Mary as New Eve

[GracePeace]

I'm just not sure that the DOGMA about Mary was instituted based on Mary being the new Eve.
THIS is what I've never heard.
I believe the dogma about Mary is instituted based on what the ECFs wrote about her....
NOT the fact that she was believed to be the new Eve.

The dogma of Mary's immaculate conception is BASED on the idea that she had to be without sin just as Eve had been without sin, because they view Mary as the New Eve--undermining the speculation that Mary is the New Eve puts a huge crack in the foundation of that dogma at the very least.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hey there BreadOfLife (Verily here, new username)

We do see Mary (as one woman) being blessed by another woman for her role of bringing forth Christ according to the flesh (as we note the direct references to the womb and paps "of him") which things obviously pertain to his physical birth.

Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is THE WOMB that bare thee, and THE PAPS which thou hast sucked.

He answers this woman this way

Luke 11:28 But he said, YEA RATHER, blessed are THEY THAT HEAR the word of God, and keep it.
He corrects her focus, and redirects it from just one woman (according to the flesh) to THE MANY that would hear the word of God

As far as the bruising of Satan under Mary's singular foot, Paul writes

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE Satan under YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Which again seems to remove that out from under what is considered to be Mary (singularly) to include the feet of His many membered body

As far as his mother goes, when we see Jesus mother (according to the flesh) standing outside of the circle of diciples then present

Jesus again redirects them from Mary (and his brethen) according to the flesh alone onto the many that are seated around him

Mark 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

Mark 3:34 And he looked round about ON THEM which sat about him, and said, Behold MY MOTHER and MY BRETHREN!

No doubt Mary conceived the Word made flesh and carry him in her body for 9 months (as any mother would carry any child) and that is the way God chose to bring forth his Son into this world as any mother would bring a child into this world.

The greater part as far as I would count it, would not to be chosen to carry Christ in us after the flesh (for a 9 month physical pregnancy) but rather Christ formed in us (according to the Spirit) who abides with us for ever. And that ofcourse, would not exclude Mary who brought him into this world according to the flesh.

Luke 11:28
But he said, yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of god, and keep it.

Here, Jesus is not lessening his mother’s importance. He is saying what YOU just said.
It’s not the fact that she gave birth to Him to nursed Him that deserved the woman’s praise. It’s that she heard the Word of God and did His will (Luke 1:38). This is precisely why He exalted His disciples in Mark 3:33.

Jesus was a faithful Jew who lived the Law perfectly. He would never have given anything but the utmost honor to His mother (Exod. 20:12). Contrary to this being a knockdown – it was a beautiful compliment.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As far as the bruising of Satan under Mary's singular foot, Paul writes

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE Satan under YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Which again seems to remove that out from under what is considered to be Mary (singularly) to include the feet of His many membered body

One problem with that interpretation -

Gen. 3:15 is talking about the feet of the Savior - NOT Mary.
That’s why Paul could make the reference to ALL of us because we ARE the Body of Christ.

 

[Lizbeth]

Yes, I DO agree that Mary can be a good example for us...in many ways.
How she accepted the task God gave to her.
How she took care of her family.
How she was a humble person.
She was respected by Jesus and was probably a strong mother...but not over-bearing.
I shudder to think what she felt like at the foot of the cross....her bravery in just being there.
There's more I'm sure, but this is what I could think of at the moment.

I would be careful to not go beyond what is written. Jesus learned obedience through the things He suffered in this life, being tempted/tried in all ways that we are, so I doubt he experienced perfect parenting, like most of us didn't. But as His mother she would have suffered along with Him seeing all the things He suffered. This is why it says a sword would pierce her heart also. So even that is like the church because it says "if we suffer with Him we shall also reign with Him."

 

[GracePeace]

Hey there BreadOfLife (Verily here, new username)

We do see Mary (as one woman) being blessed by another woman for her role of bringing forth Christ according to the flesh (as we note the direct references to the womb and paps "of him") which things obviously pertain to his physical birth.

Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is THE WOMB that bare thee, and THE PAPS which thou hast sucked.

He answers this woman this way

Luke 11:28 But he said, YEA RATHER, blessed are THEY THAT HEAR the word of God, and keep it.

He corrects her focus, and redirects it from just one woman (according to the flesh) to THE MANY that would hear the word of God

As far as the bruising of Satan under Mary's singular foot, Paul writes

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE Satan under YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Which again seems to remove that out from under what is considered to be Mary (singularly) to include the feet of His many membered body

As far as his mother goes, when we see Jesus mother (according to the flesh) standing outside of the circle of diciples then present

Jesus again redirects them from Mary (and his brethen) according to the flesh alone onto the many that are seated around him

Mark 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

Mark 3:34 And he looked round about ON THEM which sat about him, and said, Behold MY MOTHER and MY BRETHREN!

No doubt Mary conceived the Word made flesh and carry him in her body for 9 months (as any mother would carry any child) and that is the way God chose to bring forth his Son into this world as any mother would bring a child into this world.

The greater part as far as I would count it, would not to be chosen to carry Christ in us after the flesh (for a 9 month physical pregnancy) but rather Christ formed in us (according to the Spirit) who abides with us for ever. And that ofcourse, would not exclude Mary who brought him into this world according to the flesh.

One problem with that interpretation -

Gen. 3:15 is talking about the feet of the Savior - NOT Mary.

LOL

 

[Lizbeth]

Being that the topic of the entire thread is debunking Mary as the New Eve, and how people make too much of Mary, to me, other instances of people magnifying Mary falls in line with the topic--to say that Mary is an example where someone obeyed God is one thing, and, obviously I agree, but to proceed from there to declare Mary is a "type", to me, is making more of Mary than is called for.

I think I must have misunderstood your post, sorry. I agree we should not make more of Mary than is called for, for sure. No more or less than all the saints written about in the bible...they were all very human and God has not shied away from writing about their mistakes and foibles. We just need to look at things soberly and according to truth. There are tons of types and shadows in the Law and Temple design too, that we can learn from, but we certainly shouldn't make too much of the Law and Temple worship either.

 

[GracePeace]

I think I must have misunderstood your post, sorry. I agree we should not make more of Mary than is called for, for sure. No more or less than all the saints written about in the bible...they were all very human and God has not shied away from writing about their mistakes and foibles. We just need to look at things soberly and according to truth. There are tons of types and shadows in the Law and Temple design too, that we can learn from, but we certainly shouldn't make too much of the Law and Temple worship either.

By "too much" I mean definitively stating "Mary is a type". I do not position myself that way. You may feel comfortable with making such pronouncements, but I am not. It is not, on the other hand, "too much" for the Apostle to refer to the Law as containing types and shadows, nor for me to follow his reasoning and identify those things. By declaring "Mary was a type", in my opinion, you are going beyond what your station allows.

 

[Lizbeth]

By "too much" I mean definitively stating "Mary is a type". I do not position myself that way. You may feel comfortable with making such pronouncements, but I am not. It is not, on the other hand, "too much" for the Apostle to refer to the Law as containing types and shadows, nor for me to follow his reasoning and identify those things. By declaring "Mary was a type", in my opinion, you are going beyond what your station allows.

ok brother, I see where you're coming from, and we'll leave it at that. What I'm doing is sharing an observation, not a pronouncement.

But just to add that I found the things written about her to be revealing and edifying, speaking personally. She is one of the faithful biblical saints just like Abel, Noah, Enoch, Moses, Ruth, Esther, Elijah, Abraham etc, so worth gleaning from what is written about her.

 

[Truly]

One problem with that interpretation -

Gen. 3:15 is talking about the feet of the Savior - NOT Mary.
That’s why Paul could make the reference to ALL of us because we ARE the Body of Christ.

Christ in us (the body)

1 Cr 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

 

[GodsGrace]

The dogma of Mary's immaculate conception is BASED on the idea that she had to be without sin just as Eve had been without sin, because they view Mary as the New Eve--undermining the speculation that Mary is the New Eve puts a huge crack in the foundation of that dogma at the very least.

I've never heard it said that Mary is without sin because Eve was without sin.

 

[GracePeace]

ok brother, I see where you're coming from, and we'll leave it at that. What I'm doing is sharing an observation, not a pronouncement.

But just to add that I found the things written about her to be revealing and edifying, speaking personally. She is one of the biblical saints just like Abel, Noah, Enoch, Moses, Ruth, Esther, Elijah, Abraham etc, so worth gleaning from what is written about her.

Yeah, to me, the Bible is already complicated enough, impossible, so, I try not to add to it or remove from it.

 

[GracePeace]

I've never heard it said that Mary is without sin because Eve was without sin.

The Vatican website, in Pope Pius IX's Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus, discusses the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, highlighting that Mary was preserved free from original sin. Ineffabilis Deus describes Mary as being "preserved free from all stain of original sin" from the moment of her conception.

The text also includes a section titled "Mary Compared with Eve," which emphasizes the comparison between Mary and Eve in their respective relationships with sin. This section explains that the Fathers of the Church often compared Mary to Eve, who was initially sinless, but then chose to disobey God.

Here's the key passage from Ineffabilis Deus regarding the comparison of Mary and Eve:
The document quotes early Church Fathers who compared Mary to Eve before her fall from grace, emphasizing Mary's original innocence and sanctity. It states that unlike Eve, who was deceived and became a slave to sin, Mary never gave in to temptation and, through divine power, overcame the influence of the evil one. The document further explains that because of her freedom from all sin and her victory over Satan, Mary is seen as being more glorious than Eve. The idea of Mary as the "New Eve" is a significant concept in Catholic theology, representing her role in reversing the consequences of Eve's disobedience through her own perfect obedience to God

Text of Ineffabilis Deus
Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom “he who is mighty has done great things,” was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God — indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.
...
She is celebrated as innocence never sullied and as the second Eve who brought forth the Emmanuel.

 

[Lizbeth]

Yeah, to me, the Bible is already complicated enough, impossible, so, I try not to add to it or remove from it.

It's not complicated....it's written for "little children".

 

[GracePeace]

It's not complicated....it's written for "little children".

Yet you admitted you were puzzled by the verse from Romans, which I helped clear up.
You're inconsistent.

 

[Lizbeth]

Yet you admitted you were puzzled by the verse from Romans, which I helped clear up.
You're inconsistent.

It wasn't complicated, I didn't have to think hard or rack my brains trying to figure it out, I simply received the understanding, of what the fullness of the Gentile is referring to. Had been waiting a long time to understand that. The Lord is good.

 

[GracePeace]

It wasn't complicated,

That's not what you said here...

I have been confused about this verse for a long time, but I think this is right sister, nail on the head.........and I believe the fullness of the Gentiles being spoken about must refer to the Gentiles becoming saved and established in the gospel............so that then they could show mercy to Israel through the preaching of the gospel to them......as it says here:

Rom 11:30

For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!


I'm so grateful to have this sorted out and resolved!

...but, yeah, sure, what ever you say.

I didn't have to think hard or rack my brains trying to figure it out, I simply received the understanding, of what the fullness of the Gentile is referring to. Had been waiting a long time to understand that. The Lord is good.

Yeah, other people had to rack their brains, and pray about it, and then you thanked them. It was easy for you, because all you did was receive the resolution to your confusion about a concept that you claimed was "simple" and not "complicated". Odd that something "simple" could confuse you.

But, yeah, I'm glad I met the only Bible reader who has no questions about the Bible, because it's so simple--the rest of us actually have questions!

 

[David Lamb]

How much needs to be written in order for it to be an example to you?
She not only received the Word she gave birth to the Word? Did you do that?
You could learn that she surrendered to the will of God. Do you surrender to the will of God? Do you suppose it's God's will that you suggest Mary is no different than you? To declare the whole thing to be ridiculous? Fascinating

She gave birth to Jesus as far as His humanity was concerned. As for giving birth to the Word, those well-known words of John tell us otherwise:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Joh 1:1 NKJV)

“He was in the beginning with God.” (Joh 1:2 NKJV)

“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:3 NKJV)

The Word was in existence long before Mary giving birth at Bethlehem.

 

[nedsk]

She gave birth to Jesus as far as His humanity was concerned. As for giving birth to the Word, those well-known words of John tell us otherwise:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Joh 1:1 NKJV)

“He was in the beginning with God.” (Joh 1:2 NKJV)

“All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:3 NKJV)

The Word was in existence long before Mary giving birth at Bethlehem.

So Jesus is NOT the Word made flesh?

What did I say? I didn't say Mary created the Word I said she gave birth to the Word. I wish you people had the capacity to reply to what people wrote rather than what you think they wrote.

 

[Lizbeth]

That's not what you said here...

...but, yeah, sure, what ever you say.


Yeah, other people had to rack their brains, and pray about it, and then you thanked them. It was easy for you, because all you did was receive the resolution to your confusion about a concept that you claimed was "simple" and not "complicated". Odd that something "simple" could confuse you.

But, yeah, I'm glad I met the only Bible reader who has no questions about the Bible, because it's so simple--the rest of us actually have questions!

You're reading an awful lot into what I'm saying there. The confusion was on my end, because I simply didn't know what the fullness of the Gentiles meant. Most people say it is referring to the end of this age when all the Gentiles who will be saved are saved, which didn't seem to fit. My being confused doesn't mean the truth itself is complicated. When you spoke about the remnant of Israel the Lord cleared that up for me on the wings of what you said. The fullness of the Gentiles is talking about the same thing as the fullness of the Jews, it is talking about those who come to faith in Christ, a remnant of Gentiles just the same as it is a remnant of Israel.

In that context in which it was written the fullness of the Gentiles was talking about the gospel being established among the Gentiles in those as yet early days of the church, so they could in turn begin to evangelize the Jews, "that through their mercy the Jews might find mercy." I don't think that would have begun to happen much yet, because the believing Jews, especially Paul and those under him, were still in the beginning stages of evangelizing the Gentiles. (I would guess the turning point was probably 70 AD which marked the end of the old covenant Temple worship and the Jews became scattered among the Gentiles and more within reach of them to evangelize...as well the Gentile churches would have been more established by then and there would be some mature among them, not all "novices".)

I hope that explains things more fully. And the glory goes to God, not to me racking my brains or praying and waiting on the Lord, and nor to you. He simply illuminated it like someone switching on a light. The scripture says "What do we have that we didn't RECEIVE?".... from God. When the LORD opens my eyes to some truth, it is always very simple....simply a matter of either "seeing" or not "seeing" it.

 

[David Lamb]

So Jesus is NOT the Word made flesh?

What did I say? I didn't say Mary created the Word I said she gave birth to the Word. I wish you people had the capacity to reply to what people wrote rather than what you think they wrote.

I apologise for misunderstanding.