Mary as New Eve

[Wick Stick]

1. You're begging the question, not addressing the actual evidence.

simile : a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox ).​

You don't seem to know what a 'begging the question' means. There's no question mark in my previous post.

2. Deal with the evidence : Eve was Adam's body and bride, and the Church is Christ (the antitype to Adam)'s body and bride.
ON TOP OF THAT, Paul literally compares the Church to Eve.
Ergo, if there is going to be a New Eve at all, it could only be the Church, and it isn't Mary.

Context - Paul hopes that the church WON'T be like Eve. That's not a type. That's not even a comparison.

 

[GracePeace]

You don't seem to know what a 'begging the question' means. There's no question mark in my previous post.

LOL! Buddy...

The "begging the question" fallacy, also known as circular reasoning, occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, rather than providing independent evidence for it. It essentially restates the conclusion in different words, rather than proving it. This fallacy is also referred to as "petitio principii" in Latin

No question mark is needed to be guilty of "begging the question".

Context - Paul hopes that the church WON'T be like Eve. That's not a type. That's not even a comparison.

Right, and, as I stated, to you, all of these things are just "coincidences" :
1. Christ is the antitype to Adam (Ro 5; 1 Co 15)
2. Adam's bride, Eve, was his own body; Christ's bride, the Church, is His own body.
3. Paul compares the Church to Eve (whether negatively or positively is irrelevant), and NEVER Mary to Eve (actually, not a single writer of the NT does).

 

[Wick Stick]

LOL! Buddy...

The "begging the question" fallacy, also known as circular reasoning, occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, rather than providing independent evidence for it. It essentially restates the conclusion in different words, rather than proving it. This fallacy is also referred to as "petitio principii" in Latin

No question mark is needed to be guilty of "begging the question".

You don't seem to be arguing honestly. All I did was point out a simile'. In what way is that begging the question? It isn't.

Right, and, as I stated, to you, all of these things are just "coincidences" :
1. Christ is the antitype to Adam (Ro 5; 1 Co 15)

Right, this is the crux of my argument - Adam is NOT a type of Christ.

The rest of your argument falls apart if Adam isn't a type of Christ.

 

[GracePeace]

You don't seem to be arguing honestly. All I did was point out a simile'. In what way is that begging the question? It isn't.

Yes, it is : you already disagree with me, and, to try to prove you're right, you simply emptily assert, "It's a simile"--you address nothing, you simply assert your disagreement as if it is obviously true.

Right, this is the crux of my argument - Adam is NOT a type of Christ.

You haven't read the Bible on your own, and, now, you even ignored the references I gave you.
Let me help you out by typing it for you now.

Romans 5
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

1 Corinthians 15
45So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

So, you have no argument.

The rest of your argument falls apart if Adam isn't a type of Christ.

Your argument, which was based on your abject ignorance, just fell apart.

You didn't know what "begging the question" was ("I didn't ask a question!"), but you positioned yourself as if you were knowledgeable on it, then you, with zero basis, proceeded to dismiss Scripture. You know nothing about the subject, yet you speak on it as if you are in the know. So, aren't you being dishonest, not me?