J
justasking4
Guest
Go back and read Genesis 3. Do you deny the Scriptures that say that there will be enmity between Eve and her seed?
- Status
J
justasking4
Guest
So you agree that the Scriptures do not teach that Mary was without sin and assumed into heaven?You are right, may be he doesn’t know that majority of non-catholic scholars of theology are submissive to the catholic’s interpretation of Gen. 3: 15, only that they donnot want to ask for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, not like us catholics. What he wants us to prove is the literal sense from the bible about the immaculate conception and the assumption, which these dogmas were based upon the logical sense from the bible, not the literal sense. Oh come on Justasking4, are you kidding, from the way you presented your arguments, seems to me you are sort of a knowlegeable person and a bright one !
It may be “logical” that such a thing could happen but that does not mean it did. Certianly the scriptures don’t claim it and there is no eyewitness accounts from the 1st century. Even catholic sources admit to this.
M
mikeledes
Guest
The enmity is between the Woman and Satan, not between Eve and her seed. One of the earliest Church Fathers to identify the woman in Genesis 3:15 as the Virgin Mary is Irenaeus:
**“Christ has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head, as thou can perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, ‘And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be on the watch for thy head, and thou on the watch for his heel.’ For from that time, He who should be born of a woman, namely from the Virgin, after the likeness of Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent. This is the seed of which the apostle says in the Letter to the Galatians, ‘that the law of works was established until the seed should come to whom the promise was made [Galatians 3:19].’ This fact is exhibited in a still clearer light in the same Epistle where he thus speaks: ‘But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman [Galatians 4:4].’ For indeed the enemy would not have been fairly vanquished, unless it had been a man born of a woman who conquered him. For it was by means of a woman that he got the advantage over man at first, setting himself up as man’s opponent. And therefore does the Lord profess Himself to be the Son of man, comprising in Himself that original man out of whom the woman was fashioned, in order that , as our species went down to death through a vanqushed man, so we may ascend to life again through a victorious one; and as through a man death received the palm of victory against us, so again by a man we may receive the palm against death.” **
- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, 21, 1 23
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Chapter 23, Number 7
God Bless,
Michael
G
Good_Fella
Guest
In Galatians 4:4 Paul says, “When the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as Sons.”
Paul is alluding to the woman in Genesis 3:15, who is clearly Eve, and he is drawing a parallel between Eve and the woman from whom God’s Son was born. The old Eve is presented yielding, so to speak, to the new Eve who is the Mother of Christ.
Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, the human race lost its sonship with the Father. And so part of Christ’s mission was to restore our filial relationship with God. By saying Christ was “born of woman”, Paul is linking Jesus and Mary with Adam and Eve. He is essentially telling us that Mary participated in the Redemption by giving birth to Christ (co-Redemptrix) in the opposite but parallel way that Eve participated in the Fall of man into disobedience and sin.
Genesis 3:15 refers to the old Eve in anticipation of the new Eve.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
G
Good_Fella
Guest
There is a difference between an eyewitness and an eyewitness account. The former is one who has witnessed an event, the latter is a recorded description of what has been witnessed.
And coming to her, the angel said, “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you.” [Lk 1:28]
Arise, Lord, come to your resting place,
you and your majestic Ark. [Ps 132:8]
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
J
justasking4
Guest
What is the context of the passage? Look at verse 13 where the Lord is speaking to the woman who has to be Eve.
In verse 15 the Lord again warns of the enmity between Satan and her (Eve’s) seed since she is the only woman in existence at this time.
This saint is wrong in his interpretation by trying to read catholic doctrine into the passage.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
You are aware there are four senses of Scripture, I assume. We should look at Scripture, not only in its immediate context, but how does it point to Christ. You see this is Isaiah 7:14. Although the maiden did conceive and give a child as a sign for Ahaz, the ultimate context of this prophecy is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Similarly, “the woman” can’t refer to Eve. She is a slave of Satan, not his enemy. Her Children are slaves of Satan, not his enemies. It is the seed of Mary that will strike the head of Satan. It is the Children of Revelation 12:17 who are enemies of Satan, for they are of the Kingdom of God. The Mother of these children is Mary.
BTW, You are wrong in your interpretation by trying to read non-catholic doctrine into the passage.
J
JoeyWarren
Guest
Let’s read Gen 3:15 again, shall we
Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman,
and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
foreshadowing, foresshadowing, foreshadowing.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I simply love this statement. Who is he trying to inject “Catholic Doctrine” with? In the 2nd century, the only Church was Catholic.
M
mikeledes
Guest
Saint Irenaeus lived in the 2nd Century A.D. and Saint Cyprian lived in the 3rd Century A.D. They are far closer to the Apostolic Age than you or I. In fact Irenaeus knew Ploycarp - perhaps studied under him - who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John. I would trust their interpretation of this text more than yours.
Secondly, most Protestant exegetes see Genesis 3:15 as a messianic prophecy. They do not interpret the Woman to be Mary, for obvious reasons, but they do not believe the “woman” referred to in this verse is exclusively “Eve”. Here is an explanation from a Protestant website:
bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/71/eVerseID/71
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
Enmity between Eve and her seed? Meaning Eve was the enemy of her own children? And here I thought it was enmity between the woman, her seed and the Serpent :doh2: Again, and read carefully, Eve was never the enemy of the Serpent, she’d just sinned at the Serpent’s suggestion. So the woman could not be Eve.
And in Genesis no-one would ever have been called Eve’s seed, they would have been called ADAM’s seed since they had a known human father. The writers of the Bible were quite un-pc enough to consider the father of a child far more important than the mother.
The description of the seed as coming from the mother alone can only possibly mean that the passage refers to Mary, since she is the only woman in history to have had a child without a human father.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Whew! He just asked for it! 
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Are these men popes who speak for the entire church at the time?
The pope does not only teach or speak on his own, but also in union with the college of bishops. The bishops themselves have an individual pastoral responsibilty to teach, but non-infallibly. The pope may eventually confirm and define with infallibilty reiterated teachings concerning faith and morals of preceding popes in union with the bishops of many generations.
huh? How would you define truth?
Truth is not something only explicitly contained in the Bible.
Nonsense. i know very well what it ism composed of etc.
What isn’t the Bible composed of? What you refuse to believe?
Do you claim that all the fathers said and taught everyting that was true and believed by the catholic church?
What the Fathers taught was certainly true and believed by the Catholic Church. Of course, there were heretics and a few members who had piously dissented from accepting every little detail when regarding true doctrines concerning the person of Christ. So much was still undefined in the first three centuries. We have no written records by any notable Church figure condemning Marian beliefs and devotions in the Church. We know for sure that Christians were already invoking the Blessed Virgin in prayer by 250 A.D., so the Christian community must have already believed in the Assumption. We do not pray to dead people, but to the saints who are alive in Heaven.
Does you church offically consider luther a heretic? If so, can you point me to the source in your church where this is stated?
The papal bull ‘Exsurge Domine’ of 1520 excommunicating Luther reflected the Psalm: “Rise, O Lord, let your enemies be scattered, for a wild boar is ravaging the vineyard of the Lord.”
I work very hard to understand the scriptures and listen to men that teach it in context. However, this thread is not about my being a heretic but about the claims your church makes about Mary. So far it has failed a number of tests for being true.
The Protestant reformers took much of the scriptures out of context when they presumed they could interpret the scriptures without apostolic authority. The Holy Spirit was not with them, since they radically differed on many key doctrinal points, i.e, justification by faith. Martin Luther clearly misunderstood Paul’s Letter to the Romans when he defined ‘sola fide’ according to his own fallible notions. Likewise, the pope, outside his official teaching office, and Catholic bishops and theologians are fallible in their private theological speculations.
The Catholic Church may have failed a number of tests -whatever theses tests are- but only by your erroneous criteria. Our standards for discerning the scriptures are correct with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
L
Little_Mary
Guest
And don’t forget about the 4th century as well, which is when the bible was compiled by the Catholic Church and ratified by the Pope. This Bible - this Catholic document - is The Word that protestants like justasking love so much. And that’ good. But we must remember this:
-The Catholic church protects and upholds the TRUTH (the bible says so in Timothy) that which was taught to us through the 12 apostles and Christ. Both oral and written!!! We do not follow someone’s opinion who was born in, say, 1972, nooo, we hold to the teachings that are 2,000 years old, that came from Christ himself. (From the horse’s mouth if you will, not from the guy down the street)
So, if justasking holds the bible near and dear to his heart it is only logical that he should do the same for all Catholic teaching!!
L
Little_Mary
Guest
A couple of things to ponder…
If we are to distribute the bible with no authority so that everyone may obtain the Good News according to their own interpretation, then why does any church any where have preachers at all?
Should we also do away with Congress, give everybody a copy of the constitution and do the same thing?
If we are to distribute the bible with no authority so that everyone may obtain the Good News according to their own interpretation, then why does any church any where have preachers at all?
Should we also do away with Congress, give everybody a copy of the constitution and do the same thing?
J
Joero
Guest
You are right, LilyM, as well as the other posters. Infact, in the Litany of the Virgin Mary, as part of typology, she is the arc of the new covenant. If Christ is the new covenant basing from Heb. 9: 14 - 15, then the Blessed Virgin Mary, suggestively, is the arc of the new covenant, though not explicitly written in the bible, because the physical nature of Christ came from His mother ( Heb. 2: 14 ) starting from the time of conception till His birth.
The arc of the old covenant had been gone for more than 600 years from the start of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem ( Jer. 52: 12-30 ) till the birth of Jesus. The bible stated that Prophet Jeremiah took the arc of the old covenant and hid it in a cave before the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem ( 2 Maccabees 2: 4 - 8 ). So, for the Israelites, their longing for the arc of the old covenant to be part again of their religious rites was quite a passion. In the new testament, a Jew would be shocked reading the Revelation, for St. John stated that he saw the arc of the covenant inside the temple of God, in his vision in heaven ( Rev. 11: 19 ) when it was hidden by prophet Jeremiah and was nowhere to be found for many centuries.
This is now a very crucial part of the bible because in ( Rev. 12: 1) St. John saw a great sign, a woman clothed with the sun with a crown of twelve stars on her head. Much of the theologians of the catholic church interpreted this to referred to the Blessed Virgin Mary. If the arc of the old covenant was seen in the temple in heaven how much more the possibility of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in heaven from the merits she got from her son who is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. Thus the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was declared Nov. 1, 1950.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Good point!
Look what happened in the French Revolution: the founding fathers themselves
ended up on the guilotene. The original Protestant reformers ended up in the same way.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
Look what happened in the French Revolution: the founding fathers themselves
ended up on the guilotene. The original Protestant reformers ended up in the same way.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
L
LilyM
Guest
You’re quoting the Douay-Rheims I assume? The ONLY translation that uses ‘SHE shall crush they head and thou shalt like in wait for HER heel’?
Even the other Catholic translations don’t interpret that passage as SHE and HER, rather as ‘HE or IT’ (meaning the seed will crush the head of the Serpent, which is surely correct - Christ does and will do this His own self, don’t you think, rather than Mary alone?) and ‘HIS or ITS heel’.
J
justasking4
Guest
So who is the woman in this verse?
- Status