Search results

Then James could be using hyperbole when he says "not by faith alone" LOL

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.

OK If an empty assertion somehow disproves my actual argument, then I can do the same and it disproves any argument you bring : "context is your enemy". There's the discussion is over. LOL Make no oath--I take Jesus and James at their word.

I'm not sure why you would see "Paul's Gospel" would differ--he also warns that those who do not persist in faith can be cut off (Ro 11:17-22).

@Doug If "faith comes by hearing God's Word", and there is only "one faith", that would mean that there is only one "Word of God" that people hear--ie, "one Gospel", God's testimony about His Son (1 Jn 5).

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...

1. The Law contained concessions. 2. God's commands can change : incest used to be a holy command ("Be fruitful and multiply" meant "commit incest"), however, now, God calls it an abomination. I've already debunked your argument, and, now, it is your job to respond to my response.

Adam was a type of Christ (Ro 5). Adam's bride, Eve, was his own body; Christ's bride, the Church, is "the body of Christ". Ergo, the only New Eve that could exist would be the Church. It's no coincidence Paul directly compares the Church to Eve (2 Co 11:3).

More than not "liking" them, He nullifies them, because they're made for hard-hearted people, but hard-heartedness has to do with an unbelieving heart falling away from the living God (Heb 3), so there's no place for them in the New Covenant--and oath-taking was one of those concessions. If it...

To proceed from "all Scripture is profitable" to "Mary is a type" is uncalled for--I think it is "making hay". To say something is a "type" is a very serious matter. For Mary to be an example is one thing, but to proceed to say she is a "type" is too much for me. I let the Apostles make those...

LOL Jesus also calls the Samaritan woman "woman" (Jn 4)--is she ANOTHER "New Eve" just because of that? How many "New Eve"s do you need?

Yeah, I've already presented my arguments for why it is the Church who would be the New Eve--you're free to interact with my arguments.

Literally every person in the Bible had to receive God's Word and obey it. Mary is not anomalous in that regard. I really don't get the drive to make hay about her. It is idolatry.

Yup, there were myriad things the Apostles didn't understand before receiving the Spirit--they didn't even know Gentiles could be saved, even though Christ said "Go preach to the nations", bc the Jews who went with Peter were all astonished that the Gentiles received the gift of the Spirit, but...

I understand it is hard to let go of traditions, but the tradition of taking vows before marriage is a tradition of men that flies in the face of God's Word.

Very little is written about Mary, so I don't know how she could be an example to me. Oh, she received the Word? So I am to receive the Word? Was that something I needed to learn from Mary? I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous.

I really am confused at how people--eg, @Doug, the author of this thread--can fall into such obvious errors. Some errors are subtle, and more understandable, but you have to go OUT OF YOUR WAY to believe some of this nonsense.

To me, Mary is not a type or figure of anything. I do not look to Mary at all. She was blessed, sure, but we are to look to Christ. I don't expect the Catholics to be honest about this, because they have their tradition, I am just sharing it.

LOL! Clutch your pearls all you want. You don't have a single substantive thing to say. Your being offended doesn't prove your point. It is EVIDENT that you haven't read the Bible--either that or that you are an outright rebel, take your pick (it's better to be ignorant)--because you REJECT its...

The idea falls apart when we realize Paul corrected Peter's veering from the truth of the Gospel--only one Gospel, and Peter had to submit to it. He wasn't a free agent roaming around preaching his own thing.