Virgin Mary is the Woman in Genesis 3:15

[historyb]

We know Mary as Gen 3:15 as the Woman and we Catholics =the seed.

Absolutely not, the Catholic Church does not teach such heresy. The seed is Christ alone

 

[brian100]

Absolutely not, the Catholic Church does not teach such heresy. The seed is Christ alone

I have my own brain. CC don't even say anything about this. They only suspect its the New Adam and Eve.

Her=Mary
Seed=Church
And I'm in it.

That's why there is a battle against thy Seed.

KJ screwed up and forgot to delete it like the NIV.

Real Catholics regard Mary as the Church... and inside is Salvation.

 

[historyb]

I have my own brain. CC don't even say anything about this. They only suspect is the New Adam and Eve.

Then stop lying and saying your Catholic, your not. A real Catholic defers to the Church all you are is a Protestant with kooky ideas and try to soil the name of the Catholic Church.

 

[brian100]

HHisb,

Look buddy the Vatican 2 took over.. and pretty much outcast all Marian followers. I don't even regard JP2 as a real Pope not after him kissing the Koran.

You are just some sort of apologist. Apologist apologizes for the Church errors.

I'm a believer.

 

[Illuminator]

Hasn't anyone ever thought that the woman of Genesis 3:15 is God's Heavenly organization and the seed is The Messianic kingdom as God's Only Begotten Son as king of that Messianic kingdom?

We know Mary as Gen 3:15 as the Woman and we Catholics =the seed. We are brothers and sisters to Christ. The Fist Catholic based on his Shroud.
We fight the Thy seed.
I provided Video evidence. And physical Evidence. As well as some scriptures for her role.
Catholics pray to Mary.. a lot. I'm not going to deny it. But we also pray to the Father and talk to Jesus.
SO is KJV on her seed.. says so. NIV removed all it it.

Q: Please explain to me how come the Douay-Rheims Gen 3:15 and the the New American Bible Gen 3:15 differ. I'm sure you know what I am talking about.

A: I certainly do. In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, (which pre-dates the KJV by 11 years) Genesis 3:15, in which God is addressing the serpent, reads like this:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

In the New American Bible, as in all other modern Bibles, it reads like this:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

The essential difference between these two renderings -- or at least the one people always ask about -- concerning who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All modern translations use masculine pronouns -- he and his -- implying that the seed of the woman is the of that part of the verse.

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.

People notice this variant today because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of some popular Catholic art, showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent.

This is because Christians have recognized (all the way back to the first century) that the woman and her seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons (either Abel or Seth). They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. Thus, just as the first half of the verse, speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman, has been applied to Mary, the second half, speaking of the head crushing and heel striking, has also been applied to Mary due to the manuscript variant, though it properly applies to Jesus, given the original Hebrew.

This does not mean that the idea cannot be validly applied to Mary as well. Through her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the Son of God (who, from the cross, directly crushed the head of the serpent) became her seed, Mary did crush the head of the serpent. In the same way, the serpent struck at Christ on the cross, and indirectly struck at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own Son (cf. John 19:25-27). As the holy priest Simeon had told her years before:
"Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against -- and a sword will pierce through your own soul also -- that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed" (Luke 2:34b-35).

Who are the many?

Thus Jesus crushed the serpent directly and was directly struck by the serpent; Mary, through her cooperation in the incarnation and her witnessing the sufferings and death of her Son, indirectly crushed the serpent and was indirectly struck by the serpent.

This has long been recognized by Catholics. The footnotes provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner in his revision of the Douay state, "The sense [of these two readings] is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head."
INFO: Mary and the saints

 

[Prayer Warrior]

You deserved a biblical spanking. Quoting Jeremiah 7:18 and Jeremiah 44:17 to disprove Mary as Queen of Heaven is an abuse of Scripture.

I wasn't trying to disprove anything. I was showing where that term is actually used in the Bible. And if I'm in need of a "spanking," you're not qualified to give it. My Heavenly Father is the only One who is! Got it??? And your Heavenly Father can give you the scourging you need since he scourges every son whom He receives.

 

[brian100]

Why do bibles differ where Mary is involved..?? they want to do away with her Church b.c she the woman in Gen 3:15. Luckily nobody can erase Douay Rheims.

 

[historyb]

HHisb,

Look buddy the Vatican 2 took over.. and pretty much outcast all Marian followers. I don't even regard JP2 as a real Pope not after him kissing the Koran.

You are just some sort of apologist.

I'm a believer.

Than stop lying and saying your Catholic, your not. You are something though, you have conspiracy theories galore, outlandish stories and heresy to boot. You are pure poison and I was a fool to entertain such a troll as you there are enough people here who hate the Catholic Church and Traditional Christians such as myself and then you just make others think the Church is crazy because you are. From henceforth you are on ignore you aren't worth my time or effort.

 

[brian100]

I'll say I'm Catholic with pride. Trad Marian side. I'll die saying it.

I'm not really here to play scriptures games with Prots. I'm here to show them what CC has not shown anyone. . . Shroud .. and Mary is real. One mans faith in God can sweep out the bad Catholics going after Tradition.

 

[brian100]

Does God Judge you on how many times you went to Church or if you went out and told unbelievers what is the real thing?

People say Yes to God in Church but do not do his will.

I'm too scared to go to a Vatican 2 Church.. That's why i don't go. They all be Protestantized. And the one I believe in is in Perryville.

 

[Illuminator]

HHisb,
Look buddy the Vatican 2 took over.. and pretty much outcast all Marian followers. I don't even regard JP2 as a real Pope not after him kissing the Koran.

An off topic derailer because you have no intelligent replies to solid biblical evidence. If you are going to criticize Vatican II, try studying its documents with an open mind instead of making insane conclusions.
The Papal Encyclicals Online

You are just some sort of apologist. Apologist apologizes for the Church errors.
I'm a believer.

No Brian, an apologist explains and defends the Christian faith, Protestant or Catholic. There are no professional apologists on this board. I am an amature apologist, it's a hobby for me.

There have been administration and political errors, but there are no doctrinal errors in Catholicism. The problem is that Protestants have a different definition of "doctrine", they speak a different language. You should do more research on Catholic apologetics before entering into a snake pit infested with anti-Catholic bigots, because I think you are rather weak in this area.
Mary: The Blessed Virgin (Index Page)
Reactionary Catholic Rejection of Vatican II: A Survey

 

[brian100]

I know JP2 apologized for all the errors.. right after he kissed the Muslim holy book that denies Jesus. I have never kissed that book. JP2 was like Judas? So that's just to show you how Catholics are nowadays. He was a rock star Pope. So so aweful! EEEK!!! And of course no sensible Catholic would ever post that.

 

[brian100]

No Brian, an apologist explains and defends the Christian faith, Protestant or Catholic. There have been administration and political errors, but there are no doctrinal errors in Catholicism. .

See I'm not defending the CC.

I'm just showing you things I believe in. . Even though those bad people do that.. the sacraments are still valid. And I've already had all mine. The one thing the CC can't take away is my faith in Jesus and Mary... didn't they burn Joan? And she was a nobody peasant who toppled warriors.

 

[Illuminator]

The Shroud of Turin is an ICON of Holy Saturday, nothing more; nothing less. The Pope says it's an icon, “a mirror of the Gospel.”
The Church has never infallibly declared 100% it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. I don't care if it was fabricated by Chinese Freemasons in 1952, it's an icon, period.
However, recent scientific studies point to the direction of its authenticity. I don't mean the flawed, outdated carbon 14 tests that skeptics hop up and down about. But scientists can only present factual evidence, they don't declare miracles. They can only say there is no natural explanation. I side with scientific evidence, and the Church is officially silent to its authenticity. But I accept it as authentic, because I have faith alone!
Science and the Shroud of Turin | OC Catholic
BBC News - Turin Shroud: What does the science say?

 

[brian100]

If you believe its just an icon---and nothing more that's on you.. I'm just glad he gave me the opportunity to decode it. And why should he tell me its secrets? I'm a nobody. I've showed you guys video of what people have been saying for centuries about Mary visiting us and leading the Church to victory! Lots of people would love to see her. I gave you people video to look and you can make up your own minds. It should at least peak your interests!It surely can't go against you!

Your link posting on Shroud is meaningless unless you have a specific point to make on it.

 

[Illuminator]

I know JP2 apologized for all the errors.. right after he kissed the Muslim holy book that denies Jesus. I have never kissed that book. JP2 was like Judas? So that's just to show you how Catholics are nowadays. He was a rock star Pope. So so aweful! EEEK!!! And of course no sensible Catholic would ever post that.

Oh boy, the same old anti-Catholic canard. The thread has been successfully derailed and brian100 is feeding the trolls. The reason for the meeting was to promote peace in the middle east. Anti-Catholics ignore context. It is customary in Iraq for everybody to kiss any gift. Anti-Catholics ignore local customs.

The former Chaldean patriarch–Raphael Bidawid–was present at the meeting where the event occurred, and in an interview with the press service FIDES, he said the following:

On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi’ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope, because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim.

At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam [SOURCE].
​

A sign of respect does not mean acceptance of Islam, contrary to rabid psychotic reactionaries.

People shove all kinds of books into the pope’s hands at audiences, and if the pope was under the impression that the thing to do with a gift in Iraqi culture is to kiss it as a sign of respect to the one who gives the gift then he might have kissed it reflexively, not even understanding the nature of the book.

While this is possible, I think it likely that an interpreter explained the nature of the gift that was being given on this occasion. This still leaves the possibility that the pope kissed it as part of Middle Eastern politeness rather than as a gesture of respect for the book itself.

Still, the pope may have been under the mistaken impression that this was the appropriate thing to do when receiving a gift in their culture. He can’t be an expert on every culture in the world, and he could get this wrong.

Or maybe he didn’t.

Maybe he knew it was the Quran and kissed it anyway, not as a customary gift giving response, but for some other reason.

What might that reason be?

It certainly wouldn’t be that he believes in Islam or believes that Islam is on a par with Christianity. If he believed either of these two things then he
(a) wouldn’t be the earthly head of the Christian faith and
(b) wouldn’t have approved the publication of Dominus Iesus, which asserts the salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.

Any attempt to represent him as thinking one of those things doesn’t even get out of the gate.

So what might he have been thinking?

We’re only speculating here, but two things spring to mind as what JP2 might have been thinking:

1) The Quran does contain some elements of truth (as well as grave elements of falsehood) and he might have wanted to honor the elements of truth it contains.

2) Showing respect in this way could foster world peace and interreligious harmony.

Of these two, I would conjecture that the latter would have been uppermost in John Paul II’s mind, though the former may not have been absent.

John Paul II was a man who was enormously concerned with world peace and interreligious harmony. As a young man he lived through the horrors of World War II, which had a permanent effect on him and his generation and their views about war and peace...

...Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions. A pope is not attempting to make anything remotely like a dogmatic definition in an act of this nature. And so, however misguided the action may have been and however good the motives for it may have been, it would constitute an error that does not touch upon papal infallibility or ecclesial indefectibility.

It would be one of the mistakes that all fallen humans are heir to, even the vicars of Christ.
JP2 And The Quran – Jimmy Akin

I would kiss poop if it meant saving lives. It seems to me anti-Catholics don't want Muslims to stop killing Christians, they want to get that Armageddon train a rollin'.

​

 

[brian100]

No he derailed it for saying I wasn't Catholic so I tossed out what should be Catholic in his face.

Instead of staying on topic they attack your religious beliefs like it matters to me after seeing JP2 do that. If what JP2 is Catholic then .. maybe that's why he got the shakes. No way he was still Catholic after that.

What bothered me about Jp2 was he would go around with a rosary..but on the side kiss Korans?

I have my own eyes.

I heard jp2 was a huge Mary believer... yeah right! Just to be seen doing it?

They really need to get a true believer back up top. I'll let God handle it.

 

[Grailhunter]

You deserved a biblical spanking. Quoting Jeremiah 7:18 and Jeremiah 44:17 to disprove Mary as Queen of Heaven is an abuse of Scripture.

Biblical spanking! That is hilarious! First of all you would have to be knowledgeable enough about the Bible to give a "biblical spanking!" I love Miriam but....there is no Old Testament reference to her as a title. Twisting the scriptures and misrepresenting them is an evil skill. Nothing to be proud of. Talking about spanking to a lady is impolite, the female voice on this forum is very much appreciated. First do a little study before you put your foot in your mouth. The reference to the Queen of Heaven is referring to Asherah which was a popular deity with many Israelites.

Protestants have a different approach to Christianity....they are not going recognize a lot of what happened with Miriam before or after the covers of the Bible. Fundamentalism is a methodology of defining religious beliefs. There is a lot of Catholic history that is incredibly wonderful...but history is like the 5 O' clock news, you do not get the good news a lot of the times. So history records a lot of the horrible things that the Catholic Church did. Lutheranism and Protestantism was a rejection of Church corruption and opulence and an historical rejection of the notion that a Church of Christ could do the evil things it did. It was time for a reform and that was Luther's initial intent, it just got out of hand. Eventually the Catholic Church reformed itself and today is better than ever. Of course I am talking about the priests and the Catholics in the pews, I have no use for the Vatican, it has had it head up its tail from the get go.

The Protestants do not have near the blood on their hands that the Catholic Church does, maybe because they never had the power to be tempted to do such evils. But they did not get it right either. Protestantism immediately started fracturing and now we have something over 30,000 renditions of what the Bible means. So no one denomination is perfect, rather living in metaphorical glass houses.

The history of Miriam is very elegant and wonderful and most of all miraculous! Her shrines are a testament to all the good she is. Well documented and inspiring stories. I agree with all that, love her so much. But...always a but...You are not going to find her history in the Old Testament, your not going to find the story of her parents in the New Testament, and you are not going read how she became an intercessor for humanity in New Testament. So it is illogical for you to think they should understand.

Now although I do believe and know how she became an intercessor for Mankind...and works effectively as an "agent" of God, I do not believe in the immaculate conception of Miriam, I do not believe she was a virgin after conceiving Christ, I do not believe she was a virgin after delivering the baby Yeshua, and I do not believe that she remained a virgin the rest of her life. And it is a fact that the phrase "Virgin Mary" does not occur in the scriptures. I do believe she was taken in bodily form to heaven and has a very unique position that interacts between the Trinity and Man. And through history has blessed us so many times in so many ways. but Queen is not her position.

 

[brian100]

Grail thank you for that read.. as that goes beyond my knowledge and I prefer not to know such things.

I keep it simple, get my sacrament (baptism to confirm) stay faithful, try to live Jesus words, try to understand them, ask for lots mercy, and love Mary and Jesus.

And look for Mary sightings! She battling the thy seeds.

PS when I seen her lighted dress of clouds I was completely amazed by God's power.

 

[Grailhunter]

Grail thank you for that read.. as that goes beyond my knowledge and I prefer not to know such things.

I keep it simple, get my sacrament (baptism to confirm) stay faithful, try to live Jesus words, try to understand them, ask for lots mercy, and love Mary and Jesus.

Ya know, we are all Christians and it does not matter if you are Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, or one of the Protestant denominations, Loving Christ is perfect, but we are not perfect by our own accord. Christ was in all of this and probably wants us to love one another.