Mary as New Eve

[Marymog]

Your Church system will pass away before Christ returns. It is already being proven erroneous.

If you don't want to use your critical thinking skills in this area of life, I guess that's how you live in the rest of your life--uncritically, unthinkingly. That's your call. I can't do it.

Been proven erroneous by WHO? How does this work exactly?

According to you the CC is erroneous because some say some of it's teachings are erroneous and some of it's teachings are not erroneous. What if the CC and 3 other denominations (Lutheran, Orthodox and Jim's bible church any town USA) say YOU and your ilk are erroneous..... wouldn't that make YOU, by your own logic, erroneous?

It appears to me that anyone that disagrees with YOU, they aren't using "critical thinking skills"? But YOU do....

Curious Mary

 

[GracePeace]

Been proven erroneous by WHO? How does this work exactly?

According to you the CC is erroneous because some say some of it's teachings are erroneous and some of it's teachings are not erroneous. What if the CC and 3 other denominations (Lutheran, Orthodox and Jim's bible church any town USA) say YOU and your ilk are erroneous..... wouldn't that make YOU, by your own logic, erroneous?

It appears to me that anyone that disagrees with YOU, they aren't using "critical thinking skills"? But YOU do....

Curious Mary

You can't actually engage in the discussion, you try to shift the discussion--either Irenaeus erred or he didn't.

 

[GracePeace]

Been proven erroneous by WHO? How does this work exactly?

According to you the CC is erroneous because some say some of it's teachings are erroneous and some of it's teachings are not erroneous. What if the CC and 3 other denominations (Lutheran, Orthodox and Jim's bible church any town USA) say YOU and your ilk are erroneous..... wouldn't that make YOU, by your own logic, erroneous?

It appears to me that anyone that disagrees with YOU, they aren't using "critical thinking skills"? But YOU do....

Curious Mary

You can't actually engage in the discussion, you try to shift the discussion--either Irenaeus erred or he didn't.

Your methodology is broken. Let me demonstrate :
If I hear you assert that "2 + 2 = 5", and I respond, "No, 2 + 2 = 4; let's examine the evidence, which clearly demonstrates that 2 + 2 = 4, plus, if we keep consistent with the math, we can solve a lot of other problems," but your commitment to a math authority, maybe a professor, won't let you consider or discuss the evidence, to see if your view, inculcated by your professor, is right or wrong, then you're stuck with your error (but you won't stick me with it).

That's what's happening with the issue of Irenaeus's false teaching about Mary--though you want to pretend you are using your reason, pretend you are engaging in thoughtful discussion, your real baseline, and argument, is, "My Church is never wrong," your argument is not about facts or evidence. What you are doing is just parroting your Church, and, when it comes down to it, when you are debunked, your only defense is, "Well, MY CHURCH IS NEVER WRONG. WHO ARE YOU TO CHALLENGE MY CHURCH!?"

Then stop pretending you're a reasoning human being engaged in an intelligent discussion about facts. You're not interested in facts, your only point you have, or want to make, is "My Church is right". Your entire theology is just, "My church is right", it has nothing to do with facts or evidence. It is not about thinking, thus it cannot survive a thoughtful conversation, or any bit of scrutiny. The object of your faith is not God or God's Word, and it doesn't involve the seeking to understand the Word that it takes to parse God's Word out, but, rather, your faith is in some men who say things which may or may not reflect God's actual truth (in many cases it does--in many it doesn't) which you are accountable before God to believe in.

You do not have faith in the Word of God, you have faith in your Church--which, demonstrably, is untrustworthy.

 

[Marymog]

You've already been made privy to one--Irenaeus erred when he falsely taught his baseless nonsense about Mary. He's been debunked.

Irenaeus erred and taught falsely according to who? YOU and your ilk? I refer you back to post #141 that debunks your logic: What if the CC and 3 other denominations (Lutheran, Orthodox and Jim's bible church any town USA) say YOU and your ilk are erroneous about Mary..... wouldn't that make YOU and your ilk, by your own logic, erroneous and false?

How is it that the man who lived closest to the time of Christ and would be able to talk to people and read writings of people before him (writings we don't have now) that possibly were students of the Apostles is wrong.....but your teachers, 2,000 years later, are right on Mary teachings?

I don't understand your logic!

 

[GracePeace]

Irenaeus erred and taught falsely according to who? YOU and your ilk? I refer you back to post #141 that debunks your logic: What if the CC and 3 other denominations (Lutheran, Orthodox and Jim's bible church any town USA) say YOU and your ilk are erroneous about Mary..... wouldn't that make YOU and your ilk, by your own logic, erroneous and false?

How is it that the man who lived closest to the time of Christ and would be able to talk to people and read writings of people before him (writings we don't have now) that possibly were students of the Apostles is wrong.....but your teachers, 2,000 years later, are right on Mary teachings?

I don't understand your logic!

According to the evidence--which evidence you are powerless to respond to.

 

[Marymog]

The thing with an "infallible" Church is one error brings the entire edifice down.

Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. That means that The Church is infallible.

Jesus said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (The Church).

Scripture says that we are to listen to The Church and if we disobey it we are to be treated as a tax collector and heather (kicked out of The Church). But if we repent.....we are allowed back into The Church.

So, according to your research, which church (denomination) today is the pillar and foundation of truth of which the gates of hell have not prevailed against for the last 2,000 years and that you WILL faithfully obey their teachings, so you don't get kicked out?

Which Church, according to your research, has not brought in any errors into its teachings?

Patient Mary

 

[GracePeace]

Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. That means that The Church is infallible.

Jesus said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (The Church).

Scripture says that we are to listen to The Church and if we disobey it we are to be treated as a tax collector and heather (kicked out of The Church). But if we repent.....we are allowed back into The Church.

So, according to your research, which church (denomination) today is the pillar and foundation of truth of which the gates of hell have not prevailed against for the last 2,000 years and that you WILL faithfully obey their teachings, so you don't get kicked out?

Which Church, according to your research, has not brought in any errors into its teachings?

Patient Mary

You desperately want to change the topic because you can't answer the actual topic--Mary as New Eve is an error--and I'm not going to let that happen.

 

[Marymog]

According to the evidence--which evidence you are powerless to respond to.

I see you refuse to answer my questions....That's fine. I know why you won't. I will continue to respond to yours.

According to the evidence that YOU have accepted YOU are right.

The Church is not "powerless" to respond to your "evidence". Your "evidence" has responded to it.....You just don't accept the response and evidence it presented.

 

[GracePeace]

I see you refuse to answer my questions....That's fine. I know why you won't. I will continue to respond to yours.

According to the evidence that YOU have accepted YOU are right.

The Church is not "powerless" to respond to your "evidence". Your "evidence" has responded to it.....You just don't accept the response and evidence it presented.

LOL! This is my thread, and I set the topic--ie, "I see you refuse to answer my questions" applies to you.
You are incapable of honesty, only deceptive tactics (eg, the aforementioned)--but I guess you're not to blame, since that's what has been sown into you by your church (deceptive tactics that undermine reason and suppress truth), so that's the harvest you are yielding. You ought to know better, though, in your own conscience, how deceptive you are being.

 

[GracePeace]

According to the evidence that YOU have accepted YOU are right.

I invite you to demonstrate that my argument is not true, but that yours is true--this doesn't involve copying and pasting large swathes of speculations about how Mary is the New Eve, it involves attacking the parts of my argument.

 

[Marymog]

You desperately want to change the topic because you can't answer the actual topic--Mary as New Eve is an error--and I'm not going to let that happen.

LOL.....I didn't change the topic. I am literally responding to your point: The thing with an "infallible" Church is one error brings the entire edifice down. THAT is the topic YOU started with that statement.

Soooo lets try this again. Back up your logic on the topic YOU started by answering some very simple questions based on Scripture:

Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. That means that The Church is infallible.

Jesus said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (The Church).

Scripture says that we are to listen to The Church and if we disobey it we are to be treated as a tax collector and heather (kicked out of The Church). But if we repent.....we are allowed back into The Church.

So, according to your research, which church (denomination) today is the pillar and foundation of truth of which the gates of hell have not prevailed against for the last 2,000 years and that you WILL faithfully obey their teachings, so you don't get kicked out?

Which Church, according to your research, has not brought in any errors into its teachings?

Patient and on topic.....Mary

 

[Marymog]

I invite you to demonstrate that my argument is not true, but that yours is true--this doesn't involve copying and pasting large swathes of speculations about how Mary is the New Eve, it involves attacking the pieces of my argument.

Easy:

How Can You Say That Mary Is the 'New Eve'?

OBJECTOR: Now that Christmas is approaching, a lot of people are thinking about Christ more than they would at other times of the year. It’s too bad that Cathol...

www.catholic.com

 

[GracePeace]

LOL.....I didn't change the topic. I am literally responding to your point: The thing with an "infallible" Church is one error brings the entire edifice down. THAT is the topic YOU started with that statement.

Soooo lets try this again. Back up your logic on the topic YOU started by answering some very simple questions based on Scripture:

Scripture says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. That means that The Church is infallible.

Jesus said that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (The Church).

Scripture says that we are to listen to The Church and if we disobey it we are to be treated as a tax collector and heather (kicked out of The Church). But if we repent.....we are allowed back into The Church.

So, according to your research, which church (denomination) today is the pillar and foundation of truth of which the gates of hell have not prevailed against for the last 2,000 years and that you WILL faithfully obey their teachings, so you don't get kicked out?

Which Church, according to your research, has not brought in any errors into its teachings?

Patient and on topic.....Mary

Nope, the topic is about how Mary is not New Eve. You have no way of disproving my assertion, so you want to change the topic to some other argument you think you have better odds of winning--not that you can win that argument, it's just you feel better without the pressure of the actual topic weighing down on you.

 

[GracePeace]

Easy:

How Can You Say That Mary Is the 'New Eve'?

OBJECTOR: Now that Christmas is approaching, a lot of people are thinking about Christ more than they would at other times of the year. It’s too bad that Cathol...

www.catholic.com

Nope, I knew you'd do that, so I already said I don't want to see a bunch of lazy copy-pasting, but actually engaging with my argument, with its individual parts, dismantling it, piece by piece. Demonstrate its incoherence.

 

[Marymog]

LOL! This is my thread, and I set the topic--ie, "I see you refuse to answer my questions" applies to you.
You are incapable of honesty, only deceptive tactics (eg, the aforementioned)--but I guess you're not to blame, since that's what has been sown into you by your church (deceptive tactics that undermine reason and suppress truth), so that's the harvest you are yielding. You ought to know better, though, in your own conscience, how deceptive you are being.

Got it.........soooo when you write something illogical and/or not true in your post's you want me to ignore it and not respond to it. I am only allowed to respond to sentences in your post that are on the topic of "Mary as new eve".

How am I being deceptive when I ask you to back up what you are saying with logic, facts or Scripture and you can't (or refuse to) do it?

Oh wait....I'm not supposed to respond to anything you say unless it is about "Mary as a new eve".....Ooops...Sorry! Disregard me asking you to back up your statements.

 

[GracePeace]

Got it.........soooo when you write something illogical and/or not true in your post's you want me to ignore it and not respond to it. I am only allowed to respond to sentences in your post that are on the topic of "Mary as new eve".

How am I being deceptive when I ask you to back up what you are saying with logic, facts or Scripture and you can't (or refuse to) do it?

Oh wait....I'm not supposed to respond to anything you say unless it is about "Mary as a new eve".....Ooops...Sorry! Disregard me asking you to back up your statements.

OK Since you're not interested in the discussion, you can bow out--no one is forcing you to pretend to have thoughts about the matter or have a discussion with those (non-existent) thoughts.

 

[GracePeace]

Got it.........soooo when you write something illogical and/or not true in your post's you want me to ignore it and not respond to it. I am only allowed to respond to sentences in your post that are on the topic of "Mary as new eve".

How am I being deceptive when I ask you to back up what you are saying with logic, facts or Scripture and you can't (or refuse to) do it?

Oh wait....I'm not supposed to respond to anything you say unless it is about "Mary as a new eve".....Ooops...Sorry! Disregard me asking you to back up your statements.

OK Since you're not interested in the discussion, you can bow out--no one is forcing you to pretend to have thoughts about the matter or have a discussion with those (non-existent) thoughts.

We're 8 pages into the discussion, and you STILL have no answer to the OP--you are chronically off topic, because you can't deal with the topic, but you can't just let it slide, because that would make Catholicism look bad, so you pretend to discuss when you really have nothing to say.

 

[Marymog]

Years ago, I learned that the Bible teaches that only the Church could be the New Eve :

1. The typological evidence in Scripture points to the Church being the New Eve, not Mary :
i. Adam was the head of the human race, and Christ is the head of a new human race (Ro 5; 1 Co 15),
ii. Eve was Adam's own body, and the Church is Christ's body (Gen 2; Ep 5),
iii. Eve was Adam's bride, and the Church is Christ's bride (Gen 2; Ep 4).

2. No less than Paul, himself, says the Church corresponds to Eve :
2 Corinthians 11:3But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Later, I learned that Irenaeus taught contrary to this, innovating a doctrine that Mary was the New Eve, and that the Catholic Church looked to him as authoritative, and, so, they share that view.

When I've confronted Catholics about this, they've tried to wave it off, claiming it isn't necessary for the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) to be 100% correct about all things it affirms, or they say there could be two figures in mind (both the Church and Mary) when dealing with typology; but ChatGPT says that it actually does undermine Catholicism, because, even though Mary as New Eve isn't a dogma, the Marian dogmas do rest upon the foundation of "Mary is the New Eve" (eg, the doctrine of her immaculate conception, they say it was necessary for Mary to have been born sinless, because Eve had been sinless), this actually does undermine Catholicism, inasmuch as it claims it cannot err in dogma... but its dogmas rely upon falsified foundations.

I thought it might be important.

Hi GP,

Who taught you that "the Bible teaches that only the Church could be the New Eve"?

What I have been taught is that because of Eve’s disobedience to God and Adam’s cooperation with her both of them lost sanctifying grace for themselves and their offspring. Eve and Mary were created full of grace. But Mary remained obedient to God; Eve didn't. Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death; Mary listened to the angel Gabriel and conceived life. Christ remained obedient to God; Adam didn't. In cooperation with God, Mary became Mother of the Redeemer and, in cooperation with Christ, she became Mother of the redeemed as well.

In the Genesis account of the Fall, it is the woman who is tempted first. She then gives the fruit to Adam, who also eats. God the Father later addresses the serpent as follows: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Genesis 3:15). This statement is called the Protoevangelium, and it is the first promise of a redeemer in Scripture, a redeemer who will be of human stock. The Fathers of the Church understood that it also referenced the woman who would bear the redeemer. Eve is also described as “the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20). Through grace in Christ Mary becomes our mother; she becomes the mother of all the living not in the order of nature, but in the order of supernatural grace.

In John’s Gospel, the dramatic events in which that restoration will take place is referred to as the “hour” of Jesus. Jesus mentions this hour completely unexpectedly during the wedding feast of Cana. In fact, the narrative of Cana contains two words that stand out in a quite startling way: “hour” and “woman”. Out of the blue, in the context of an apparently harmless conversation about wine, Jesus refers to his mother as “woman” and declares that his “hour” has not yet come. These are loaded terms for John the Evangelist, as any Scripture scholar can attest. They are a clear signal that the narrative is to be probed for its deeper theological meaning. By speaking in this apparently bewildering way, Jesus is telling us that his mother is the New Eve who bore the promised redeemer and that her interaction with him is somehow related to his “hour”, the process by which he will save humanity.

In regard to you using (or whoever taught you to use it) 2 Corinthians 11:3 as evidence that The Church corresponds to Eve....They taught you wrong. What Paul is saying in that passage is that he is concerned that individual Christians, who are members of The Church, thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. Paul is not saying that The Church will be led astray.

Hope that helps.....Mary

 

[Marymog]

We're 8 pages into the discussion, and you STILL have no answer to the OP--you are chronically off topic, because you can't deal with the topic, but you can't just let it slide, because that would make Catholicism look bad, so you pretend to discuss when you really have nothing to say.

I just responded to your original post. Good luck.........

 

[Marymog]

OK Since you're not interested in the discussion, you can bow out--no one is forcing you to pretend to have thoughts about the matter or have a discussion with those (non-existent) thoughts.

I have been responding to your false and illogical statements, and you don't like it and clearly can't back up what you say. That's fine.

I promise I will only talk about Mary as the new Eve from here on out.........