Is Mary the second Eve?

You just laid a trap for yourself. If these ideas are new to you, meaning you've just learned of them recently, I hardly believe that you have done extensive Scriptural study on it to disprove it and call it "unScriptural." Just because it is new to you does not make it unScriptural. Hopefully every time you read the Word of God you learn something new, and therefore, those things that you didn't know before were not "unScriptural." You merely didn't know about them.

C'mon, don't give me the Protestant propaganda then! During the apostolic age, when Revelation was not closed, those appointed by Christ and those chosen by those appointed by Christ no doubt spoke in an authoritative manner everywhere they preached the Gospel! St. John and St. Paul attest to this when they speak of "tradition by letter or WORD OF MOUTH," or when St. John writes in his letters that he wishes not to write more, but to speak face to face. Everything that the Apostles taught is not necessarily outlined in Scriptures, because much of the New Testament are letters to specific Churches who were encountering specific problems. These were addressed by the Apostles with the authority of God, given to men by the Holy Spirit, and thus what they spoke was the Truth. The Word of God has never been limited to the written word, as you claim as truth, though certainly a huge portion IS contained in Scriptures, and as the verse you state shows, all Scripture is inspired by God and wholly true. Nowhere in these verses does it exclude other methods beyond written Scripture that can do the same, and for 500 years, no one yet has been able to Scripturally prove such a belief.

God bless,

Grant

 

Not everything in Scripture is stated explicitly. This is why we must read the Bible as a whole and piece together a lot of things to make sense of doctrines such as the Trinity. No single verse fully explains our belief in our God, but we use many many different texts from the Bible, that, compiled, explain our doctrine.

Therefore, just as "trinity" is not used in the Bible, "new Eve" doesn't have to be mentioned in the Bible for the doctrine to be present there. Some things are understood, for as God created humanity as man AND woman, God would save the world through man AND woman. Just as woman, Eve, brought sin into the world by giving Adam the fruit, Mary, woman, the new Eve, brought life into the world by giving us Christ, the new Adam.

There was not a lot else for me to comment on, as it wasn't directed toward me, nor were new questions introduced. I will reread it a little bit later and pick up any other questions you posed that I missed. Trust me, I'm not dodging anything, just taking a little break (been studying all day...brain is getting tired at this late hour).

God bless you,

Grant

 

Dear brother in Christ,
I do not believe a word of Catholic teaching is contrary to Scripture. I've been studying daily for many hours a day for over a year and a half, and have yet to come up with a teaching that is CONTRARY to Scripture. Granted, some of them are there very implicitly, but despite the best efforts of non-Catholics (and as you can see, I haven't stopped exposing myself to contrary views to the Catholic Church in all this year and a half of study), they have not ever been shown to me to be CONTRARY. I think that Protestants all to hesitantly use the word "contrary" without its full meaning ever really being present. Simply because you do not believe it does not make it contrary. Simply because you interpret a verse differently does not make a view CONTRARY to Scripture, only contrary to your view of what is being said. I hope that makes sense to you, and that I'm being sincere in this approach.

Revelation has ceased, but that does not mean God left us with nothing to interpret His Word. He gave us the Holy Spirit, but thousands of heretics around the world will claim to have the Holy Spirit in their false interpretations of Scripture. Therefore, God must have instituted an institution (sorry for the lack of variety in word choice there) with which the Holy Spirit leads. He did this in His Church, which He left Peter in charge of, which you can find in the book of Matthew.

God bless you, Neal,

Grant

 

I have no problems with that, I understand it completely. But the problem is that I see absolutely no basis for any "new Eve" as is being argued for on your behalf. I can see the trinity clearly, but not the "new Eve" idea.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. I understand the brain thing, I just had finals a couple of weeks ago and was fried! </font>[/QUOTE]Neal,

I actually haven't had school studies (that starts on the 6th of January), but have been doing Scriptural studies all day long, both on Mary and on the Sacraments, as well as listening to an hour talk by Father Larry on Christianity (called "The Truth") various BaptistBoard postings, Bible reading, and praying. It's been an exhausting (but BLESSED) day!

If you are to understand the concept of the new Eve, you are going to have to leave your bias behind. No one can ever understand something they reject before they attempt to understand! I am not saying to toss away your faith, for if it is firm, it will hold regardless of what you expose yourself to. I'm asking you to be objective, and listen to our side of the proposition, our interpretations of Scripture, etc. Then you will "see it," even if you don't believe we are right. The Holy Spirit will guide you to what is right. I can merely show you the information. If you'll listen, and ask genuine questions, I can talk about it for two years with you if you like. If you reject it, then reject it. But that doesn't mean you have to be closed to understanding our point of view.

Hope that makes sense!

God bless,

Grant

 

+++Therefore, just as "trinity" is not used in the Bible, "new Eve" doesn't have to be mentioned in the Bible for the doctrine to be present there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no problems with that, I understand it completely. But the problem is that I see absolutely no basis for any "new Eve" as is being argued for on your behalf. I can see the trinity clearly, but not the "new Eve" idea.++++

If you can completely understand the trinity you are doing better than anyone I have ever heard of. How about hypostatic union?

 

Oops! I guess it was a poor choice of words. I meant that I understand completely that a word does not have to be explicitly stated in Scripture to be supported by Scripture. Not that I understand the trinity, far from it!

Neal</font>[/QUOTE]Well, then, through careful study, we should come to an agreement about Mary's role in salvation history!

God bless,

Grant

 

This, DHK, is why you have rejected true faith for your own self-proclaimed version of our God. God would have chosen another woman? How do you know this? Where is this in Scripture? You presume that God doesn't know what He's doing. He knew that Mary would say YES to His will. Therefore, He would never chose another woman, or at best, you cannot SAY that He would.

The Angel Gabriel, Elizabeth, St. John, and Jesus Christ would disagree with you, as well as God the Father, considering He spoke of Mary from the very beginning, in the book of Genesis.

God bless,

Grant

 

Hindsight is better than foresight, isn't it? There isn't a single individual alive that is "so good" as to be indispensible to God. No one is indispensible: not Mary, not David, not Isaiah, not the Apostle Paul, not Peter, no one. In fact God did not need any one of us in the first place.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

God does not need anything: not you, not me, not Mary. If He needed anything or anybody, He would not be God.
He did not need Mary enter into this world. He, by His grace, chose her. He did not need her. He does not need anyone. By grace He chose her to be His vessel.

You said: "He spoke of Mary from the very beginning, in the Book of Genesis." Please give chapter and verse please. There is no mention of Mary in the Book of Genesis. Genesis 3:15 is the first Messianic prophecy, but there is no direct reference to "Mary," in particular.

Yes, God could have chosen any devout Jewish maiden he wanted to. The sign that He promised was that she would be a virgin, not that she would be named Mary! (check Isaiah 7:14) God is not confined to Catholic whims and wishes, or dogmas. He is not confined to the Catholic Catechism. He is the Almighty Creator, Omnipotent and Omniscient, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ.
DHK

 

No there is not any "New Eve" that is yet another added on catholic idea, that has no scriptural basis whatsoever. However catholics openly state, the tradition of the church and the Papal authority over ride scripture.

The pope has recently recieved a petition from a number of priests for consideration, to "restore" Mary to her "rightfull" place as the "fourth" member of the God head.

 

Th Roman Catholic misunderstanding of the hypostatic union is what led up to the false "Mary is the Mother of God" doctrine.

Read below please.

The "Mother of God" and the New Roman Catholic Apollinarimonophysites

Introduction
The Christological controversies during the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. resulted in a number a views regarding the precise way in which God became man in the Incarnation. The view eventually decided upon at the councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus was that God and man were indissolubly united in the person of Jesus Christ; that is to say, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, divine and human.

Many groups during this period tended to overemphasize one aspect of this formula over the other. The Arians emphasized the humanity of Christ at the expense of His deity. The Monophysites (lit., "one nature"), on the other hand, emphasized Christ's deity at the expense of His humanity by teaching that Jesus' humanity was subsumed into his divinity; that is to say, His humanity was divinized. The Apollinarians expressly denied a human personality within Jesus. It is these two latter groups that are the focal point of our discussion, because modern Roman Catholic e-pologists, in their arguments supporting the Marian title "Mother of God," have abandoned the orthodox distinction between the humanity and divinity of Christ and have instead opted for a hybrid view that incorporates elements of Apollinarianism and Monophysitism.

The Apollinarian Roman Catholic e-pologists
The Roman Catholic e-pologist position goes something like this: Jesus is God; Mary is the Mother of Jesus; therefore, Mary is the Mother of God (see, e.g., http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/nestorius.htm , premises 7 & 8, and conclusion; and http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/mary.htm). Aside from the logical fallacies inherent in this syllogism (see my book, Evangelical Answers), Evangelicals rightly reject this syllogism based on the distinction between Jesus' humanity (which was "mothered" by Mary) and Jesus' divinity (which had no mother). Roman Catholic e-pologists like to respond to this objection by insisting that Mary didn't give birth to a nature, but rather a person, and that Jesus was a "divine person" who took on a human nature. This is the Apollinarian heresy resurrected from the theological grave. According to Apollinaris, Jesus is "the God borne of a woman," the "enfleshed God," and the "flesh-bearing God (Apollinaris, Fragments). In other words, Jesus is God in His personhood, and He is divine and human in His natures. According to Apollinaris, human flesh needs a spirit and intellect to direct it. In Jesus, that spirit and intellect is not a human one, but rather that of the divine Logos; so that (according to this view) while it can be said that the Logos became flesh (i.e., a human nature), it cannot be said that He became a man (i.e., a human person): "Whoever calls Him who was born of Mary a man, and calls Him who was crucified a man, makes Him a man instead of God" (Apollinaris, On the Faith of the Incarnation, 9). In short, Apollinaris' view was that Christ was a body of flesh formed and animated by a nous (spirit and intellect), but that the nous was not human, but rather divine. What Apollinaris means by nous is "person."

This view of Apollinaris was directly opposed by Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Athanasius, was rejected by the Western church in 377 A.D., by the Eastern church a decade later, and was eventually condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. All of these reasoned that a person who lacks a human nous (spirit and intellect) cannot truly be a man. And if Jesus is not truly a man, but merely God with a "human" nature, then He does not qualify to atone for our sins. The substitutionary atonement requires that Jesus is fully man--flesh, intellect and spirit--not simply God in a "human flesh" suit (or the inadequate phrase, "God cloaked in human flesh"). It is not "human flesh" that mediates for us before God, but "the man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5). Atonement is possible only if a man with a human soul and intellect, through perfect obedience to God, can reverse the sin brought into the world by the man who, using his human soul and spirit (i.e., Adam), rebelled against God. Otherwise, while Jesus may well have redeemed our fleshly bodies, He has done absolutely nothing to redeem our souls (i.e., our persons). It is not mere flesh that defines us as human beings. One day our human flesh will undergo a transformation since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:50-54); yet we will not thereby cease to be human. True humanity is therefore much more than material human flesh; it also includes the immaterial (i.e., soul, intellect, spirit, etc.).

The View of the Bible and the Early Church
We know biblically that Jesus had a human nous. Luke tells us that "Jesus grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52); that Jesus did not know the precise day and hour of his return (Matt 24:36); that Jesus is a man (not simply human, 1 Tim 2:5); that Jesus was "tempted in every way just as we are" (Heb 4:15); and that Jesus was "made like His brethren in every way" in order to "make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb 2:17). We also know biblically that Jesus had a divine nous. He is the pre-incarnate Word, who is God (John 1:1); He "knows all things" (Jn 21:17); He is omnipresent (Matt 28:20); and "all the fullness of deity dwells in Him" (Col 2:9).

Both the human nous and the divine nous are bound together in Christ and comprise His person. It is not the case, as Apollinaris believed, that Christ is a divine person with a human nature. Many of the early fathers renounced Apollinarianism (as well as Monophysitism) by speaking in terms of the distinction between Jesus' humanity and His divinity, insisting time and again that what applies to His humanity does not apply to His divinity, and vice versa. The Council of Chalcedon says this:

"So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son"

According to the framers of the council, Jesus is born of Mary "as regards His humanity," and born of God "as regards His divinity." These differing "births," the council insists, should not be "confused," since "at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union." Both natures comprise one person--not a divine person or a human person, but one person with a divine nature and a human nature.

The Monophysite Roman Catholic e-pologists
After condemning the supposed teachings of Nestorius (albeit only a misunderstanding of them, for which see my book, Evangelical Answers), the council affirms its stance against the Monophysite heresy:

"[Monophysites pervert the faith] by introducing a confusion and mixture, and mindlessly imagining that there is a single nature of the flesh and the divinity, and fantastically supposing that in the confusion the divine nature of the Only-begotten is passible. . . . [The Church] opposes those who attempt to tear apart the mystery of the economy into a duality of sons; and it expels from the assembly of the priests those who dare to say that the divinity of the Only-begotten is passible, and it stands opposed to those who imagine a mixture or confusion between the two natures of Christ."

The council expressly condemns the view that the divine nature is passible (i.e., the Monophysite belief that "God can die, and in fact did die"). Yet this view is currently being defended by modern Roman Catholic Monophysites as a necessary consequence to the notion that God can be born, a premise implicit in the title "Mother of God" (see http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/david.htm for an example of this).

Augustine states the following about the relationship of Jesus' humanity to His divinity:

"Since, then, Christ is God and man . . . we must take account of both these natures in Him when He speaks or when Scripture speaks of Him, and we must mark in what sense anything is said. When we say that Christ is the Son of God we do not separate His humanity from Him, nor when we say that the same Christ is the Son of man do we lose sight of His divinity. For, as man He was on earth, not in heaven where He now is . . . although in His nature as Son of God He was in heaven, but as Son of man He was still on earth and had not yet ascended into heaven. . . . and He will so come, on the testimony of the angel's voice, as He was seen going into heaven, that is, in the same form and substance of flesh to which, it is true, He gave immortality, but He did not take away its nature. According to this form, we are not to think that He is everywhere present. We must beware of so building up the divinity of the man that we destroy the reality of His body. It does not follow that what is in God is in Him so as to be everywhere as God is. . . . God and man in Him are one Person, and both are the one Jesus Christ who is everywhere as God, but in heaven as man" (Augustine, Letter 118.8-10).

Augustine here denies that the attributes that belong to Christ's humanity can legitimately be applied to His divinity, and vice versa. Specifically in regard to Jesus' relationship to His mother (which is right on topic), Augustine tells us:

"At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity" (Tract. in Ioannem CXIX, 1).

Augustine shares the same sentiment elsewhere as well:

"It was as if [Jesus] said [in John 2], ‘You did not give birth to my power of working miracles, it was not you who gave birth to my divinity. But you are the mother of all that is weak in me" (Tract. in Ioannem VII, 9.)

Clearly, Augustine made a distinction between the relation Mary enjoyed with Jesus’ humanity, and that which she enjoyed with Jesus’ divinity. Augustine goes on to explain what he means in the very next chapter of his work:

Why, then, said the Son to the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come?" Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, "That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross." This, indeed, is the meaning of "Mine hour is not yet come." . . . How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (Tract. in Ioannem VIII, 9).

According to Augustine, Mary could not have been the "Mother of God," since Jesus in His divinity had no mother. He insists over and over again in this passage that Mary was the mother of Jesus humanity only. Similarly, Gregory the Great, commenting on John 2 and 19 states:

"As if to say plainly, That I can do a miracle comes to me from my Father, not from my mother. For he who from the nature of his Father did miracles, had it from his mother that he could die" (Epist. 41).

Both Gregory and Augustine share the view we have posited above for the distinction between Mary’s relationship to Jesus in his humanity and the same to Jesus in his divinity. There can be no objection, then, from the Roman Catholic who dismisses this view as ahistorical. It is based not only on better logic than the "mother of God" formula, but also has support from some of the early church’s best minds.

The New Roman Catholic Apollinarimonophysites
Now, where are we headed with all this? Simply put, the view espoused partly by Apollinaris and partly by the Monophysites, and condemned by the fifth-century church, is identical to the view of modern Roman Catholic e-pologists who argue that Jesus was a divine person with a human nature (Apollinarianism), and that what may be said of the human nature may also be said of the divine nature (e.g., God was born of Mary; Monophysitism). The Internet quite literally is littered with Roman Catholic e-pologists who have raised the heresies of Apollinaris and the Monophysites from the dead, and have adopted their arguments to defend the theologically aberrant notion that Mary is the Mother of God (see http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/nestorius.htm, http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/mary.htm, http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Woods/2495/articles/mother_of_god.html, and http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num27.htm for a few examples of this). The first web link above has issued what the author calls "The Nestorius Challenge," an obvious reference to my "Roman Catholic Challenge." This so-called Challenge is decidedly Apollinarimonophysite in flavor. I have submitted a response to this challenge, and a rebuttal of my response from the author is now posted there (see Challenge # 4 at http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/nestorius.htm). In my response I provided the excepts from Augustine's writings above (as well as those from Gregory the Great) without identifying the sources. The reason I did this was because I suspected the e-pologist would simply assume the quotations were from Protestant sources. I was correct. The author of the "challenge" (John Pacheco of Robert Sungenis' Catholic Apologetics International) goes to great lengths to refute and chastise Augustine and Gregory the Great (classifying Augustine and Gregory the great among "those who wish to arbitrarily dissolve the hypostatic union at the birth of Christ," and using "tactics" that "separate the divinity of Christ from His person"; of being "Un-Trinitarian," and of "contradicting Scripture") without being aware of just who he is chastising--He even goes so far as to refer to Augustine (though he doesn't know it is Augustine) as "our Protestant brother"! Indeed : ). Our challenger then hits Augustine with a barrage of questions to point out his "error."

In another web article, the Roman Catholic e-pologist makes no attempt whatever to disguise his allegiance to the Apollinarian heresy:

"[T]he second reason this is wrong is that if that were true, we'd have to conclude Jesus was a human person. But that is heretical. Jesus was a divine person only, but had a divine and a human nature. He was man, but not a human person. This is Catholicism 102, folks" (http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/david.htm).

What is instead "heretical" (biblically and historically) is the e-pologist's notion that Jesus was not a human person. This same e-pologist, in the very next paragraph and in complete contradiction of Chalcedon, answers the question of whether or not Jesus' divine nature is passible:

"The perhaps astounding but solidly Catholic answer to [the question of whether or not it can be said that "God died"] is YES! And I am quite surprised that throughout his sincere study of Roman Catholic theology, it it a little hothead like me who has to point out to him that this is what the Church teaches."

Perhaps this is what the Roman church teaches today, but it is certainly not what the fifth-century church taught in its condemnation of the Monophysite heresy. The e-pologist, like his colleagues, has simply resurrected the Monophysite heresy and called it "[Roman] Catholicism 102." In doing so, he has placed his entire denomination under the condemnation of Augustine, Gregory the Great, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, the Western church in 377 A.D., the Eastern church in 388 A.D., the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., and, of course, the Scriptures themselves which insist that Jesus in His humanity was the "Son of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3) and had a mother, but in His divinity was the "Son of God" (Rom 1:4) and was "without [human] father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life" (Heb 7:3).

Eric Svendsen

[ December 29, 2002, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

You are correct. No one can save themselves. This is why Mary did not have to be "so good" in order to have God's favor. He created her without original sin, so all of the glory is for God, for God did the work, not Mary.

Which is why Mary serves to point to God, for she is not God, nor has any true Catholic claimed such for her.

False argument. I never said God needed Mary. I said that God chose Mary from the beginning (since He has such foresight), and by the same foresight, knew how she would respond. Therefore, He would not have chosen Mary if Mary would have denied Him. And He, by His own Will, created Mary without original sin so that she could completely and without question work to God's plan.

Yes, it's called love. And God so loved Mary that He gave her this gift that she might have the necessary graces to give birth to God Himself.

Perhaps according to the great Scriptural scholar DHK there is no reference. For 2,000 years, Mary has been seen in this passage, for it was her seed that crushed the heal.

This isn't even an argument, for I'm not arguing against these things. So please stop pretending that you're refuting me when these are not even things I'm disputing. God chose Mary from the beginning of time because God does not operate in time like we do. From the beginning, He knew.

Yes, and the Catholic Church preaches what God proclaims. You're continued false understanding of that just makes you bitter, as your above arguments show. Try staying on task, please.

God bless,

Grant

 

Let me know when you decide to put some evidence into your accusations. Mary as the New Eve has immense Scriptural basis, if one bothers to read Catholic sources on it. If you only read from one side, you will see one-sided. Case in point.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. If it was, she would be supporting birth control and artificial contraception right now. She does not appease the masses; she adheres to the Word of God as proclaimed rightly for 2,000 years now. By the way, to be fair, please point me to this petition, with the names of these priests, so that I might right them letters and set them straight. They are heretical dissenters who wish to cause harm to the Body of Christ, and I will not tolerate it. Please give me reference to where I can find this petition, proof that it was actually sent to the Pope, and again, the names of the priests in support of it. Their parish names will also be especially helpful (unless they are religious priests).

God bless,

Grant

 

The title "Mother of God" is ancient and well supported by the Church; it is not a modern invention. It was approved by an ecumenical council long, long ago. I'll look up the date, if you like.

God bless,

Grant

 

I might add that the historical Lutheran Church (as well as some of the modern branches, especially the WELS), as well as denominations like Anglicans, and of course Orthodox Churches, hold to the usage of the title "Mother of God."

The author above has a clear intention of attacking the Church as a whole based on selective quotes and heresies which, as he mentions, the very same Church condemns.

God bless,

Grant