Does anyone else have a problem with "Maryology"?

[justasking4]

Good Fella;2497990]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.

How do you get all this out of Galatians 4? There is nothing in this verse or in the entire book of Galatians about Eve.

Genesis 3:15 refers to the old Eve in anticipation of the new Eve.

This is amazing. Did any OT prophet ever mention anything like this?

Does any NT writer?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Justasking, you make this last statement, in order to refute all the Scripture that jaero has presented? I’m going to ignore your Scriptures by calling it non-scriptural?

What specific post are you referring to?

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2499475]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.

If you are referring to Gen 3:15 it certainly is Eve. That is plainly seen in the context of this chapter.

Her Children are slaves of Satan, not his enemies.

Are not all men the children of Eve?

Are those who are “in Christ” the enemies of Satan?

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.

A plain reading of Gen 3:15 in context does not support the catholic view. It does not even mention Mary or the mother of the messiah.

 

[LilyM]

If you are referring to Gen 3:15 it certainly is Eve. That is plainly seen in the context of this chapter.

Rot and double rot. The context of Genesis 3:15 can be summed up in one word - prophetic. The coming of Christ is being prophesied. And so is the fact that he comes of Mary - born of her seed alone with no male human contributing his seed.

Genesis 3:15 doesn’t switch between the prophetic and the non-prophetic mid-verse. The idea that it would is laughable. And yet again, Eve cannot in any reasonable way be said to be an enemy of Satan. The only woman who can possibly fit this description is Mary.

And like I said, Eve has no seed. Adam does, he produced children, as the ancients understood it. Eve on her own would never be said to have seed by the writers of the Bible. Not in a million years. It would have been called Adam’s seed. The fact that he fathered her children would never have been ignored.

 

[zemi]

This saint is wrong in his interpretation by trying to read catholic doctrine into the passage.

Justasking,

1.) First of all, you’re begging the question. You’re saying his interpretation is wrong. But that is what we are discussing, no? You’re saying basically he was wrong because his interpretation was wrong. I could say the same against you but that would be no argument at all. So let’s find another reason for you rejecting this. I don’t accept logical fallacies as an answer.

2.) In the time of Irenaeus there was no canon yet. There was no canon you could point to and say “Aha! Look, Iranaeus! I’ve got you on this one! You’ve no explicit backing for this in the Bible!” On which basis do you say then he’s wrong? On the basis of the canon that was later established? Well… it’s a Catholic canon. Catholic canon contradicting Catholic doctrines? I’m not sure… Does the canon negate Irenaeus’ and other Church Fathers’ claims? I would say on the contrary. However if you insist and want explicit evidence you know you won’t get that. Just as for the canon, Trinity, two natures of Christ and your not-even-implicit unbiblical Sola Scriptura.

 

[NotWorthy]

If you are referring to Gen 3:15 it certainly is Eve. That is plainly seen in the context of this chapter.Oh right, I forgot. So please refute my argument instead of repeating the same statement regarding context. A person can not be an enemy of someone’s if they are a slave. You are either an enemy of Satan’s (A child of God), or you are a slave of Satan’s (un-Sanctified). Eve is a slave of Satan’s, hence, God cannot put enmity between her and Satan unless he Graced her again. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that, or even imply that.

Are not all men the children of Eve?I thought we were all born as the seed of Adam’s, not the seed of Eve’s. And when we die in Christ, we are re-born as Children of God, not of Adam’s (or Eve’s). I believe that is what Scripture tells us.

Are those who are “in Christ” the enemies of Satan?

AMEN!!! :yup:

A plain reading of Gen 3:15 in context does not support the catholic view. It does not even mention Mary or the mother of the messiah.

And again, I shout, “AMEN!!!” The key phrase to your sentence is “A plain reading”. A plain reading of 99.99% of the OT does not mention Christ as we know him. That’s why the Jews rejected Him. Were you taught to read the OT in strict “plain reading”, or were you taught to read the OT “in the light of Christ”?

While reading the OT in the Context of Christ, you will see that God is talking to Mary, and not Eve, when He issues the prophecy in Genesis 3:15.

As an example, I refer you to Isaiah 7:14. A plain reading of that will show us that the prophecy was fulfilled during Isaiah’s time when the young maiden gave birth to the child, and she named him Immanuel. But, as Matthew points out, when we read Isaiah 7:14 in the context of Christ, we see that the prophecy was fulfilled at the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

 

[Joero]

Psalm 51:5 says “I have been evil from the day I was born; from the time I was conceived, I have been sinful.”
Romans 5: 12 says “Sin came into the world through one man, and his sin brought death with it. As a result, death has spread to the whole human race because everyone has sinned.”
Job 14:4 says “Nothing clean can ever come from anything as unclean as human beings.”

From the statements of these three passages, a general conclusion would formulate into your own thinking that no one is excluded, everyone is unclean.

Let us read other passages if it would not be contradicting with the passages stated above !

1 John 3: 5 says “You know that Christ appeared in order to take away sins, and that there is no sin in him.”
1 Peter 1: 19 says “It was the costly sacrifice of Christ, who was like a lamb without defect or flaw.”

The former three passages appeared now to be not conclusive to the inclusion of everybody, but there is an exclusion. In layman’s term we would say that " in every rule there is an exception."

First, let us not forget that Christ was born from a woman:
Luke 1: 30-31 says " The angel said to her, Don’t be afraid, Mary; God has been gracious to you. You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus."
In 1 Cor. 1: 24 it says that Christ is the Power and the Wisdom of God.
In Wisdom 1:4 it says that Wisdom will never dwell with anyone who is deceitful or a slave of sin.

It is now logical to allude to Virgin Mary that she has not sinned, for the body and blood of Christ which from the Virgin Mary ( Heb. 2: 14 ) was a perfect sacrifice to God ( Heb. 9: 14 ).
It would then follow that if she has not sinned, would qualify her to heaven, for nothing is impure could enter heaven (Rev. 21:27).

The dogma of Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were then clarified !

 

[Little_Mary]

… for nothing is impure could enter heaven (Rev. 21:27).

The dogma of Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were then clarified !

Thanks Joero, to further clarify the above quote, if nothing impure could enter heaven, it is only logical that Almighty God would not enter an impure body (womb) …So Mary MUST have been without sin!!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Job 14:4 says “Nothing clean can ever come from anything as unclean as human beings.”

Well, that’s a new one for me:extrahappy:

Jesus was clean.

Nothing clean can from the unclean.

Mary had to be clean…at least before the appearance of the angel.

couple that with the proper rendering of kecharitomene…

 

[Joero]

Thanks Joero, to further clarify the above quote, if nothing impure could enter heaven, it is only logical that Almighty God would not enter an impure body (womb) …So Mary MUST have been without sin!!

You are welcome and thanks also to you.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;2526975]Oh right, I forgot. So please refute my argument instead of repeating the same statement regarding context.
I can’t. Context determines the meaning of the passage. Who is the Lord speaking to?

A person can not be an enemy of someone’s if they are a slave.

Not so. There have been slaves throughout history that were slaves and yet enemies of their masters.

You are either an enemy of Satan’s (A child of God), or you are a slave of Satan’s (un-Sanctified). Eve is a slave of Satan’s, hence, God cannot put enmity between her and Satan unless he Graced her again. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that

How do you come to this conclusion when the verse is explicit?–15 **And I will put enmity Between you and the woman,**And between your seed and her seed;He shall bruise you on the head,And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
The Lord is speaking to the serpent about him and the woman (Eve).

, or even imply that.

I thought we were all born as the seed of Adam’s, not the seed of Eve’s. And when we die in Christ, we are re-born as Children of God, not of Adam’s (or Eve’s). I believe that is what Scripture tells us.
AMEN!!! :yup:

The problem is that the verse refers to “her seed”

And again, I shout, “AMEN!!!” The key phrase to your sentence is “A plain reading”. A plain reading of 99.99% of the OT does not mention Christ as we know him. That’s why the Jews rejected Him. Were you taught to read the OT in strict “plain reading”, or were you taught to read the OT “in the light of Christ”?

Both.

While reading the OT in the Context of Christ, you will see that God is talking to Mary, and not Eve, when He issues the prophecy in Genesis 3:15.

This is where you are reading into the text that is not there. God is not talking to Mary but to the serpent specifically while Adam and Eve are listening. Now if you want to take this as a prophecy of how Christ will eventually crush the serpent, then i would agree.

As an example, I refer you to Isaiah 7:14. A plain reading of that will show us that the prophecy was fulfilled during Isaiah’s time when the young maiden gave birth to the child, and she named him Immanuel. But, as Matthew points out, when we read Isaiah 7:14 in the context of Christ, we see that the prophecy was fulfilled at the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

I agree.

 

[NotWorthy]

I can’t. Context determines the meaning of the passage. Who is the Lord speaking to?

I don’t know. Who is Eve’s Seed? Let me elaborate. In the Greek, “Seed” translates to Sperma. Only one man I know of could be most accurately portrayed as the “Seed of a Woman”. Maybe, just maybe, God was looking past Eve to Mary and of course, Jesus.

Not so. There have been slaves throughout history that were slaves and yet enemies of their masters.

Not until they break free from their master’s chains.

How do you come to this conclusion when the verse is explicit?–15 **And I will put enmity Between you and the woman,**And between your seed and her seed;He shall bruise you on the head,And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
The Lord is speaking to the serpent about him and the woman (Eve).

See above.

But in a historical context, this verse was seen as a prophecy to Jesus and Mary over 1800 years ago - a little closer to the fire than you and I are, wouldn’t you say? I’ll stick with their interpretation.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Not so. There have been slaves throughout history that were slaves and yet enemies of their masters.

Historically you are correct, but form a biblical standpoint you are not correct. Do you remember the directive issued to slaves?

 

[justasking4]

Historically you are correct, but form a biblical standpoint you are not correct. Do you remember the directive issued to slaves?

If you are referring to how the OT Mosaic Law, then yes. The point i’m making though is that a person can be a slave and an emeny at the same time towards his master.

 

[justasking4]

LilyM;2522447]Rot and double rot. The context of Genesis 3:15 can be summed up in one word - prophetic. The coming of Christ is being prophesied. And so is the fact that he comes of Mary - born of her seed alone with no male human contributing his seed.

Your jumping ahead. Look first at the context. Who is the Lord speaking to? Who else is present?

Genesis 3:15 doesn’t switch between the prophetic and the non-prophetic mid-verse. The idea that it would is laughable. And yet again, Eve cannot in any reasonable way be said to be an enemy of Satan. The only woman who can possibly fit this description is Mary.
Where in the NT does it claim this for Mary i.e. that Mary is the enemy of Satan?
Does Jesus make this claim?

And like I said, Eve has no seed. Adam does, he produced children, as the ancients understood it. Eve on her own would never be said to have seed by the writers of the Bible. Not in a million years. It would have been called Adam’s seed. The fact that he fathered her children would never have been ignored.

If what you say is true, then what am i to make of Gen 3:15 where the Lord says of the woman (Eve)
And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman,And **between your seed and her seed;?

The only woman in this passage is Eve.**

 

[JoeyWarren]

If you are referring to how the OT Mosaic Law, then yes. The point i’m making though is that a person can be a slave and an emeny at the same time towards his master.

No I am referring to the blurb in the NT. Search and ye shalt find.

 

[NotWorthy]

If what you say is true, then what am i to make of Gen 3:15 where the Lord says of the woman (Eve)
And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And **between your seed and her seed;?

The only woman in this passage is Eve.**

And yet, this woman had no seed. So, it’s talking to her (maybe) and beyond her (definitely). You yourself admitted this happens in prophecy as evidenced by your agreement with my explanation of Isaiah 7:14. You just can’t accept that this same thing is happening here in Genesis.

Notice, the Lord doesn’t use Eve’s name? Why not? He simply says “the woman”. Does this sound familiar in Revelation? What happens in Revelation? The Woman gives birth to Jesus. Could this woman possibly be Eve? Of course not.

And back to the word enmity. Enemies imply a struggle between two parties. Satan didn’t have a struggle with Eve. The only person Satan had a struggle with would be someone who is not a slave to Satan. Jesus, of course, is one. Does the Church teach that someone else is sinless? Hmmmmmm…

 

[justasking4]

And yet, this woman had no seed. So, it’s talking to her (maybe) and beyond her (definitely). You yourself admitted this happens in prophecy as evidenced by your agreement with my explanation of Isaiah 7:14. You just can’t accept that this same thing is happening here in Genesis.

Notice, the Lord doesn’t use Eve’s name? Why not? He simply says “the woman”. Does this sound familiar in Revelation? What happens in Revelation? The Woman gives birth to Jesus. Could this woman possibly be Eve? Of course not.

And back to the word enmity. Enemies imply a struggle between two parties. Satan didn’t have a struggle with Eve. The only person Satan had a struggle with would be someone who is not a slave to Satan. Jesus, of course, is one. Does the Church teach that someone else is sinless? Hmmmmmm…

The church may say that someone else besides Christ is sinless but that does not mean its so. The scriptures certainly don’t.

 

[NotWorthy]

The church may say that someone else besides Christ is sinless but that does not mean its so. The scriptures certainly don’t.

JA4, what, you got tired of the other Marian thread, so you decided to jump on this one. Shouldn’t this be handled on the one where we were talking of Kecharitomone just 1 or 2 hours ago?

 

[LilyM]

Your jumping ahead. Look first at the context. Who is the Lord speaking to? Who else is present?

Mary wasn’t present when she was prophesied about. So stinking what? Isaiah prophesies about Mary the virgin giving birth - was she present at that time then? No? Then by your logic THAT prophecy, made before her time and in no-one’s presence but Isaiah’s, doesn’t apply to her either.

Genesis 3:15 doesn’t switch between the prophetic and the non-prophetic mid-verse. The idea that it would is laughable. And yet again, Eve cannot in any reasonable way be said to be an enemy of Satan. The only woman who can possibly fit this description is Mary.
Where in the NT does it claim this for Mary i.e. that Mary is the enemy of Satan?
Does Jesus make this claim?

Here we go again. Get your blinkers off. A thing does not have to be versified in Scripture for it to be true and binding belief if, as you claim, you want to follow Christ who is the whole truth and leads His followers into all truth.

If what you say is true, then what am i to make of Gen 3:15 where the Lord says of the woman (Eve)
And I will put enmityBetween you and the woman,And **between your seed and her seed;?

The only woman in this passage is Eve.**

OK - first of all let’s judge the prophecy by its outcome. If Eve was the woman then the prophecy about herself would have been fulfilled in her own lifetime.

Where is any evidence of any sort of enmity that she ever had with Satan? Did she become sinless and heroically virtuous after being expelled from Eden? Did SHE help in Satan’s defeat by directly and biologically giving birth to the victor - being his mother rather than grandmother or female ancestor as the woman of Genesis does in Revelation?

No - Mary was all of these things. Mary, not Eve, was specially graced, specially blessed, for all generations, bearing from her own seed and no man’s our Redeemer.

Let me ask something important - following your own logic here.

If Eve was the woman of Genesis, why does no writer either of the OT or NT acknowledge her as such? NO ECF, NO early Christian writing of any kind, specifies that Eve is the ‘enemy of Satan’ referred to in Genesis.

Surely if Eve was this great enemy of Satan - and remember no other woman in HISTORY BUT the woman of Genesis and Revelation is called Satan’s enemy, so she’s terribly important - then why weren’t Christians ever taught to call EVE blessed among all women till the end of time then, or even ‘highly favoured’, as Mary is called, hmmm?

Again let’s look at the wording of Genesis. Children in those times were NEVER considered the sole property of the mother. ALWAYS the property of the father. The Apostles, Kings and Prophets ALWAYS have their fathers named if either parent is.

Even Jesus was called ‘Son of Joseph’ by his neighbours in Nazareth, never ‘son of Mary’. Only the Gospel writers referred to Him as Mary’s son alone, because they knew of the virgin birth.

So again, why is the victor over Satan - the seed - not referred to as the seed of Adam? If Eve was the seed’s mother, Adam was its father. Adam necessarily would have been named. Neither in Genesis nor Revelation is there any mention of ANY human father for this seed. Who but Mary ever gave birth to a child without a human father giving his seed for it?

Now the culture and context of the TIME Genesis AND Revelation were written (which is conveniently ignored by you when it works against your interpretation) absolutely forbade naming the mother of a child and ignoring the father. It simply wouldn’t have been done.

If God was referring to Eve’s seed the OT categorically never would have said Eve’s seed, but Adam’s. Never never never.

What you are to make of the Genesis verses is that God is prophesying the coming of Christ through Mary, nothing more or less. And THEIR triumph over him. Not Eve’s - Eve never triumphed over the devil.

Genesis cannot possibly have been addressed to Eve about herself - any comment about her children would instead have been referred to Adam. Instead it was addressed to the devil (important - why doesn’t God say to Eve ‘YOUR seed’ if this is the case, and she’s right there in front of Him to hear it?), doesn’t mention Eve by name, and in its entirety predicts the devil’s downfall through Jesus the son of Mary.