Mary as New Eve

[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.

Pot calling the kettle black????

I just looked back at all your posts on this thread and you went of topic MANY times and discussed many different things.......And you call me dishonest?????

But I digress.....Let's talk about the 2,000 year teaching that I adhere to and the 500 year teaching you adhere to.

Mary

 

[GracePeace]

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

You haven't interacted with my views at all, you've just regurgitated what ever your Church has regurgitated into your throat.

When you feel up to it, I welcome your interaction with my argument.

 

[GracePeace]

Pot calling the kettle black????

I just looked back at all your posts on this thread and you went of topic MANY times and discussed many different things.......And you call me dishonest?????

But I digress.....Let's talk about the 2,000 year teaching that I adhere to and the 500 year teaching you adhere to.

Mary

You're free to interact with my argument when you please.

 

[GracePeace]

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

No, actually, you didn't engage with my argument, falsifying its constituent parts, demonstrating its incoherence.

 

[GracePeace]

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.........

Quote where you dealt with the argument put forward in the OP.

 

[Marymog]

Quote where you dealt with the argument put forward in the OP.

Post #158.....

 

[Marymog]

Nah, the discussion isn't shifting : Irenaeus erred, and your Church followed his error, then codified it as "infallible", so you believe Mary is the New Eve, when only the Church even could qualify as the New Eve. That is only one among your many errors--but, again, have a go at the actual conversation, or scram.

Irenaeus erred according to WHO?

Just for clarification: You say that "only the Church even could qualify as the New Eve". Who or what is "the Church" according to you?

 

[Marymog]

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

According to YOU Paul demolished our beliefs about Mary. That theory only works if one misinterpreted what Paul said.

 

[GracePeace]

Post #158.....

Nope, you didn't demonstrate that the constituent parts of the argument were false. Quote what I said, and, one by one, demonstrate the argument is false.

 

[GracePeace]

Irenaeus erred according to WHO?

Just for clarification: You say that "only the Church even could qualify as the New Eve". Who or what is "the Church" according to you?

At this point, I don't know it would matter which Church, just that it is the Church--ie, the Church Christ said He would build, and which the gates of hell would not prevail against.

 

[Marymog]

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 is NOT what Paul did. He did not identify the Church as the antitype to Eve. Here is what Paul said IN CONTEXT:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure[a] devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. 5 I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. 6 I may be untrained in speech, but not in knowledge; certainly in every way and in all things we have made this evident to you.

translation: As the serpent deceived Eve by its cunningness I (Paul) am concerned that your (individual Christians) thoughts will be led astray from your devotion to Christ if someone comes along and teaches a different teaching than the one you accepted from me. I (Paul) am not inferior to super/most eminent apostles just because I am untrained in speech. I have made it evident to you that I am not untrained in knowledge.

Who taught you that in that passage Paul is identifying the Church as the antitype to Eve?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

At this point, I don't know it would matter which Church, just that it is the Church--ie, the Church Christ said He would build, and which the gates of hell would not prevail against.

Hold on..........HOLD ON!!!

It doesn't matter which Church (denomination) that is currently preaching/teaching here on earth is infallible and the gates of hell would not prevail against?

Oh goodness.....

 

[Marymog]

Nope, you didn't demonstrate that the constituent parts of the argument were false. Quote what I said, and, one by one, demonstrate the argument is false.

According to YOU I didn't.....But if you read what I wrote, you would see that I did. You just won't accept it because you don't really want to debate it. You just want to make a statement and if anyone disagrees with you THEY are wrong and YOU are right. Anyways, thats my experience with talking to you.

Also read post #171. It ALSO destroys what your men have taught you and specifically calls out your false teaching about 2 Cor. 11 that you use as "evidence" in your OP.

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[GracePeace]

That is NOT what Paul did. He did not identify the Church as the antitype to Eve. Here is what Paul said IN CONTEXT:

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure[a] devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. 5 I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. 6 I may be untrained in speech, but not in knowledge; certainly in every way and in all things we have made this evident to you.

translation: As the serpent deceived Eve by its cunningness I (Paul) am concerned that your (individual Christians) thoughts will be led astray from your devotion to Christ if someone comes along and teaches a different teaching than the one you accepted from me. I (Paul) am not inferior to super/most eminent apostles just because I am untrained in speech. I have made it evident to you that I am not untrained in knowledge.

Who taught you that in that passage Paul is identifying the Church as the antitype to Eve?

Curious Mary

You can deal with my entire argument when you please--quote the argument, then address what is being said.

 

[GracePeace]

Hold on..........HOLD ON!!!

It doesn't matter which Church (denomination) that is currently preaching/teaching here on earth is infallible and the gates of hell would not prevail against?

Oh goodness.....

No, it doesn't matter, because the argument is that the Church would be the only valid candidate for being New Eve--if you wanted to argue, after that is established, what the definition of "the Church" is, that would be another argument altogether.

 

[GracePeace]

According to YOU I didn't.....But if you read what I wrote, you would see that I did. You just won't accept it because you don't really want to debate it. You just want to make a statement and if anyone disagrees with you THEY are wrong and YOU are right. Anyways, thats my experience with talking to you.

Also read post #171. It ALSO destroys what your men have taught you and specifically calls out your false teaching about 2 Cor. 11 that you use as "evidence" in your OP.

Keeping it real....Mary

Quote my argument, then, step by step, show how it is wrong.

 

[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.

More evidence that your teachers are misleading you:

Paul’s statement, “man was not made from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man,” is a callback to Genesis 2:20-22, when the woman was made from the man in order to be his helper. This proposes that Paul doesn’t drop the Adam and Eve, man and woman, dynamic as he moves from verses 8-9 to 11-12. Instead, when Paul says, “as the woman was of the man, so [now] the man is by the woman” (1 Cor. 11:12), he was referring to the fact that, just as Eve was miraculously from Adam alone, without a female partner, so now is Jesus miraculously from Mary alone, without a male partner. In other words, Paul explicitly identifies Mary as the new Eve while identifying Jesus as the new Adam. Not only does this interpretation perfectly balance out the “mutual dependence” of man and woman (1 Cor. 11:11), but it’s further supported by the fact that, later on in this same letter, Paul makes another direct comparison between the origin of the first and last Adam: “the first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47).

 

[GracePeace]

More evidence that your teachers are misleading you:

Paul’s statement, “man was not made from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man,” is a callback to Genesis 2:20-22, when the woman was made from the man in order to be his helper. This proposes that Paul doesn’t drop the Adam and Eve, man and woman, dynamic as he moves from verses 8-9 to 11-12. Instead, when Paul says, “as the woman was of the man, so [now] the man is by the woman” (1 Cor. 11:12), he was referring to the fact that, just as Eve was miraculously from Adam alone, without a female partner, so now is Jesus miraculously from Mary alone, without a male partner. In other words, Paul explicitly identifies Mary as the new Eve while identifying Jesus as the new Adam. Not only does this interpretation perfectly balance out the “mutual dependence” of man and woman (1 Cor. 11:11), but it’s further supported by the fact that, later on in this same letter, Paul makes another direct comparison between the origin of the first and last Adam: “the first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47).

Let me show you an example of what I am looking for :

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),

"This is false because x, y and z."

ii. Eve was Adam's own body, and the Church is Christ's body (Gen 2; Ep 5),

"This is false because x, y and z."

iii. Eve was Adam's bride, and the Church is Christ's bride (Gen 2; Ep 4).

"This is false because x, y and z."

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.

"This is false, because x, y and z."

 

[Marymog]

Quote my argument, then, step by step, show how it is wrong.

Post #158, 171 and 177 has shown that you are wrong. And all this is based on your false interpretation of Scripture.

What more do you need?

 

[GracePeace]

More evidence that your teachers are misleading you:

Paul’s statement, “man was not made from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man,” is a callback to Genesis 2:20-22, when the woman was made from the man in order to be his helper. This proposes that Paul doesn’t drop the Adam and Eve, man and woman, dynamic as he moves from verses 8-9 to 11-12. Instead, when Paul says, “as the woman was of the man, so [now] the man is by the woman” (1 Cor. 11:12), he was referring to the fact that, just as Eve was miraculously from Adam alone, without a female partner, so now is Jesus miraculously from Mary alone, without a male partner. In other words, Paul explicitly identifies Mary as the new Eve while identifying Jesus as the new Adam. Not only does this interpretation perfectly balance out the “mutual dependence” of man and woman (1 Cor. 11:11), but it’s further supported by the fact that, later on in this same letter, Paul makes another direct comparison between the origin of the first and last Adam: “the first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47).

LOL I don't think you know what the word "explicit" means--here, you would have be arguing that Paul "implicitly" (not "explicitly") identifies Mary as the New Eve (of course, he doesn't argue that at all).

Just imagine if Paul had compared Mary to the Church in 2 Co 11:3--it would be an open-and-shut case. I'd be even more inclined to the Catholic Church than I already am (I was already infant baptized Roman Catholic). But he doesn't--and, because of that, you attempt to downplay its importance. "Nah, that isn't meaningful." LOL! But if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd proclaim you had a slam dunk case!