Is Mary the second Eve?

Since Mary died after a good percentage of the New Testament was written its a bit academic to know whether Mary was sinless - its faith alone. Is it really an important issue?

 

Why belabour this point Net. Even if Rom.3:23 was written after Mary died, it was a principle applicable for all mankind, both O.T. and N.T.--that all have sinned.
Mary still offered a sin offering indicating her sinful condition.
Mary still prayed to God calling Him her Saviour, indicating that she was a sinner.
It doesn't really matter when she died or when the Bibe was completed.
DHK

 

DHK,

The "all have sinned" argument has been well argued by Catholics.

The "sin offering" argument has been well argued by Catholics.

The "my Savior" argument has been well argued by Catholics.

You disagree. That is your perogative. That does not make us wrong, nor us right, nor you wrong, nor you right. These are matters of faith and of Biblical interpretation. We disagree on what is being said on this and many other issues. You are making these into issues of fact, not faith. If they were fact, the only people who wouldn't be Christian would be those with mental handicaps, for factual knowledge does not come under dispute except by idiots.

Instead, these are matters of faith, in which we trust that the Holy Spirit has led us to the correct conclusions. This is why we should state these matters as "I believe" or "we believe," for you yourself follow the doctrine of "faith alone." These matters are settled in your heart, but only faith makes them correct.

For the sake of charitable discussion in the future, I hope you will keep this in mind. We can agree to disagree without stepping on each other.

God bless,

Grant

 

1. I don't remeber seeing any good refutation of the Scriptural arguments that I have presented. Net certainly hasn't done so.

2. It is not a matter of faith; it is a matter of fact. These are factual historical events that happened in history. Mary made a sin offering. It happened. Mary prayed a prayer to God calling God her Saviour. It happened. Paul wrote an epistle saying that "all have sinned." It is in the Book of Romans, in your Bible. It happened. Mary was in the upper room praying and supplicating with other sinful disciples, requesting mercy as they were. It happened, an historical fact. All of these are not matters of faith. All of these point to the fact that Mary was a sinner and not sinless. It goes directly contrary to Catholic doctrine. My argument rests soley on the Word of God. Catholics must go outside of the Word to defend their Marian doctrines. This is why I use strong language that you may object to and call such doctrines as this heresy. A sinner such as Mary has no place being a Mediatrix, the Queen of Heaven, or the Second Eve. She was a sinner, just like the rest of us. There was no prominence given to her in Acts 1. She was an equal among 120 disciples.
DHK

 

Here's your answer, DHK --

Q: How can Catholics claim that Mary is sinless when Luke tells us that she went to the Temple for the childbirth purification ritual (Luke 2:22-24), which included a sin offering (Lev. 12:8)?

A: It is amazing how people think something like the Catholic Church that has been around for two thousand years will not have encountered such basic objections before. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas has a nice section in the Summa Theologiae (III:37:4) on precisely this topic, which is interesting in that in his day the question was academic as everyone already believed that Mary was entirely sinless by a miracle of God's grace (just as we will all be entirely sinless one day). Just goes to show how thorough the Angelic Doctor was in refuting every conceivable objection. And it is amazingly easy to stomp this fragile objection into tiny little pieces.

The basic answer is that Mary submitted to the childbirth purification ritual--with its mandatory sin offering--for the same reasons that Jesus submitted to circumcision (a purification ritual symbolizing being made spiritually clean; cf. Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Jer. 4:4, Rom. 2:29), celebrated the Passover (which was also a sin offering so that God's wrath would pass over the household), and baptism (another purification ritual; Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21).

DHK -- Was Jesus a sinner? C'mon, let's hear it now!! Same principle is in effect here!!!

In fact, if there were any difficulty in explaining Mary's submission to the purification ritual, it would be ten times harder to explain Christ's submission to these rituals since he was instrinsically and infinitely holy, while Mary was merely rendered entirely sinless by God's grace, as we shall be.

EGGS ACKLEY!!!!

The first reason Christ submitted to circumcision and Passover was that the Mosaic Law required it, and he (like Mary) was "born under the Law" (Gal. 4:4).

The second reason is that to remove any cause for criticism and slander on the part of others, Christ submitted to things in the Mosaic Law of which he had no personal need or requirement (cf. Matt. 17:24-27).

The third reason is that Christ did these things in order to provide an example for others--an example of obedience to the Mosaic Law with regard to circumcision and Passover, and an example of obedience to the Christian Law in the case of baptism.

There were other reasons as well (such as the fact that these rituals pointed toward Christ), but the three that have been given are a more than adequate explanation of why Mary submitted to the Mosaic Law ritual of purification after childbirth (including its sin offering). She was born under the Law, she wished to give no occasion for slander in her conduct, and she wished to give an example to others.

Here is the most important part of what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the matter:

Objection 1. It would seem that it was unfitting for the Mother of God to go to the Temple to be purified. For purification presupposes uncleanness. But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin, as stated above (III:27-28). Therefore she should not have gone to the Temple to be purified.

I answer that, As the fulness of grace flowed from Christ on to His Mother, so it was becoming that the mother should be like her Son in humility: for "God giveth grace to the humble," as is written James 4:6. And therefore, just as Christ, though not subject to the Law, wished, nevertheless, to submit to circumcision and the other burdens of the Law, in order to give an example of humility and obedience; and in order to show His approval of the Law; and, again, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for calumniating Him: for the same reasons He wished His Mother also to fulfil the prescriptions of the Law, to which, nevertheless, she was not subject.

Reply to Objection 1. Although the Blessed Virgin had no uncleanness, yet she wished to fulfil the observance of purification, not because she needed it, but on account of the precept of the Law. Thus the Evangelist says pointedly that the days of her purification "according to the Law" were accomplished; for she needed no purification in herself.

Here's a towel DHK. Go wipe the egg off'n yer face!

 

CC
Your answer is totally illogical, as you have started with a biased presupposition, and from that have tried to prove it by distorting Scripture. Instead, start with Scriptures, examine them first, then arrive at a logical conclusion.
The basic answer is that Mary submitted to the childbirth purification ritual--with its mandatory sin offering--for the same reasons that Jesus submitted to circumcision (a purification ritual symbolizing being made spiritually clean; cf. Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Jer. 4:4, Rom. 2:29), celebrated the Passover (which was also a sin offering so that God's wrath would pass over the household), and baptism (another purification ritual; Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21). DHK -- Was Jesus a sinner? C'mon, let's hear it now!! Same principle is in effect here!!!
No, there was no such basic principle in effect contrary to what you would like to believe. Mary brought forth a sin offering because she was a sinner and realized it. Jesus submitted to circumcision for the simple reason that He was a Jew. Circumcision had nothing to do with sin. It was a sign of the covenant that God had made with Israel. Please read Exodus 31. There is no way that circumcision takes away sin. Please don't pervert the Scriptures. It is simply a sign of the covenant between Israel and Jehovah. Likewise the passover in the New Testament, could not take away sin. It was a celebration, a memorial, if you will, of what happened when the Israelites left Egypt. It could not take away anyone's sin. You are mistaken and need to study your Bible more. Don't read into your Bible things that are not there in order to prove something you have already made up before hand as true. It just isn't there. You are perverting the Scriptures.

In fact, if there were any difficulty in explaining Mary's submission to the purification ritual, it would be ten times harder to explain Christ's submission to these rituals since he was instrinsically and infinitely holy, while Mary was merely rendered entirely sinless by God's grace, as we shall be. EGGS ACKLEY!!!!
There is no difficulty in explaining Mary's submission to the purification ritual. She brought forth a sin offering because she knew she was a sinner--plain and simple. Christ submitted to circumcision because He was a Jew, and to baptism in order to fulfill the law. There is no contest here.

first reason Christ submitted to circumcision and Passover was that the Mosaic Law required it, and he (like Mary) was "born under the Law" (Gal. 4:4). The second reason is that to remove any cause for criticism and slander on the part of others, Christ submitted to things in the Mosaic Law of which he had no personal need or requirement (cf. Matt. 17:24-27). The third reason is that Christ did these things in order to provide an example for others--an example of obedience to the Mosaic Law with regard to circumcision and Passover, and an example of obedience to the Christian Law in the case of baptism.
First reason--Christ submitted to the law. Agreed. It has nothing to do with sin.
Second reason--to remove for criticism. Agreed. Still has nothing to with sin.
Third reason--to provide an example for others (providing they are other Jews); and no it has nothing to do with baptism. One is not related to the other.

Here is the most important part of what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the matter: Objection 1. It would seem that it was unfitting for the Mother of God to go to the Temple to be purified. For purification presupposes uncleanness. But there was no uncleanness in the Blessed Virgin, as stated above (III:27-28). Therefore she should not have gone to the Temple to be purified
Pure hogwash! Again your presupposition presupposes what the Scripture says. You have put the cart before the horse. You have said that Mary is sinless, and thus the Scripture cannot mean what it actually says it means. What a ridiculous argument. Mary went to the Temple to be purified from her sin. Believe what the Scripture says, not your own presuppositions. There was obviously uncleanness in her, otherwise there would be no need for this purification. Believe what the Scripture says.

The rest of your objections deals with being "full of grace," which any believer can be, as he seeks the fullness of the Holy Spirit. And how God gives "grace to the humble," which God gives to every believer, as is indicative of the believers that James was writing to. He was admonishing all of those that he was writing to be humble for God would give them the grace to be so--not just Mary.
Mary was a sinner, just like every one else. The weight of Scripture proves this to be true.
Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed.
DHK

[ January 03, 2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

In other words, who cares?

We give you perfectly rational explanations and you refuse to accept them. Sometimes I think beating my head against the concrete walls of my garage would be more profitable than talking with you.

Mary brought forth a sin offering because she was a sinner and realized it. Jesus submitted to circumcision for the simple reason that He was a Jew.

Notice that you do the same thing which you always do. You choose to attack that which you think proves your point and ignore the rest of the post.

Jesus was also baptized. For the remission of sins. This is what THE BIBLE says that John was doing. Baptizing for the remission of sins. No wonder John protested like he did that he had need of Jesus baptizing him rather than he baptizing Jesus. John knew, even if YOU DON'T!!!

Did Jesus have sin? Did he NEED to be baptized for the remission of sins, which was John's baptism? Keep ducking, man. You just make yourself look worse and worse when you will not answer the whole range of a person's post.

Circumcision had nothing to do with sin.

But it does have everything to do with the keeping of the law, which is what "covenant keeping" is. In a covenant, there are either "covenant keepers" or "covenant breakers". Jesus was a covenant keeper. All righteous people must be covenant keepers. The Blessed Virgin was also a covenant keeper because She also was righteous, having no sin by virtue of the Immaculate Conception. And the only way She could be a covenant keeper was to keep the Law which had been given to the Jews. As a righteous person, she would have not have refused to do so.

Likewise the passover in the New Testament,

Now you really look goofy. There was NO PASSOVER in the New Testament. The New Testament was made in Jesus' Blood, therefore, it could not have started until Jesus DIED. Everything Jesus did in the gospels was under the Old Covenant.

You are mistaken and need to study your Bible more.

I feel the same way about you, my friend. Your prejudice has considerably blinded you so that you neither hear nor see what is being said to you.

Don't read into your Bible things that are not there in order to prove something you have already made up before hand as true.

Oh please!! Oh please!!! Oh please!!!

It just isn't there. You are perverting the Scriptures.

And you are not? Give me a break!!! Everything you have as doctrine that is orthodox comes from the Catholic Faith and everything that is not is some perversion of what is written. You know, like your denial of John 6:54. Jesus said that you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life. You don't.

Now WHO do you think I am going to believe in a New York minute?

Ya still got egg on yer face, only its worse now.

 

Hi,
"children of Men" by P.D. James (the crime writer) is an interesting gnostic gospel. Instead of Yeshua being the focus (as per say the Matrix and Neo) in this story we have Mary being the focus.

Its an interesting tale in that the writer has so writen the book to enable you to see Mary in two lights. One she is the perfect sinless saint and at the same time she is a sinner. Its very Church of England. Nice read.

Going back to this "sin offering" malarky we have Yeshua going "do-ladie" in the Temple, giving all the money lenders a hard time. This all seems to make sense now that I realise these men robbed his poor old mum.

Going back to the book "The Children of men" my wife found it too derivative but I liked it.

Net.

 

You see how foolish your argument is. You do this again. Mary had no sin because of the Immaculate Conception. We can prove the Immaculate Conception because Mary had no sin. We can prove Mary had no sin because of the Immaculate Conception. We can prove the Immaculate Conception because Mary had no sin.

Great argument Ed. Do you always have such great arguments. Why not try arguing from strictly a Scriptural stance?
DHK

 

DHK,

He can't prove the IC from Scipture. RC scvholars admit that Scriture doesn't teach it. Nor was it proclaimed on the basis of scriptural evidence. It was declared on the basis that the church at the time believed it.

There is not even a tradition in the RC that teaches it. For there have been at various times opinions held within the RCC that Mary was not sinless at all, that she was born with sin but was purified later, and, at the last, that she was born without sin (This last view was popularised by Scotus and it became the foundation for the modern dogma as promulgated by Trent.

I find it rather hilarious that RCs here would quote Aquinas in support of the IC dogma promulgated by Trent since Aquinas actually held that Mary was born with sin but was later purified. All they prove therby is how inconsistent their position is.

 

DHK & Latreia --

You are right. As you post it, it does look very much like a circular argument. However, for me, there are other issues which come into play, such as the one which began this whole thread.

My thoughts would run something like this:

1. Jesus as man, perfect humanity, is the Last Adam. I get that from Scripture. (1 Corin. 15: 45). Since this name is applied to him, it is not out of line to take that name and apply certain principles to it. What does it mean that there is a Last Adam (Scripture will NOT answer this question). In what ways was He like Adam (Scripture will not answer this either). If God called Jesus the Last Adam in Scripture, what tie in does that have to the first Adam (again, Scripture does not answer this either).

You see, your "sola scripturalist" stance means that you simply read 1 Corin. 15:45, make a mental note that Jesus is the Last Adam, and move on, for Scripture says nothing more regarding this than that. And under the prohibitions of "sola scriptura" you are prohibited from thinking and drawing logical conclusions based on comparisons of OT to NT texts, aren't you? In other words, to quote your own words, "if the Bible doesn't say it, I don't believe it."

Well, how convenient. And, of course, totally hypocritical, since the Bible does not use the word "Trinity" either, but you are more than willing to work this out because you think it is hidden in there somewhere and by golly, you WILL exegete it out if it kills ya!!!

2. Since Jesus is the Last Adam, and this name seems to have a meaning which states that God's redemptive work restored to us One Who is again an "Adam" to mankind, what does that mean? What does it mean that mankind once again has an Adam? Again, you will not find this answer from Scripture. You will only begin to find answer if you accept that God has a covenantal structure called the family in which He works and then apply what you know of the covenantal family to Jesus and His work here on earth.

3. Extrapolating further, I believe that since mankind again has an Adam, a covenantal family head such as the first Adam was, it is not unreasonable to posit that there must also be an Eve to this Adam. God's redemption of mankind restores ALL that is lost in the Fall in the Garden, not just half of it. To have an Adam without an Eve is to have the divine family on earth here with a covenantal head and no covenantal helpmeet. This is an incomplete redemption.

4. Ipso facto, then, if Jesus is created in the same manner as the first Adam, i.e., that is without the use of male seed and female egg, then it is also applicable that certain similarities exist between the first Eve and the New Eve. We know that Jesus is called "the Son of God." We know that Adam is called the same thing. (Luke 3: 38) The similarities begin to pop out all over the place. Both are the first born of the covenantal family they are to take charge of. Both are tempted in the flesh -- where Adam fails, Jesus succeeds. Etc. etc.etc.

It is reasonable therefore to believe that just as the first Eve was created without sin (*GASP!!!*) so was the New Eve. Why not? You tell ME why these parallels cannot be applied between the first and the second Eve just as they are between the first Adam and the Last Adam.

If God had created the first Eve without sin, then you tell me WHY He cannot apply the Blood of Christ to Mary before Her birth and thus present the world with the New Eve who will, as the Early Fathers wrote of Her "undo the knot of the first Eve's disobedience by her own obedience". It is not that She is INTRINSICALLY SINLESS as Jesus was in His essence. It is that She is cleansed as a fit vessel for God's service BEFORE BIRTH. Now you tell me why you think God cannot do that.

5. And finally, since I have the promise from Jesus the Christ Himself that the Church would never be prevailed against by the gates of hell, I trust that the pronouncement of this doctrine by the Holy Father in Rome was permitted by the Holy Spirit because it is true. Ultimately, it really is that simple.

It is the same protection of the Church which came into play when a Monophysite bishop was promoted to the papacy by means of deceit and foul play. This man, in his desire for that office, consorted to become pope with the Emperess of Constantinople. Through a series of arranged events, he was elected to the chair after running around the empire for almost 2 years preaching the Monophysite heresy in every parish where he celebrated the Eucharist. He was dedicated to the message and was expected to announce it as formal doctrine upon ascending to St. Peter's throne.

But amazingly, upon his reception to the papacy, when asked if he would now preach the Monophysite message, he simply said "Now that I am pope, I cannot".

WHAT!!

Oh, the emperess was OUTRAGED and sent soldiers to arrest him, drag him out of Rome and back to Constantinople, where he repented of his schemes and evil and died in prison.

Yes, the one and same Holy Spirit Who protected us from being Monophysite heretics in the 20th century was not sleeping at Vatican I. He allowed for further development of this doctrine for the reason that it is the truth.

Your real problem is that you do not believe that God is really God, that He could and would establish a Church in Christ's Blood and then protect it at all costs from apostacizing. You need to seriously ask yourselves what kind of Father you believe in Who would give His Son to bring forth the Church from His side, and then just abandon it and let it go over a cliff.

That is most certainly NOT the God I believe in, and if He were to be that weak, uncaring, and unconcerned about us and our having a place where we could find truth, honest to Pete, I wouldn't believe at all. That would be just like the pagan "gods" of Hinduism who are there but do not care.

So from a covenantal standpoint, a redemptive standpoint, and a standpoint of the Father protecting Christ's Bride that She be not raped by the evil one -- yes, I believe and accept this teaching.

There are also good arguments from the standpoint of Jesus getting His flesh from Her as well as Her being the New Ark of the New Covenant. As I said, all of this takes eisogesis and working with the Scriptures as a whole, but when the only thing you teach people every week is "Git saved, git saved, git saved, git saved.....ad nauseum" then it is probably hard for you to know exactly HOW to do this thing called exegesis.

PS....Latreia

It wouldn't matter if there were 100 differing ideas regarding the Immaculate Conception. The only thing that matters is what was established in council and ratified by the Holy Father. Once this is established, all the yappin' and woofin' stops and you either believe what has been established or you are a heretic. Pure and simple.

It's like all the noise some of the Preterists are making regarding their disbelief in a literal physical resurrection. The Church has spoken, the Creed states "...I believe in the resurrection of the body..." and they are heretics.

And dat's dat!!

[ January 03, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

Now we've had the full monty on Catholic and Baptist beliefs on this issue can anyone fill me in on what the following denominations think of Mary:

a) Greek/Russian Orthodox
b) Church Of England
c) Lutherian.
d) Egyptian Coptics
e) Islam

Thankyou in advance

ps - I forgot to say in P.D. James book "The Children of Men" - Mary has a withered arm but is still beautiful, the baby had a dad but the dad was a sort of a figure of God. We had a king Herod and wise men and sinners and a baby that saves the entire globe but it all takes place in the UK in 2020.

Not a bad effort.

[ January 03, 2003, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

CC,

"1. Jesus as man, perfect humanity, is the Last Adam. I get that from Scripture. (1 Corin. 15: 45)."

So far so good, CC. Though Romans 5 speaks more fully on the issue.

"Since this name is applied to him, it is not out of line to take that name and apply certain principles to it."

You are already leaving the context of the pasage to invoke teh idea of principles. That is a step into eisegesis right there.

"What does it mean that there is a Last Adam (Scripture will NOT answer this question)."

Yes it does. Read Romans 5.

"In what ways was He like Adam (Scripture will not answer this either)."

Again not true. Read Romans 5.

"If God called Jesus the Last Adam in Scripture, what tie in does that have to the first Adam (again, Scripture does not answer this either)."

The question itself is a begged one. Why should we think there has to be a tie?

"You see, your "sola scripturalist" stance means that you simply read 1 Corin. 15:45, make a mental note that Jesus is the Last Adam, and move on, for Scripture says nothing more regarding this than that."

Nope. We would also read Romans 5.

"And under the prohibitions of "sola scriptura" you are prohibited from thinking and drawing logical conclusions based on comparisons of OT to NT texts, aren't you?"

No. Here you are confusing sola scriptura with princiles of exegesis. And you are incorrect about those too. Inferences are drawn all the time, but they come from what the text says. You certainly do make comparisons to the OT, but your main concern is to not go beyond what the NT author is tryng to say.

"In other words, to quote your own words, "if the Bible doesn't say it, I don't believe it.""

Again this is false.

"Well, how convenient. And, of course, totally hypocritical, since the Bible does not use the word "Trinity" either, but you are more than willing to work this out because you think it is hidden in there somewhere and by golly, you WILL exegete it out if it kills ya!!!"

This has been dealt with ad nauseum. There is no hypocrisy. Using Theological terms that are not in the Bible is not comparable to using theological IDEAS that are not found in the Bible. besides, the Trinity can be exegeted easily from Scripture without referened to a council.

"2. Since Jesus is the Last Adam, and this name seems to have a meaning which states that God's redemptive work restored to us One Who is again an "Adam" to mankind, what does that mean? What does it mean that mankind once again has an Adam? Again, you will not find this answer from Scripture. You will only begin to find answer if you accept that God has a covenantal structure called the family in which He works and then apply what you know of the covenantal family to Jesus and His work here on earth."

Again, not true. Read Romans 5. Andyou are now eisegeting in full flight. For you are noe aserting that one must accept soething from outside the biblical context of the relevant passage.

"3. Extrapolating further, I believe that since mankind again has an Adam, a covenantal family head such as the first Adam was, it is not unreasonable to posit that there must also be an Eve to this Adam. God's redemption of mankind restores ALL that is lost in the Fall in the Garden, not just half of it. To have an Adam without an Eve is to have the divine family on earth here with a covenantal head and no covenantal helpmeet. This is an incomplete redemption."

More like imagining further. If ther is an Eve to the Adam, then he must the Eve must be the Adam's wife. That would lead you to incest. but of course you won't actually keep the parallel perfect, becuase then it won't fit your preceoneptions. That's eisegesis, and inconsistent eisegesis at that.

"4. Ipso facto, then, if Jesus is created in the same manner as the first Adam, i.e., that is without the use of male seed and female egg, then it is also applicable that certain similarities exist between the first Eve and the New Eve. We know that Jesus is called "the Son of God." We know that Adam is called the same thing. (Luke 3: 38) The similarities begin to pop out all over the place. Both are the first born of the covenantal family they are to take charge of. Both are tempted in the flesh -- where Adam fails, Jesus succeeds. Etc. etc.etc."

Ya, ya, you'll make the parallels where their convenient and not where they are not. It is self serving and without a basis in Scriptue since you are now taking the idea of last adam WAY beyind anything Paul teaches in Romans 5. But that's RC apologetics for you.

"It is reasonable therefore to believe that just as the first Eve was created without sin (*GASP!!!*) so was the New Eve. Why not? You tell ME why these parallels cannot be applied between the first and the second Eve just as they are between the first Adam and the Last Adam."

Not reasonable at all, Not unless you have a very fertile imagination and no concept of context in interpreting. I mean, look at what you've done. You have built an entire theology around a term by asking questions you say that Scriture does not answer. How much furhter into fantasy will you go?

"If God had created the first Eve without sin, then you tell me WHY He cannot apply the Blood of Christ to Mary before Her birth and thus present the world with the New Eve who will, as the Early Fathers wrote of Her "undo the knot of the first Eve's disobedience by her own obedience". It is not that She is INTRINSICALLY SINLESS as Jesus was in His essence. It is that She is cleansed as a fit vessel for God's service BEFORE BIRTH. Now you tell me why you think God cannot do that."

This is all just a construct to justify begging the question of why we should think mary should be conceived without sin. Its pathetic.

"5. And finally, since I have the promise from Jesus the Christ Himself that the Church would never be prevailed against by the gates of hell, I trust that the pronouncement of this doctrine by the Holy Father in Rome was permitted by the Holy Spirit because it is true. Ultimately, it really is that simple."

Yes, now you have it. Ultimately you believe because the church says so, and you will accept whatever "evidence" you can come up with to support THAT belief in the church.

"It wouldn't matter if there were 100 differing ideas regarding the Immaculate Conception. The only think that matters is what was established in council and ratified by the Holy Father. Once this is established, all the yappin' and woofin' stops and you either believe what has been established or you are a heretic. Pure and simple."

Look, if Aquinas didn't agree with you then you can't use his words. Pure and simple. He would be branded a heretic.

Seems to me you are still a fundamentalist. You have just switched "final authorities". You are still willing to ignore evidecne to suit you.

And I find it intersting that you choose torespond to this rather than the fact that Trent was not based on Scripture and that RC scholarship does not agree that Scriture supprts the IC.

 

Netcurtain3,
I can answer one question for you. I am currently in the process of becoming Catholic, and am converting from Lutheranism. We never paid any special attention to Mary, and were taught to believe that she was just like one of us (not sinless), and had other children besides Jesus. Now, I belonged to an ELCA church (probably the most liberal synod among Lutherans). The other synods, such as the Wisconsin and Missouri synods, seem to have ideas concerning Mary that are slightly more "Catholic", i.e. they refer to her as the Mother of God, but not much else. At least this has been my experience.
The other three denominations are up for grabs - ideas, anyone?

 

Oops - it looks like Net's message has been deleted.

 

Hi Emily,
Nope - its still there - do not panic - its just above Lat's

[ January 03, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

Neal,

Sometimes young people feel they are totally certain but in actuality they haven't got much to give up. Its a it like students becoming Communists - To adults it appears a game.

If an ADULT was TOTALLY certain of GOD I suspect they would sell their fancy cars, houses, everything and give it all away to the poor. They would ring every doorbell in the street and tell people the truth, they would stand on their desk at work and shout out to all what they have discovered - they would appear to the world as if they had gone stark raving mad or blind drunk - Like Mary at Pentecost (after she saw her son killed in front of her eyes). Please, this isn't a dare for some idiot to try (so don't do it) - its just how it is.

Net.

 

CC,
Your answer is full of illogical inconsistencies, let alone heresies.
What does it mean that there is a Last Adam (Scripture will NOT answer this question). In what ways was He like Adam (Scripture will not answer this either). If God called Jesus the Last Adam in Scripture, what tie in does that have to the first Adam (again, Scripture does not answer this either).
Actually the Scripture does answer those question, maybe just not in the way you would like it to.

Romans 5:
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

1Corinthians 15:
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1. What does it mean that there is a last Adam?
2. In what way was He like Adam?
3. If God called Jesus the Last Adam in Scripture, what tie in does that have to the first Adam?

The last Adam is Christ. By the obedience of Him shall many be made righteous (Rom.5:19)
He was like Adam in that He was made in the flesh; he took upon humanity. (1Cor. 15:47,48)
Your last question is similar to your second. It would better be put what contrast does he have with the first Adam. The first Adam brought sin into this world by his disobedience; the second Adam brought righteousness into this world by His obedience.

Since Jesus is the Last Adam, and this name seems to have a meaning which states that God's redemptive work restored to us One Who is again an "Adam" to mankind, what does that mean? What does it mean that mankind once again has an Adam? Again, you will not find this answer from Scripture. You will only begin to find answer if you accept that God has a covenantal structure called the family in which He works and then apply what you know of the covenantal family to Jesus and His work here on earth.
Now you are reading into the Scripture that which is not there. Nowhere does it say there is a covenantal structure put into place with Adam. That is your unscriptural Catholic presuppositional theology which you have superimposed into the first three chapters of Genesis. It just isn't taught. What convenantal family? Show me from the Bible, not Catholic theology. Gen.3:15 was a Messianic promise promising a redeemer to come. It promised the second Adam if you will. He came, not to restore a covenantal family, but to save mankind from their sin. "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

Extrapolating further, I believe that since mankind again has an Adam, a covenantal family head such as the first Adam was, it is not unreasonable to posit that there must also be an Eve to this Adam. God's redemption of mankind restores ALL that is lost in the Fall in the Garden, not just half of it. To have an Adam without an Eve is to have the divine family on earth here with a covenantal head and no covenantal helpmeet. This is an incomplete redemption.
Your problem is in those first two words: "extrapolating further." Quit extrapolating, and start believing the Scriptures as they are written. Yes, God created Adam, and God created Eve. Full stop. Adam brought sin into this world; Jesus brought salvation into this world. Eve is simply called woman, the mother of all living. Genetically speaking, she and Adam were. There was no covenantal family, and Eve was no covenantal helpmeet. She was a helpmeet to Adam in their marriage relationship and that is all. You are reading into Scripture things that are not there.
"This is an incomplete redemption" Of course it is. They brought sin into the world, not salvation. The promise of a Saviour was given in Gen.3:15. They had only hope. Redemption was promised to them. For their personal salvation, God sacrificed an animal and clothed them with skins. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. God Himself provided for them, even after they had sinned. But no Saviour had come.

Ipso facto, then, if Jesus is created in the same manner as the first Adam, i.e., that is without the use of male seed and female egg, then it is also applicable that certain similarities exist between the first Eve and the New Eve. We know that Jesus is called "the Son of God." We know that Adam is called the same thing. (Luke 3: 38) The similarities begin to pop out all over the place. Both are the first born of the covenantal family they are to take charge of. Both are tempted in the flesh -- where Adam fails, Jesus succeeds. Etc. etc.etc.
Now I'll end after this, lest this post get to long. But what you have posted here has denigrated to the point of some of the worst heresy possible. JESUS WAS NOT CREATED! He is from everlasting to everlasting. He is eternal in the heavens. He is also NOT the head of a covenantal family as you continue to assert, and as your Catholic theology leads you to believe. It is much better just to believe the Bible.
DHK