Mary as New Eve

[GracePeace]

Because you need to know that the crap you believe is from the mind of the Looney Monk not God or the bible but your pomposity is engrained for you to listen. No I'll go away when mods kick me off. Your kind won't go unchallenged if I'm around

OK Thanks for the info, and the invite to your decrepit incoherent insanity, so are you going away now?

 

[nedsk]

OK Thanks for the info, and the invite to your decrepit incoherent insanity, so are you going away now?

There are 2 things that will make me go away. You only need one but I give you choices. You're welcome.
1) show evidence that any of the crap you believe existed before the 1500s
2) admit you can't and acknowledge what you believe is bs.

There going to. Easy peasy.

 

[GracePeace]

There are 2 things that will make me go away. You only need one but I give you choices. You're welcome.
1) show evidence that any of the crap you believe existed before the 1500s
2) admit you can't and acknowledge what you believe is bs.

There going to. Easy peasy.

As soon as you address how Paul has demolished your beliefs about Mary that were invented by a 2nd century man.
Easy peasy.

 

[GracePeace]

There are 2 things that will make me go away. You only need one but I give you choices. You're welcome.
1) show evidence that any of the crap you believe existed before the 1500s
2) admit you can't and acknowledge what you believe is bs.

There going to. Easy peasy.

Nah, actually, I'll just put you on ignore.
You're not an honest person.
Buh bye!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Nah, actually, I'll just put you on ignore.
You're not an honest person.
Buh bye!

Taking the easy way out again?

 

[nedsk]

As soon as you address how Paul has demolished your beliefs about Mary that were invented by a 2nd century man.
Easy peasy.

Cite Paul

Nah, actually, I'll just put you on ignore.
You're not an honest person.
Buh bye!

Nah, actually, I'll just put you on ignore.
You're not an honest person.
Buh bye!

If I were you I'd put me on ignore too

 

[Wick Stick]

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.

Eve is NOT a positive figure in the Bible. She leads Adam into sin in the story.

If there's an antitype to Eve, it's the idea of Israel being seduced by foreign nations, or those in the church being led astray by an unbelieving spouse. "Unequally yoked"

 

[nedsk]

Eve is NOT a positive figure in the Bible. She leads Adam into sin in the story.

If there's an antitype to Eve, it's the idea of Israel being seduced by foreign nations, or those in the church being led astray by an unbelieving spouse. "Unequally yoked"

To say Eve leads Adam into sin is to ignore free will. Adam knew all too well they weren't supposed to eat that fruit. In fact I think it's more like Adam failed Eve and us. This is why we needed Jesus.

 

[Wick Stick]

To say Eve leads Adam into sin is to ignore free will. Adam knew all too well they weren't supposed to eat that fruit. In fact I think it's more like Adam failed Eve and us. This is why we needed Jesus.

I'm not ignoring free will. Adam did know - he chose to please his wife instead of God. As the head, he is ultimately responsible.

None of that does anything to reverse the fact that Eve led Adam into sin in that story. Eve is not a figure of righteousness, but of unrighteousness. In the LXX, she is at one point referred to by the name of a pagan goddess.

Eve is NOT a figure of Mary OR the church.

 

[nedsk]

I'm not ignoring free will. Adam did know - he chose to please his wife instead of God. As the head, he is ultimately responsible.

None of that does anything to reverse the fact that Eve led Adam into sin in that story. Eve is not a figure of righteousness, but of unrighteousness. In the LXX, she is at one point referred to by the name of a pagan goddess.

Eve is NOT a figure of Mary OR the church.

If he had free will he followed. That's a choice.

Adam is no better since as you rightly claim he is ultimately responsible but Jesus corrects that and is the new Adam. And Mary by her obedience to the will of God corrects where eve failed and can be considered the new eve. The church is the new temple. Not the church, the building, but the people, the body of Christ is the new temple or the church

 

[Wick Stick]

If he had free will he followed. That's a choice.

Adam is no better since as you rightly claim he is ultimately responsible..

I'm not trying to exonerate Adam.

...but Jesus corrects that and is the new Adam. And Mary by her obedience to the will of God corrects where eve failed and can be considered the new eve.

That's a reasonable interpretation, but I don't see it that way.

Where Paul posits Jesus as the "new Adam" I don't think he's creating a pairing of type-to-antitype. Every other antitype is LIKE the type; not its opposite. And if that isn't a pair, then we can't extend it to pair Eve to Mary, or the church.

The church is the new temple. Not the church, the building, but the people, the body of Christ is the new temple or the church

Yes, that's 1Peter 2 in a nutshell.

 

[nedsk]

I'm not trying to exonerate Adam.

That's a reasonable interpretation, but I don't see it that way.

Where Paul posits Jesus as the "new Adam" I don't think he's creating a pairing of type-to-antitype. Every other antitype is LIKE the type; not its opposite. And if that isn't a pair, then we can't extend it to pair Eve to Mary, or the church.

Yes, that's 1Peter 2 in a nutshell.

But they are like. Adam was the first of the human race while Jesus is the first of those who will raised from the dead to eternal life. Our human life comes through Adam while our spiritual life is through Jesus.

As for Eve she was full of grace just like Mary but Mary remained obedient. Eve and Mary both willingly participated in the acts they performed. Through eve evil entered the word while salvation entered through Mary.

 

[GodsGrace]

But they are like. Adam was the first of the human race while Jesus is the first of those who will raised from the dead to eternal life. Our human life comes through Adam while our spiritual life is through Jesus.

As for Eve she was full of grace just like Mary but Mary remained obedient. Eve and Mary both willingly participated in the acts they performed. Through eve evil entered the word while salvation entered through Mary.

Food for thought.
Mary birthed the Savior, so in some sense, she brought salvation into the world.

But our spiritual life doesn't come through her as our spiritual life comes through Jesus - the opposite of Adam.

Maybe we could say that Eve was a bad example and, instead, Mary was a good example with her YES!
Eve chose what SHE wanted but Mary chose what God wanted from her.

Eve did not obey.
Mary obeyed.

That's as far as I can get.

 

[GodsGrace]

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).

Hi GracePeace
The above sounds good.

The first item...i....doesn't sound right - but I've just never considered all this before now.

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.

How does 2 Cor 11:3 show that Paul compares the Church to Eve?

2 Cor 11:2 sounds like what is said about Mary!
1 I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me.
2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.


All Christians believe Mary was a virgin that gave birth.
Just like Paul is speaking of presenting believers as bethrothed as a pure virgin.

This is what Irenaeus said:
“Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith”

– St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (~AD 180)

Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp...who was taught by John.


Justin Martyr said the same:

1) St. Justin Martyr, 2nd century​

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death.

But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to your word.’ (Dialogue with Trypho, 100, A.D. 160)


There's more but I don't think it's important.

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,

The CCC represents what the CC teaches.
Whenever a question comes up, the CCC is used for the correct information.

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 don't think what chatgpt prints out is important.
I fear that we're going to start using AI for all our information and AI is not God.

I never considered that the doctrine about Mary was based on her being the new Eve.

I also don't understand why this is so important.
We're speaking about a typology here.

If you wanted to discuss true doctrine concerning Mary, I think it would be more important.
I'm sure you have your reason.
And maybe I just don't undersand enough about this to add anything of value to the discussion.

 

[GodsGrace]

But they are like. Adam was the first of the human race while Jesus is the first of those who will raised from the dead to eternal life. Our human life comes through Adam while our spiritual life is through Jesus.

As for Eve she was full of grace just like Mary but Mary remained obedient. Eve and Mary both willingly participated in the acts they performed. Through eve evil entered the word while salvation entered through Mary.

Do you or @BreadOfLife agree with the OP that the idea of Mary being the new Eve was used to support doctrine about Mary?
(I've never heard of this).

 

[GracePeace]

Eve is NOT a positive figure in the Bible. She leads Adam into sin in the story.

If there's an antitype to Eve, it's the idea of Israel being seduced by foreign nations, or those in the church being led astray by an unbelieving spouse. "Unequally yoked"

As already noted in the OP, which you are free to respond to, since it sets the topic, Paul already identified the Church as the antitype to Eve (2 Co 11:3).

 

[GracePeace]

Hi GracePeace
The above sounds good.

The first item...i....doesn't sound right - but I've just never considered all this before now.


How does 2 Cor 11:3 show that Paul compares the Church to Eve?

2 Cor 11:2 sounds like what is said about Mary!
1 I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me.
2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.


All Christians believe Mary was a virgin that gave birth.
Just like Paul is speaking of presenting believers as bethrothed as a pure virgin.

This is what Irenaeus said:
“Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith”

– St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (~AD 180)

Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp...who was taught by John.


Justin Martyr said the same:

1) St. Justin Martyr, 2nd century​

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death.

But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to your word.’ (Dialogue with Trypho, 100, A.D. 160)


There's more but I don't think it's important.

The CCC represents what the CC teaches.
Whenever a question comes up, the CCC is used for the correct information.


I don't think what chatgpt prints out is important.
I fear that we're going to start using AI for all our information and AI is not God.

I never considered that the doctrine about Mary was based on her being the new Eve.

I also don't understand why this is so important.
We're speaking about a typology here.

If you wanted to discuss true doctrine concerning Mary, I think it would be more important.
I'm sure you have your reason.
And maybe I just don't undersand enough about this to add anything of value to the discussion.

1. Paul says "as Eve, so you" : Christ is the fulfillment of the Adam type (Ro 5; 1 Co 15).
Who was Adam's bride? His own body. Thus the Church is called the body and the bride of Christ.
Therefore, Paul sees that the Church is like Christ's Eve.

2. ChatGPT rightly pointed out that the Marian dogmas rest on the foundation / assumption of Mary as the New Eve being true (ie, just as Eve was without sin, so, also, Mary had to be immaculately conceived), but it is false, because the Church is the New Eve, and it undermines their "infallible" Marian dogmas, thus the Roman Catholic claim of infallibility.

3, It is an important issue simply because it is such a massive claim.

 

[Wick Stick]

As already noted in the OP, which you are free to respond to, since it sets the topic, Paul already identified the Church as the antitype to Eve (2 Co 11:3).

That's a simile' rather than a type

 

[GracePeace]

That's a simile'

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 ).​

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.

 

[GracePeace]

That's a simile' rather than a type

So, to you, is math (eg, 2+2=4) also just a coincidence? lol