Gen 3:15 - SHE will crush?

[SARAHMAX]

It is also interesting to note that the Nova Vulgata which to my understanding is the official translation for the Holy See renders that passage as “it” rather than assigning any gender at all.

To me, that creates a bit of confusion.

IT CAN BE VERY CONFUSING OF COURSE, BUT I ALWAYS READ THE ‘IT’ OR ‘HE’ OR ‘SHE’ AS’ THE CHURCH’ IN THAT PARTICULAR SPOT… THE CHURCH BUILT UPON PETER “THE STONE”, IS CALLED* ‘SHE’ *ALSO IN THE GOSPELS, INTERPRETED AS THE ‘FEMALE ROCK’ IN THAT SCRIPTURE. EVE; MEANING ‘LIFE SPRING’ IN HEBREW, WAS FORGIVEN, THEREFORE THE ‘SEED’; (MASCULINE); DOES COME THRU WOMEN, HEBREW & ELSEWHERE… SOMEONE SAID “IF MARY HADN’T CONSENTED” THE HOLY GHOST WOULD HAVE GONE ELSEWHERE, I BELIEVE THAT, BUT MARY’S GREAT HUMILITY OF SUBMISSION CAUSED HER TO RECEIVE THAT HIGHTEST PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL GIFT… THEREFORE SHE IS HIGHLY BLESSED…BUT NO WHERE IN ANY SCRIPTURE WAS SHE DECLARED TO BE A FOREVER VIRGIN NOR WAS SHE WITHOUT SIN, AS SCRIPTURE SAYS, "THERE IS NO ONE (IN FLESH) THAT IS WITHOUT SIN… ALSO SHE GAVE BIRTH TO OTHER CHILDREN, JAMES, ETC…BUT THAT DID NOT MAKE HER UNCLEAN OR SINFUL, SHE WAS ANNOINTED PURE AS THE VESSEL OF CHRIST’S BIRTH, BUT WAS ALWAYS MADE OF FLESH & BLOOD, WORTHY OF CHRIST’S REDEMPTION… AS ALL FLESH MADE FROM THE EARTH, THE DESCENDANTS OF ADAM & EVE MUST RECEIVE THRU BLOOD OF CHRIST… ALSO THE WORD SEED IN SEVERAL AREAS IS NEARLY ALWAYS A MASCULINE/ALL MALE WORD. THE SEED IS CLEARLY CHRIST. …SO THAT SEED COULD NOT REFER TO MARY OR TO EVE. THE REFERENCES TO THE MOON, I BELIEVE ALSO REFER TO THE BRIDE OF CHRIST, AKA, THE CHURCH…WHO IS THE REFLECTION OF THE ‘SUN’… REFERRING AGAIN TO THE LIGHT PROCEEDING FROM CHRIST, THE SON… ONE MORE COMMENT…WHEN U READ THE DAYS OF CREATION PLEASE NOTICE THAT ALL THINGS BEARING SEEDS IN THEM WERE CREATED ON THE 3rd DAY, IF YOU GO OVER THOSE DAYS, U CAN ALSO SEE THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, SEEDS REPRESENTED CHRIST WHO WOULD ONE DAY BECOME THAT ‘SEED’ WHICH IF IT FELL INTO THE EARTH DEAD, WILL RISE AGAIN BRINGING ETERNAL UNLIMITED, MEASURELESS, ‘FRUIT’ FROM THAT SINGLE SEED…SPOKEN FIRST IN GENESIS BUT LATER IN THE GOSPELS WHERE CHRIST JESUS USED THOSE VERY WORDS TO EXPLAIN TO HIS FOLLOWERS EXACTLY WHY HE MUST BE LIFTED UP & DIE, FALL INTO THE EARTH & RISE AGAIN, WITH INNUMERABLE BRETHREN FOR THE ETERNAL FAMILY… FEEL FREE TO CHECK ME ON ANY OF THESE POINTS & REPLY IF U FIND ANY ERROR ON THIS,THANKS MUCH, ~SARAHMAX

 

[jwinch2]

IT CAN BE VERY CONFUSING OF COURSE, BUT I ALWAYS READ THE ‘IT’ OR ‘HE’ OR ‘SHE’ AS’ THE CHURCH’ IN THAT PARTICULAR SPOT… THE CHURCH BUILT UPON PETER “THE STONE”, IS CALLED* ‘SHE’ *ALSO IN THE GOSPELS, INTERPRETED AS THE ‘FEMALE ROCK’ IN THAT SCRIPTURE. EVE; MEANING ‘LIFE SPRING’ IN HEBREW, WAS FORGIVEN, THEREFORE THE ‘SEED’; (MASCULINE); DOES COME THRU WOMEN, HEBREW & ELSEWHERE… SOMEONE SAID “IF MARY HADN’T CONSENTED” THE HOLY GHOST WOULD HAVE GONE ELSEWHERE, I BELIEVE THAT, BUT MARY’S GREAT HUMILITY OF SUBMISSION CAUSED HER TO RECEIVE THAT HIGHTEST PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL GIFT… THEREFORE SHE IS HIGHLY BLESSED…BUT NO WHERE IN ANY SCRIPTURE WAS SHE DECLARED TO BE A FOREVER VIRGIN NOR WAS SHE WITHOUT SIN, AS SCRIPTURE SAYS, "THERE IS NO ONE (IN FLESH) THAT IS WITHOUT SIN… ALSO SHE GAVE BIRTH TO OTHER CHILDREN, JAMES, ETC…BUT THAT DID NOT MAKE HER UNCLEAN OR SINFUL, SHE WAS ANNOINTED PURE AS THE VESSEL OF CHRIST’S BIRTH, BUT WAS ALWAYS MADE OF FLESH & BLOOD, WORTHY OF CHRIST’S REDEMPTION… AS ALL FLESH MADE FROM THE EARTH, THE DESCENDANTS OF ADAM & EVE MUST RECEIVE THRU BLOOD OF CHRIST… ALSO THE WORD SEED IN SEVERAL AREAS IS NEARLY ALWAYS A MASCULINE/ALL MALE WORD. THE SEED IS CLEARLY CHRIST. …SO THAT SEED COULD NOT REFER TO MARY OR TO EVE. THE REFERENCES TO THE MOON, I BELIEVE ALSO REFER TO THE BRIDE OF CHRIST, AKA, THE CHURCH…WHO IS THE REFLECTION OF THE ‘SUN’… REFERRING AGAIN TO THE LIGHT PROCEEDING FROM CHRIST, THE SON… ONE MORE COMMENT…WHEN U READ THE DAYS OF CREATION PLEASE NOTICE THAT ALL THINGS BEARING SEEDS IN THEM WERE CREATED ON THE 3rd DAY, IF YOU GO OVER THOSE DAYS, U CAN ALSO SEE THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, SEEDS REPRESENTED CHRIST WHO WOULD ONE DAY BECOME THAT ‘SEED’ WHICH IF IT FELL INTO THE EARTH DEAD, WILL RISE AGAIN BRINGING ETERNAL UNLIMITED, MEASURELESS, ‘FRUIT’ FROM THAT SINGLE SEED…SPOKEN FIRST IN GENESIS BUT LATER IN THE GOSPELS WHERE CHRIST JESUS USED THOSE VERY WORDS TO EXPLAIN TO HIS FOLLOWERS EXACTLY WHY HE MUST BE LIFTED UP & DIE, FALL INTO THE EARTH & RISE AGAIN, WITH INNUMERABLE BRETHREN FOR THE ETERNAL FAMILY… FEEL FREE TO CHECK ME ON ANY OF THESE POINTS & REPLY IF U FIND ANY ERROR ON THIS,THANKS MUCH, ~SARAHMAX

First of all, please stop writing in all caps, on forums it is considered the same thing as shouting. Secondly, the gender issue of “rock” as it applies to St. Peter has been debunked quite some time ago and quite emphatically. There are multiple threads on this forum discussing this topic, and I encourage you to find them via the search function. However, the bottom line is this, St. Peter is and was the first pope, his primacy was instituted by Christ himself, period. How that primacy manifests itself I believe to be open to some interpretation and Benedict XVI himself has said as much. However, whether the primacy does or does not exist is settled doctrine in my view.

You will get no further arguing this matter with me, so if you choose to do so you will be wasting your time. There is much to admire in the Eastern Church and I actually enjoy their spirituality a great deal. However, the stance that many Orthodox have on the papacy is a non-starter for me. I came to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church after much study, prayer, and deliberation where I did take the Orthodox Church into question and examination as well as other Christian groups.

You can consider this just a friendly heads up that there is absolutely nothing you can say that will change my mind on the primacy of the See of Peter.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Interestingly, he has not approved my comments for posting on youtube. I find this odd, since when I have posted comments in the past (once or twice) they have been approved very rapidly. In this case, many other comments of support, and one or two contrary, have been approved for posting though Real Catholic TV has not responded to them from what I can tell.

I’m not sure what to take away from this and I don’t want to accuse someone of cherry picking comments without cause but I would be lying if I said that I am not getting that impression. The staff seem to travel a great deal so that might explain both their non-approval of my comment along with why they have not engaged other posters as they usually do.

Thoughts?

Peace,

I’m curious whether you ever received a response from Michael Voris?

 

[jwinch2]

I’m curious whether you ever received a response from Michael Voris?

Nope, I did not as my comments were never ‘approved’. Not too surprised as he, or whomever manages their youtube page, has not approved a few of my comments questioning his assertions in the past. I like the vast majority of his stuff but I do disagree with some points from time to time.

Cheers,

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Nope, I did not as my comments were never ‘approved’. Not too surprised as he, or whomever manages their youtube page, has not approved a few of my comments questioning his assertions in the past. I like the vast majority of his stuff but I do disagree with some points from time to time.

Cheers,

Thanks for the response!

 

[jwinch2]

Thanks for the response!

No worries, take care Dave…