Mary as New Eve

[Marymog]

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


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

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

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

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

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

I don't care what you are looking for. I don't respond to other people on how THEY want me to respond. I wrote what I wrote and if you are too lazy to read thru it and pick apart or respond to my destruction of your false teaching, that is not my problem.....that is your problem.

 

[GracePeace]

I don't care what you are looking for. I don't respond to other people on how THEY want me to respond. I wrote what I wrote and if you are too lazy to read thru it and pick apart or respond to my destruction of your false teaching, that is not my problem.....that is your problem.

Yeah, you haven't addressed the argument, and you're not going to, because you know you have no answer. Your position is completely indefensible. I have to do some good deeds now--it's how God saves me (at least we can agree on that point). LOL! Me doing good IS God justifying me (Judges 7:2+; Ro 1:17, 2:6-16, 4:12, 5:17, 6:20-23, 14:5, 23).

 

[Marymog]

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).

Wow.....you got me on that one. So Paul implied something that supports what I have been saying, and his implication is totally opposite of what you have been saying.

Gosh....you win!

 

[Marymog]

Yeah, you haven't addressed the argument, and you're not going to, because you know you have no answer. Your position is completely indefensible. I have to do some good deeds now--it's how God saves me (at least we can agree on that point). LOL! Me doing good IS God justifying me (Judges 7:2+).

9th commandment

 

[GracePeace]

9th commandment

You have addressed the tiny portion of the argument that you felt comfortable with addressing, but, no, you haven't addressed the argument in total, from start to finish.

 

[GracePeace]

Wow.....you got me on that one. So Paul implied something that supports what I have been saying, and his implication is totally opposite of what you have been saying.

Gosh....you win!

Well, as I said, Paul does not in any way argue anything akin to what you've been concluding; my point was merely that there is a difference between explicit and implicit which you are either not appreciating or not showing appreciation for.

 

[GracePeace]

Be back later!

 

[Marymog]

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.

It does matter what YOUR definition of the Church is in this debate because YOU keep saying the Church.

Just to be clear: There is The (capital T) Church which is the Church that Christ started, and the Apostles continued. Under the authority of Christ the Apostles continued The Church and thru Apostolic Succession The Church has continued until today. Whichever one you choose...Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Joes bible church, Orthodox....I don't care which one you choose. That would be The Church.

Some Protestants teach that members of a church (denomination) are The (capital T) Church. That is why YOU need to clarify what YOU mean by the Church so that we can have a discussion/debate based on common grounds and understanding.

The bible talks about the Church (members of The Church) and The Church (Church leaders). Please clarify what YOU mean when you write the Church.

 

[Marymog]

You have addressed the tiny portion of the argument that you felt comfortable with addressing, but, no, you haven't addressed the argument in total, from start to finish.

Which part have I not addressed?

I have already addressed your false premise on point #1 that The typological evidence in Scripture points to the Church being the New Eve, which makes point i, ii and iii null and void.

I have already addressed point #2

I have already addressed your OPINION that Irenaeus taught contrary to this.

What more do you want GP.....You are wearing me out.

 

[GracePeace]

It does matter what YOUR definition of the Church is in this debate because YOU keep saying the Church.

Just to be clear: There is The (capital T) Church which is the Church that Christ started, and the Apostles continued. Under the authority of Christ the Apostles continued The Church and thru Apostolic Succession The Church has continued until today. Whichever one you choose...Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Joes bible church, Orthodox....I don't care which one you choose. That would be The Church.

Some Protestants teach that members of a church (denomination) are The (capital T) Church. That is why YOU need to clarify what YOU mean by the Church so that we can have a discussion/debate based on common grounds and understanding.

The bible talks about the Church (members of The Church) and The Church (Church leaders). Please clarify what YOU mean when you write the Church.

That would be an entirely different issue--it has no bearing on my argument, the topic of this thread.

 

[GracePeace]

Which part have I not addressed?

I have already addressed your false premise on point #1 that The typological evidence in Scripture points to the Church being the New Eve, which makes point i, ii and iii null and void.

I have already addressed point #2

I have already addressed your OPINION that Irenaeus taught contrary to this.

What more do you want GP.....You are wearing me out.

Show that my argument is false. Show how what I said does not follow from the evidence.
Sharing your views does not disprove my views--attack my arguments directly, showing how they are inconsistent with Scripture, and how, ultimately, the argument is incoherent.

 

[GracePeace]

Which part have I not addressed?

I have already addressed your false premise on point #1 that The typological evidence in Scripture points to the Church being the New Eve, which makes point i, ii and iii null and void.

I have already addressed point #2

I have already addressed your OPINION that Irenaeus taught contrary to this.

What more do you want GP.....You are wearing me out.

Demonstrate how I have erred in either my premises or conclusions--raising unrelated verses or opinions isn't substantively falsifying either my premises or conclusions. Break the argument--face it head on. Show how my conclusion does not, of necessity, follow from the premises, or how the premises are in error.

"Debating" this with you, so far, has been like debating OSAS with Protestants--they never deal with the verse at hand, they always run, saying, "Well, no, that couldn't be true, because of this verse over here." I'm not asking about "that verse over there", I'm asking you how you disagree with what I am concluding this Scripture, in particular, says.

It's so simple.

 

[Stumpmaster]

No less than Paul, himself, says the Church corresponds to Eve :

Paul was right to be concerned for those in the ekklesia at Corinth, There is a progression of the serpent/seduction typology in the warnings of future apostasy, and the metaphorical great whore of Babylon.

 

[Marymog]

That would be an entirely different issue--it has no bearing on my argument, the topic of this thread.

YOU need to clarify what YOU mean by the Church so that we can have a discussion/debate based on common grounds and understanding.

 

[GracePeace]

YOU need to clarify what YOU mean by the Church so that we can have a discussion/debate based on common grounds and understanding.

As noted, the subject is irrelevant. Please try to keep on track--you are very pumped, energized, ready to boast, clashing your cymbal, about your Church, but WHAT EVER Church, the point is it isn't Mary that is the New Eve. Stay on track, please.

 

[Marymog]

Demonstrate how I have erred in either my premises or conclusions--raising unrelated verses or opinions isn't substantively falsifying either my premises or conclusions. Break the argument--face it head on. Show how my conclusion does not, of necessity, follow from the premises, or how the premises are in error.

"Debating" this with you, so far, has been like debating OSAS with Protestants--they never deal with the verse at hand, they always run, saying, "Well, no, that couldn't be true, because of this verse over here." I'm not asking about "that verse over there", I'm asking you how you disagree with what I am concluding this Scripture, in particular, says.

It's so simple.

Sorry GP. I can't do this with you anymore.

Your "conclusion", as I have already told/shown you, is based on a false interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, your conclusion, as I have already told you, is null and void. But you keep pressing me and asking me how you have erred. I ALREADY SHOWED YOU HOW YOU ERRED.

Here is an example of what you are doing. You ask me, 'when was the last time you beat your spouse MaryMog?' I tell you I have NEVER beat my spouse and they have never accused me of beating them. But you keep demanding an answer from me with an exact date of when I quit. Your question about me beating my spouse is based on a false premise. Something you believe in your head that isn't true, but you demand an answer anyway.

I am ready to move on to the next topic......Mary

 

[GracePeace]

Sorry GP. I can't do this with you anymore.

Your "conclusion", as I have already told/shown you, is based on a false interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, your conclusion, as I have already told you, is null and void. But you keep pressing me and asking me how you have erred. I ALREADY SHOWED YOU HOW YOU ERRED.

Here is an example of what you are doing. You ask me, 'when was the last time you beat your spouse MaryMog?' I tell you I have NEVER beat my spouse and they have never accused me of beating them. But you keep demanding an answer from me with an exact date of when I quit. Your question about me beating my spouse is based on a false premise. Something you believe in your head that isn't true, but you demand an answer anyway.

I am ready to move on to the next topic......Mary

You've decided, in my view, not to address the argument--that is fine. I accept that. Have a good day.

 

[Marymog]

You've decided, in my view, not to address the argument--that is fine. I accept that. Have a good day.