Is Mary the second Eve?

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

"IF" this is true, then those priest are just like the Arian heretics of the fourth century. They are no different than the Monophysites, the Monothellites, or any number of a dozen or so heretical movements which existed in the Church almost from the beginning.

And guess what? Till the end of time there will always be heretics in the Church? Know how I know this.

The Bible tells me so. (Matt. 13: 24 - 30).

Okay. Let's take this from the beginning in Genesis, since the concept of the new Eve ties itself back to that beginning.

Neal --

What do you think the original purpose of creating Adam and Eve was?

Your answer please.

Brother Ed

 

Cannot find "Second Eve" in the Strongs concordance?

[ December 29, 2002, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Ben W ]

 

"Joseph was appointed as her "husband" in order to protect and provide for her, not to have intimacies with her ... You are telling me that God would allow His Bride to commit adultery with another man?"

Hi there, neal4Christ, I agree that these ideas are foreign to Scripture. I like the way the person you quote put husband in quote marks, indicating it was a bit suspect. A husband in name only? Not really a husband? A sham husband?
That would seem to be what they are suggesting. So God, Mary and Joseph conspired in a sham? This is how they think they honor Mary (and God!) Isnt the devil the father of lies?
Mary was married to Joseph. That is, God joined the two of them together. This was a real marriage, or God was inplicated in a sham. As a real marriage, sex between Mary and Joseph is not sin. The marriage bed is undefilled.
How could it be sinful for Joseph to express the oneness God gave them in marriage physically?
You are right, the Catholic "doctrine" is rediculous, and offensive to God.
Happy new year, Colin

 

Neal --

Thank you.

That is a considerably bare and sterile answer. For instance, I do stainded glass windows as a hobby, and thus, I create things for my pleasure. Sometimes I'll just see a particular colour of glass and say "I have to make something with that." and do so.

But I don't LOVE the glass with an emotional relationship. And I certainly do not put MY IMAGE into the glass or the finished product.

Adam and Eve were FAR MORE than just animate creations like the animals. There was a reason for that. Wouldn't you agree that if "for His pleasure" was all that God intended, that He could have stopped with the animals and let the earth run without mankind?

Sure he could have.

Something special happened when Adam and Eve were created. Beings with a soul and the capacity to both recieve God's love and give it back to Him were created. And God put HIS IMAGE into them in this. That makes man something very special and different in all creation.

And then there is the issue of giving authority to Adam and Eve. In the Garden, there was God. Period. He is the Great King, the Almighty Potentate of the universe. There was no reason that one could think of to give authority to Adam and Eve. God could have created Adam and Eve without free will and been forever satisfied (pleasured) with His little automaton which He had just created.

So then, next question. WHY do you think that Adam and Eve were given free will and why were they given authority over the Creation of God?

This has the potential to be a very good discussion. Hope we can continue it for a while.

Brother Ed

 

"He created her without original sin, so all of the glory is for God, for God did the work, not Mary."

That is not true. That is not even the historic consensus view of Roman Catholicism.

"False argument. I never said God needed Mary."

I hope you are not denyin that there are RCs who argue that God did indeed require Mary's fiat for the Incarnation to occur?

"And God so loved Mary that He gave her this gift that she might have the necessary graces to give birth to God Himself."

There is no scriptural support for this.

"For 2,000 years, Mary has been seen in this passage, for it was her seed that crushed the heal."

This is false. As is recognised by even RC schoalrs the interpretation is based on a mistranslation of the relevant passage in Genesis. That this is so is evident from the fact that no RC commentaries make ythis interpretation, and do not use the flawed translation either.

"Mary as the New Eve has immense Scriptural basis, if one bothers to read Catholic sources on it."

Mary as the New Eve has no scriptural basis. It is possible to make parallels. But parallels do not a typology make. It is often a failure of RCs to note the difference. Parallels can be manufactured. As is the case here. And I read RC sources for this stuff. But I also read scholarly sources.

"The Catholic Church is not a democracy. If it was, she would be supporting birth control and artificial contraception right now. "

And yet one can look at history and see how a dogma was proclaimed after it was a consensus belief amongst the laity, even if the lay belief was based on myth and forgeries. Just because the RCC does not bow to every wind of popular opinion does not mean that she is immune to it. History reports that the RCC often decalres things to be true after it is found that people hold the belief.

"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."

Actually the term is Theotokos, meaning God-bearer. And it was not intended to bear the weight of what RCs place on it now. Indeed some warned against theotokos for the very reason that some may attempt to make it out to say something about Mary. "Beware lest someone make ut the Virgin to be a goddess." Or words to that effect. The warning went unheeded. And unfortunately, it proved to be a prophetic warning.

"The Bible tells me so. (Matt. 13: 24 - 30)."

Unfortunately you are corect. Where you err in in failing to identify the RCC as the author of much of that heresy.

 

Its good to see yourself, not only in your eyes, but how other people see you.

MUSLIMS are that other people.

I think Islamic belief started about 600AD-ish (but is probably based on much much early beliefs). It appears by this time that Arabic people commonly thought of Christians as "people of the book" (eg Bible-Alone-ists) and "worshippers of Mary and Jesus". The Qu'ran is so taken with Mary that she has a whole book to herself. Christians never say "In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost and Mary" so even the most extreme Marian devotee does not see her as a god.

There is a sort of well documented historic sexism in ancient societies (compared to modern societies) and thus, I guess, scholars probably didn't write great tombs on Mary but ordinary female christains (illiterate) probably put great faith and store in Mary.
If we "ditch" Mary because her early followers had no books because they were only second class women then that would be a shame. We owe it to these illiterate women of the ancient world to look really really really hard at the New Testament writings and the writings of the early Male Chruch fathers for any hint, clues to Marian devotion that we can all agree on - both Catholic and Protestant.

[ December 30, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

Of course it's true. You merely selectively quote various people, always out of context, to show otherwise.

Semantics. God doesn't force us to do anything. Granted, he COULD, for He is GOD. However, he does not; he allows us a free will. He would never force himself upon Mary. He desired a willing specimen. That specimin was Mary, so her consent was, in a very real sense, necessary. To force Himself upon Mary without her concent, would be in essence, sin. And God would not come into the world via sin. And no, I'm not talking in the sexual sense, though Christ's humanity comes from Mary, which is why it was necessary to have her consent.

Yes, for Mary was "full of grace." Since grace is of God, He must have given her these graces. No ordinary human being could give birth to God Himself; it staggers the mind.

Mary is a decendant of Eve, just as all her. So from Eve's offspring eventually came Mary, and from Mary came Christ. I'm not seeing the problem.

"

You read scholarly sources that are in opposition to the Catholic scholars; that does not make your position correct. It merely makes it the opposite opinion.

Thanks for all the wonderful examples you provided here. Oh, whoops. There weren't any.

One who bears a child is the Mother of the child. One who bears God is the Mother of God. You're pathetic argument of goddess worship is the same as it has always been: unfounded and unsupported, except in extreme circumstances by extreme individuals (or groups of individuals) who were/are going against the clear teachings of the Church.

In this case, heresy is in the eye of the beholder, because you think we're heretics and I think you're one. This gets us pretty much nowhere.

God bless,

Grant

 

"Of course it's true. You merely selectively quote various people, always out of context, to show otherwise."

Not at all. It is a fact of history that there has been a multiplcity of opinion regarding Mary's state. And that muliplicity is within the RC denomination. Anselm beleived that Mary was born with Original Sin. Bernard of Clairvaux held that she was conceived with Original Sin but purified before birth. That view is found amongst the Dominicans and Thomas Aquinas. It is only weith Duns Scotus that we see a view that holds Mary was coneived without Original Sin. Indeed, a Pope (Sixtus 4) and a council (trent) refused to come down on one side or the other. It was not until Pius 9 that a Pope finally got off the fence. You are simply ignoring history in making such staements.

"Semantics."

No. Facts. Are you denying that there are RCs who hold that Mary's fiat was iundeed necessary for the Incarnation? This is used by those RCs as evidence for her authority. Do you deny that such arguemtns exist? Yes or No.

"Yes, for Mary was "full of grace." Since grace is of God, He must have given her these graces. No ordinary human being could give birth to God Himself; it staggers the mind."

There is no lexical evidene which allows for "kecharitomene" to bear the theological weight you would lay upon it. Sorry. The facts are against you.

"Mary is a decendant of Eve, just as all her. So from Eve's offspring eventually came Mary, and from Mary came Christ. I'm not seeing the problem."

The problem should be obvious. The passage of Scripture you refer to does not teac h what you claim. That is acknowledged by RC scholars. To backtrack as you do now and say "well, we're all related to Eve" is to beg the question: So what? Without the Genesis passage you have no biblcal (prophetic) basis for drawing your conclusion, for we are also descended from Adam (being in Adam having far, far more biblical mention especially int he NT, than a similar concept for Eve). The fact is tha since the Genesi passage does nt rfer to Mary but to Christ, you lack prophetic evidence for your speculation. That IS a problem for you.

"You read scholarly sources that are in opposition to the Catholic scholars; that does not make your position correct. It merely makes it the opposite opinion."

Even scholalry RC sources agree that parallels do not a typology make, and that the parallels are not aprticulalrly persuasive. Maier (or is it Mayer?) makes good points in saying that the RC teaching regarding Mary is not supported by the NT. He does make the comment that it is not thereby disproven, but that is neither a valid defense, even if true, nor is it even true.

"Thanks for all the wonderful examples you provided here. Oh, whoops. There weren't any."

The Immaculate Conception is just such an example. But then you provided no examples yourself, so what's your point? Oh. you don't have one.

"One who bears a child is the Mother of the child. One who bears God is the Mother of God. You're pathetic argument of goddess worship is the same as it has always been: unfounded and unsupported, except in extreme circumstances by extreme individuals (or groups of individuals) who were/are going against the clear teachings of the Church."

You call my argument pathetic all the while trottong out no evidence. What was it you were saying about examples?

It is difficult to miss the paralles betwen the development of Mariolatry and making Mary a goddess. And the fact that so many complaints have been and are being raised is proof that the acusation is not without foundation.

"In this case, heresy is in the eye of the beholder, because you think we're heretics and I think you're one. This gets us pretty much nowhere."

Except I'm right and you're not.

 

The "blood of Christ" is kind of literally (more or less) the "blood of Mary" for the first few months of His life. The whole thing
is just so so so weird.

[ December 30, 2002, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

This is so obhviously a stretch and spurious (right up there with "let's let the opinion of Muslims determine Christian doctrine", and let's let the lack of evidence determine what happened), that it isn't worth making a comment.

 

http://www.ohsuhealth.com/dch/health/hrnewborn/images/fetalcirf2.jpg

 

Where is the support for this claim? I am not being rude, but I would like to see this claim supported (Mary without original sin). Please also give some Biblical evidence for this.

God bless,
Neal</font>[/QUOTE]Neal,

The "evidence" as far as something that is truly exegetical, comes from two places. One is Mary's visit from the Angel, where she is said to be "full of grace" (Luke 1:28). The key word is kecharitomene in the Greek, and it is only poorly translated as "full of grace" (which is why modern Bibles, even Catholic ones, don't translate it that way). It is held that the word implies that she was so full of grace that she had no original sin. Its bunk as an idea.

The other passage is Luke 1: 42-45. This passges is used to show that Elizabeth recognised something about Mary. its bunk too.

The other passages used to support the idea are not truly passages that are exegetically supportive. They are passages hijacked in order to make parallels. For instance Mary as the Ark of the Covenant. These paralles are forced, and cannot be maintained consistently. They too are bunk.

I am sure the RCs will aheva differing opinion on the value of such evidence, and may throw in some things I haven't but the key word to remember is this: BUNK.

 

Neal --

I assume that you mean your very first post in this thread when you refer to "I have given you answers and you have not responded to them."

I AM responding to them by trying to make you see the bigger picture than your narrow view. However, if you wish, let us go back:

Ummmm....where is it ever stated that there is a new Eve in Scripture. I have seen the part about the second Adam, but must be missing the page about the new Eve.

Your "sola scriptura" is hanging out. Not all truth must be found in Scripture. There is no passage in Scripture which says that Scripture alone is the sole revelation to mankind. Secondly, there must be a proper interpreter for the Scriptures.

I must have missed that....I see some reference to the second Adam, but on my computer it is not showing the references for the new Eve. I think you mean eisegesis, not exegesis.

I went to rather great lengths to show from Scripture the link between the redemptive plan of God and the establishment of the new Adam and Eve who are the new covenantal family heads over mankind. I think you do not wish to see.

Didn't know I have to know what all the early church fathers said to figure out what God wants to say. I think that I will just stick to His Word. Also, be careful of your confidence in men.

I also answered this. Please check the thread.

No, I am telling you God used Mary as a vessel to accomplish His will. She was still only a human and she was married to Joseph. And she did have sex with Joseph at some point.

No, she did not. That is strictly your opinion, based on the misinterpretation of this passage. There are numerous writings on the Internet which will show you why this belief is quite wrong. I am going to suggest that you look some of them up, since this is not a particular field of intense study for me.

Any support for these claims?

The same support you have that Lincoln freed the slaves, or that Washington was the first president of our country -- the writings of those who were there. We call this Holy Tradition. It is the written but non-Biblical information which "fills in the gaps" so to speak. It is information that was well known in the Church, but was not incorporated in the Scriptures.

Boy, sure had me fooled, especially when you listed Mary as mommy before God as daddy earlier.

It is a linguistic thing. How many people do you know that say "My dad and mom" ? The usual linguistic pattern is to say "Mom and Dad". It appears to me know that you are not looking for information, but rather just grasping at straws to provoke a fight. It is also considerably offensive to tell someone that what he has just explained to you is not what he meant, as if YOU know the heart and intent of another. But that seems to be a Baptist perogative around here.

Actually, you haven't given much Scripture to ponder......mainly some far fetched ideas that don't take long to dismiss from Scripture.

No....I gave you enough that you could, if you wished, THINK about the connection between the Garden, the Fall, and the redemption of mankind by Christ. You really do not wish to, which is understandable.

Actually I have done a lot of that since Creation is one of my favorite subjects. Imagine the shock at knowing that I am called a son of the King! There is a lot of could have beens, but there is what happened that we have to deal with.

No, you don't wish to deal with what happened at all. You wish to leave a whole section of it out, which is the relationship of the Last Adam to mankind and what that means regarding the establishment of the New Eve.

Brother Ed

 

Neal --

I will grant you your point on Isaiah 62:5. It is speaking of Jerusalem in the broader context. This is not a particular area of study for me, so I cannot defend it more deeply. It was on a tape on the Virgin Mary, and I am sure that the author had good reason to use it regarding the Blessed Virgin.

Perhaps the reason that the whole defense of the Blessed Virgin = New Eve seems strange is because I see it in a covenantal context which perhaps you do not. In a covenantal paradigm, the covenantal relationship is incomplete without a female/male relationship. Understanding this, as the Jews of the first century would have, one can see why they would gravitate to the Blessed Virgin as the New Eve.

Brother Ed

 

How do you explain Luke 2:21-24 in the light of Leviticus 12. Mary, after bringing Jesus to be circumcised, waited for the days of her purification to be finished, according to the law, and then offered two sacrifices: one a burnt offering, and the other a sin offering. Why would she offer a sin offering if she was not a sinner. If she was not a sinner why would she exclaim that God was her Saviour? Only sinners need a Saviour. Mary sinned. Mary had a sin-nature that she was born with. She sinned willfully, and naturally out of her own sin-nature. She was born in sin, as David was (Psalm 51:5).
DHK