreover, to say that Mary isn’t the Mother of God is to take away – not from Mary – but, from Christ and his divine nature. For if Mary did not give birth to a child that had the nature of God, then she only gave birth to a human child, at which point we must ask ourselves: So when did Jesus become God? Did he “grow into” his divine nature? If it did happen after His birth, where does Scripture mention it? If Mary did not give birth to Jesus’ divine nature, then Elizabeth’s words in Luke 1:43, have no meaning at all. Nor would Matthew 1:23 make any sense when it states:

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, ‘God with us.’” 

In other words, God is with us because a virgin with child gave birth to Him! Mr. Bohr attempts a semantics game at the 18:00 mark but unfortunately his attempt at convincing a smart Catholic that the proper title for Mary should be “God-man bearer” very perfectly illustrates why the Church chose Theotokos over 14 millennia ago: only by stating that she is the Mother of God can we really start to fathom the mystery of the incarnation and truly appreciate the inseparable and unchanging nature of Christ when He walked on earth and as He is in heaven. St. John Cassian in chapter 2, book 2 of his On the Incarnation of the Lord, written in the late 300’s, goes into great detail to set forth the proper view of Mary as the Mother of God, he begins by saying:

…O heretic, whoever you may be, who deny that God was born of the Virgin, that Mary the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be called Theotokos…For no one, you say, brings forth what is anterior in time. And of this utterly foolish argument whereby you think that the birth of God can be understood by carnal minds, and fancy that the mystery of His Majesty can be accounted for by human reasoning…

And finally, another perfect example of this most joyful mystery that is the incarnation, is stated by none other than Protestant Reformer Martin Luther in his 1521 commentary On the Magnificat:

The “great things” are nothing less than that she became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed upon her as pass man's understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among whom she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in Heaven, and such a child.

She herself is unable to find a name for this work, it is Too exceedingly great; all she can do is break out in the fervent cry: "They are great things," impossible to describe or define. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God.

No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though He had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea. It needs to be pondered in the heart, what it means to be the Mother of God.

Bonus point of truth: Need further proof that devotional beliefs of Mary are firmly grounded in Christian history? The oldest prayer we have which refers to Mary as the Mother of God is called the Sub Tuum Praesidium, which means “Under Thy Protection,” and was written around 250 A.D. It reads:

We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.

@ 22:50 – “Another interesting characteristic about Mary is that Mary was blessed…the bible does not say that Mary was the blessor. Scripture says that Mary was blessed…Luke chapter 1 verses 48 and 49.”

I simply love it when bible-alone Protestants use this passage due to the fact that they tend to go against what the Bible says in verse 48 when Mary says, “all generations will call me blessed!” I would like to therefore ask all bible-only Christians one question: Do you address Mary as blessed whenever you refer to her? Obviously Scripture demands you to do so, therefore, do you? At this point, I would like to state a simple fact: since the beginning of this video, Mr. Bohr has mentioned Mary 53 times and yet, never once, has he ever called her or refer to her as blessed; very interesting from a man who has set out to describe Mary using only the bible (and Ellen G. White) as his only source.

I therefore pose the question: what Protestant churches have existed in ALL generations (none), and how many of them call Mary blessed with special prayers and devotions? Strangely enough we crazy Catholics, who apparently don’t follow Scripture (according to most Protestants), tend to call the Virgin Mother as Blessed Mary in both our prayer life and liturgical services, talk about weird, eh, Protestants?

@ 23:57 – Notice that we are not told here…it says [Luke 1:42] ‘blessed are you among women,’ and for those who think this is some peculiar, special way of addressing Mary because she was out of the ordinary, this expression is used more than one time in the Old Testament…Genesis 30 and verse 13…”

Mr. Bohr quotes Genesis 30:13 in order to see that Mary isn’t really “special,” unfortunately he totally misses why this term is used for Mary in light of the Old Testament. So let’s look at some other Old Testament expressions that Mr. Bohr didn’t quite get to and see how this translates to Mary. Deuteronomy 28:1-4 speaks about obedience and the blessings that one receives from being obedient to God, of specific note is verse 4 which starts by saying, “Blessed be the fruit of your womb…” When read in full context, chapter 28 talks about the many ways in which God blesses those who heed His word and curses those who abstain from it. But, a more illustrative expression that is also used to define Mary can be found in Judges 5:24, which reads:

Most blessed of women is Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, blessed among tent-dwelling women! 

Easily seen here is that this verse parallels Mary in Luke 1:42 as being “blessed among women,” it is the following verses however, that clearly and explicitly point to the direct pre-eminence of Mary. Verses 25-27 speak of how Jael murdered Sisera, a general of the Cannanite king who was oppressing the Jews (Jgs4:2), and of particular note is how Jael, who was blessed among [tent-dwelling] women, kills this tyrant. Picking up at verse 25, Sisera has fled into Jael’s tent after losing a battle, she promises to keep him safe at which point she offers him milk to drink in a Lordly cup:

25 He asked for water, she gave him milk, in a princely bowl she brought him curds. 26 With her hand she reached for the peg, with her right hand, the workman’s hammer. She hammered Sisera, crushed his head; 27 At her feet he sank down, fell, lay still; down at her feet he sank and fell; where he sank down, there he fell, slain.

If you don’t see a similarity here, then perhaps this question will get your brain juices going: Who was it that from the fall of Adam and Eve was destined to crush the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15? Was it not the seed of the woman? Who is the prophetic seed that will crush the head of the serpent if not Jesus? Thus, the woman who’s seed will crush the serpent has to be Mary. We can, therefore, notice at how Jael’s crushing of the general at her feet are a precursor to Mary’s seed crushing the head of the ancient serpent! Think about all of this and how the 1^st century Jews must’ve reacted the first time they heard Luke 1:42, they would’ve easily known about the story of Jael and Sisera, of how she was blessed, how she crushed a tormentor’s head and, of course, the Jews would’ve already been extremely familiar with Genesis 3:15. These early converts to Christianity already knew the typology involved and therefore were able to immediately see the pre-figurations of the Old Testament fulfilled in the new!

Finally, the most impressive Old Testament verse is found in Judith 13:18, which reads:

Then Uzziah said to her, “Blessed are you, daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, the creator of heaven and earth, who guided your blow at the head of the leader of our enemies.

Uzziah was the king of Judah and he blesses Judith by telling her how she is blessed above all the women and he blesses her for beheading Holofernes, an Assyrian general who was about to destroy Judith’s hometown of Bethulia (see v.4-8)! So, once again, we see that Mary is foreshadowed here in the same manner as she was in Judges chapter 5. It is impossible for any of the early Christians to have escaped such similarities when posed with the character of Mary, they would’ve easily saw her as, not only the temple of the Word Incarnate but, as the most obedient and chaste creature that ever lived; the true handmaiden of the Lord who was far above and beyond any of the other women in the Jewish Scriptures.

So sorry Mr. Bohr, Mary IS special in every way imaginable: she was chosen from the beginning of all time to conceive the birth of Christ, she was an epitome of what all Christians should be like, she saw and suffered for her Son as He suffered for us and, of the utmost precedence, she was the 1^st Christian in all of history; for she knew, way before anyone, who she carried in her womb was none other than God Himself and she ,naturally, continues to remain faithful to Him unto this present day in His Glorious kingdom. To depict her as anything else is to mock God’s mighty will.

Bonus point of truth: How interesting is it that in Luke 1:42, Elizabeth praises Mary first AND THEN she praises Jesus? This is what the Catholic Church calls hyperdulia, in the same way that Elizabeth hears Mary and then John jumps in her womb, we Catholics believe that Mary – through divine intercession – continually calls us to her Son (see Lumen Gentium 60).

@25:00 – “Another very clear characteristic of Mary…is the fact that Mary is a sinner in need of redemption, in need of a Redeemer. In fact, we’re told in Romans 3 and verse 23  that ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.’ …So if you read the Bible, if you read the New Testament particularly, you’re going to discover that there is only one who is exempted from sin and that is Jesus Christ…Luke chapter 1 verses 46 & 47, where we’re told very clearly that Mary needed a Redeemer, she needed Savior…I’d like to read another statement from the book ‘Desire of Ages’…”

Ah yes, Romans 3:23! The deathblow to all Catholics who maintain that Mary was without sin! As it is stated, it reads:

...all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.

As I stated in Part 1 of this current Throwing Down episode, we cannot merely read the Bible and expect to learn the intricacies and beauty of God’s Word. We must dive deeper into the meaning and uses of words and phrases in order to truly grasp what is being said; to take simple cursory readings and apply them against Catholic teaching, as Mr. Bohr is doing, is a dead end. There is, therefore, an issue to be taken up here with the use of the word all. In the Greek it is written as πᾶς and is pronounced phonetically as  pas (see Strong’s #3956). However in Romans 3:23 it is written as the normative masculine plural adjective πάντες, pronounced phonetically pantes and, it is also the same word used in 2 Corinthians 5:14 which states:

For the love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died

It is also used in the same manner in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 22:

For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life…

Notice that in these two aforementioned verses, they both state that ALL have died. Now, if we are to use Mr. Bohr’s rationale, this HAS TO MEAN that every single human being that ever lived (before Christ) HAD TO of died. But, does the Bible support this claim? This is a favorite tactic used by Protestants to demonstrate that Scripture is at odds with Catholic teaching and therefore must be wrong. However, since I already went very in depth on this topic in my last Throwing Down series (see here @19:58), I will briefly reiterate the biblical proof that can be used to disprove that every single human, that is all, have died.

To begin with, let’s look at Hebrews 11:5. In it we read the following:

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and "he was found no more because God had taken him." Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God.

In other words, Enoch did not die and yet was able to see heaven; because of the faith that he had in God, Enoch was translated into the presence of God and thus he escaped death (see Gen. 5:24). We see the same thing with Elijah in 2 Kings chapter 2 verse 11 where he is taken up to heaven:

As they walked on conversing, a flaming chariot and flaming horses came between them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

So here we have 2 different instances in which actual living creatures were miraculously taken up to haven WITHOUT dying. For this reason we can, with biblical certainty, assume that the word all does not necessarily mean “every single thing ever.” Hence when Mr. Bohr says that “all have sinned,” this likewise DOES NOT necessarily mean “every single living human ever” has sinned and, Roman Catholicism is the only religion that has always accepted this biblical reality to be undeniably true. As Christian history dictates, the early members of the unchanging Body of Christ also believed this to be factual, see here @ 19:25 for a quick look at the historical validity of Mary’s sinlessness.

The document d’être of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is none other than Ineffabilis Deus. Penned in 1853 by Pope Pius IX, this papal decree once and for all settled the case over Mary’s sinless nature that had began since the existence of the early Church, indeed, the document reads more like a historical analysis for proof of belief than a mandate for observance. Holy Mother church, imbued with the Holy Spirit, and speaking infallibly to all Christian faithful declared:

From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so loved her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.

As for Luke 1:46-47, the Catholic Church has NEVER denied that Mary was in need of a savior. Although sinless, she was still a creature and a descendent of Adam and Eve. Therefore, as a human being, she was unable to save herself in any way and therefore needed her Son’s infinite merited Grace to save her. What the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ultimately states is that Mary – from the moment of her conception – was instantly filled with so much of God’s grace that He not only removed the stain of Original Sin from her but she was also redeemed. However, the true cynic will invariably state that, since Jesus hadn’t died for us yet, it is impossible for Mary to have been saved beforehand. To which we must simply acknowledge the fact that Jesus has always been eternal; He, in all his heavenly glory, is not bound by time as we are…and neither is his power to save.

So before she was, He was. And He was able to give His mother-to-be the gift of grace that led to a sinless life as well as the gift of salvation from the very instance of her conception. Additionally, just using common sense we must deduce that if a sinless God were to be formed in a humanly womb, that womb would have to be absent any stain of sin. If the body is the temple of God then surely the temple that carried the Word would have to be as pure, innocent and unchanging as He who dwelt within it was. This thought of Mary as an undefiled carrier of the Messiah is prime in the belief that Mary was truly sinless, and no other title explains this Marian philosophy better than that of Ark of the New Covenant.

The title of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant clearly depicts why Mary HAD TO BE the purest human that was ever created. As early as the second century A.D., we see numerous church fathers exclaim that Mary is the new “Ark of the Lord” and this is one of the things that most Protestants won’t readily admit - that there are HUGE similarities between Mary, as the New Ark, and that of the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant. With that being said, let’s see if we can flesh out the reasons from Scripture that make Mary the holiest wholly human that ever was.

To begin with, let’s see some characteristics of the Old Testament Ark. Exodus 25 mentions the measurements of the Ark as well as the fact that the Ark is to be lined outside and inside with precious gold. Exodus 37 speaks about its construction at the hands of Bezael. Indeed, the Ark itself was a treasure from God, it was the most prized treasure of the Israelites, for in it dwelt God Himself. Likewise with Mary: she was predestined to be the New Ark by carrying God inside of her and, in the same manner, Mary too remained “untouched”since the Ark and other sacred things were not to be touched nor looked at by the Kohathites (Numbers 4:15;20), who were specifically in charge of caring for the vessels within the sanctuary.  So strict was this edict that we see God kill off over 50,000 people who dared look inside the Ark in 1 Samuel 6:19! In other words, wherever God dwelt, was a special place, as seen when Moses was commanded to take off his sandals in front of the burning bush in Exodus 3:5. We also see the same thing in Exodus 19:12 , before Moses goes up into Mount Sinai to meet the LORD, God tells Moses that absolutely no Israelite is to touch or set foot on the mountain under the penalty of death! 

But there are even more similarities, take for instance what was placed inside the Old Testament Ark. According to Exodus 25:16, the tablets of God’s commandments were placed inside the Ark along with a container of manna (Exodus 16:31-35) and, according to Numbers 17:10, Moses told Aaron to put his staff alongside the tablets of God’s commandments. All 3 items inside the O.T. Ark are also mentioned in Hebrews 9:4. So, what do we have inside the O.T. Ark? We have: 1) the 10 Commandments, 2) manna and 3) Arron’s staff, in other words, we have: 1) the Word of God, 2) the Bread of God and 3) a symbol of the High Priesthood. Is this not what Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant possessed inside of her womb? Did Mary not carry the Word who was the Bread of Life as well as our High Priest? There is no way that anyone could deny this parallel between the two but, even if one were to, there are still other biblical typologies that not only lends credence to the title of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant but solidifies it as such!

Take for instance the blatant similarities used by Luke in his Gospel when describing certain happenings with Mary. In Exodus 40:34-35 as well as Numbers 9:18;22, we see that God, in the form of a cloud, is covering or tarrying over the Ark of the Covenant; is this not the same thing God is doing in Luke 1:35 when the angel Gabriel tells Mary that God will “overshadow” her with His power to conceive the Son of God in her womb? The parallel between the Holy Spirit overshadowing the O.T. Ark and the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary - between the Ark of the Old Covenant as the dwelling place of God and Mary as the new dwelling place of God - is explained even better in CCC #697. It states:

…The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and "overshadows" her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus. On the mountain of Transfiguration, the Spirit in the "cloud came and overshadowed" Jesus, Moses and Elijah, Peter, James and John… the cloud took Jesus out of the sight of the disciples on the day of his Ascension and will reveal him as Son of man in glory on the day of his final coming. The glory of the Lord "overshadowed" the ark and filled the tabernacle.

In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth exclaims:

“And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

In 2 Samuel 6:9, after the Ark of the Covenant had been taken away from the Israelites in a battle with the Philistines and then it was later returned to the Israelites (1 Samuel 5), King David went goes out to retrieve the Ark. And in 2 Samuel and in chapter 6 verse 9, we here David ask the following:

David feared the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

If this isn’t a clear and deliberate attempt by Luke the Evangelist to equate Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, then perhaps the following examples in his Gospel are:

In 2 Samuel 6:1-10, the Ark travels to the house of Obededom in the hill country of Judea. Luke 1:39 has Mary traveling to the house of Elizabeth through the hill country of Judea.

In 2 Samuel 6:11 we read that the Ark of the Covenant stayed at the house of Obededom the Gittite for three months. Luke 1:56 states that Mary stayed with Elizabeth for three months.

In 2 Samuel 6:14;16 we see David dancing and leaping for joy in front of the Ark, in Luke 1:41-44, we see St. John leaping in his mother’s womb upon hearing the voice of Mary, the New Ark.

In 2 Samuel 6:15, David shouts in the presence of the Ark. In Luke 1:42, Elizabeth “spoke out in a loud voice” in the presence of the New Ark.

In 2 Samuel 6:17 we see the Ark returned to the City of David (Jerusalem) and it stays there until David’s son, Solomon, constructs the temple (1 Kings 6). In Luke 2:21-22 we see that Mary, the New Ark, is at the temple in Jerusalem.

Based on this biblical analysis one has to come to the conclusion that Mary is indeed the Ark of the New Covenant and, as such, she is the prize of God and of all of us Christians in the same way that the Ark of the Old Testament Covenant was the prize of Zion and her children. And just in the same manner that the Ark was special, protected, valuable and undefiled so too is our New Ark in Mary; and since God never changes, she too remained special, protected, valuable and undefiled in her earthly life, and now, more so in heaven.

End of part 2