Help me here, problem with Genesis 3:15

[Mike_O]

Mike_D30:

I find that to be a major error, and it is a big deal to me. Big enough for me to think that we have elevated Mary way higher than we should and I would need to give real thought into Lutheranism again.

Hopefully you are not remotely serious.

If miniscule details like those shake your faith…you can fill in the rest.

Apologetics is a valuable part of the forum, but, as I’ve seen, whether the Ark was 450 cubits or 360 cubits wide has nary a thing to do with the bigger questions of faith. Nor does your concern with whether the reference is to Mary or Jesus.

Both Mary and Jesus will play a part in defeating Satan. That should be answer enough. If your doubt about this leads you to apostasy…once again, I leave it to you to finish the thought.

 

[Mike_D30]

Mike O:

Hopefully you are not remotely serious.

If miniscule details like those shake your faith…you can fill in the rest.

Both Mary and Jesus will play a part in defeating Satan. That should be answer enough.

That’s not answer enough, Jesus will defeat Satan, even the NAB was changed to reflect this. I don’t find this to be a miniscule detail, I find it to be a major one,. As a revert I have major Mary issues, and stuff like this does shake my faith. It makes me feel that maybe we ahve elevated Mary higher than we ought to. If it doesn’t shake yours God bless, but don’t minimize my concerns.

 

[Genesis315]

Woohoo! Genesis 3:15 threads

Here’s agreat article:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=47

Rermember, Jesus is the new Adam (as Scripture says, all died in Adam and all live in Christ). But Eve also had a role and Mary is the new Eve. Just as Eve’s disobedience led to Adam’s sin and our death, so does Mary’s obedience (at the Annunciation primarily) lead to Jesus saving work

Did you know the Jews translate it as “they shall crush.” Just something to ponder. The Hebrew pronoun is actually ambiguous.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Genesis315:

Woohoo! Genesis 3:15 threads

Here’s agreat article:

lumengentleman.com/content.asp?id=47

Rermember, Jesus is the new Adam (as Scripture says, all died in Adam and all live in Christ). But Eve also had a role and Mary is the new Eve. Just as Eve’s disobedience led to Adam’s sin and our death, so does Mary’s obedience (at the Annunciation primarily) lead to Jesus saving work

Did you know the Jews translate it as “they shall crush.” Just something to ponder. The Hebrew pronoun is actually ambiguous.

Mike:

As divine symmetry would have it: Adam and Eve committed the original sin…Jesus and Mary untied the knot. Read the Dignity and Vocation of Women by JPII. Also the Theology of the Body explains the economy of salvation and Mary’s role in it beautifully.

There wouldn’t be emphasis on Mary if she wasn’t key in the Incarnation of Christ.

in XT.

 

[trumpet152]

Genesis 3:15 is a clear reference to Christ (see previous posts about the masculine verb). But it does not exclude Mary. In other words, just because the verse says that Jesus will crush his head, where does it say Mary won’t? She did, by bringing Jesus into the world. This verse does not mention Mary, but it doens’t forbid us to believe she played a part in this. It’s not a proof text for Mary, but it is also not a proof against her.

The Hebrew pronoun is actually ambiguous.

Um. No it’s not. There are quite a few pronouns in Hebrew; I know of none that are ambiguous.

Hebrew Pronouns

 

[Genesis315]

trumpet152:

Um. No it’s not. There are quite a few pronouns in Hebrew; I know of none that are ambiguous.

Hebrew Pronouns

From the article I linked to (no one ever does the recommended reading )

The Issue

There are three possible readings of the Gen. 3:15 text: “she shall crush your head,” “he shall crush your head,” and “it shall crush your head.” These readings would refer to the woman, Christ, and the seed of the woman, respectively. In Latin, the three readings would be Ipsa (she), Ipse (he), or Ipsum. In the Hebrew original, the readings would be either Hi (pronounced “hee”), referring to the woman, or Hu (pronounced “hoo”), referring either to Christ or to the seed of the woman (Hu captures both the masculine and the neuter).

It is admitted by all parties, whether Protestant or Catholic, that the Hebrew original is too ambiguous to determine what the original word was. I quote from Quigley:

Appleton’s Cyclopedia, to which my opponent referred, says: “The Hebrew text of the Old Testament as we have it has already passed through many revisions. Of the primitive text we have little positive information.” The Septuagint itself differs from the present Hebrew text in more than two thousand places. (Quigley, p. 92)

Part of the problem is this: the Hebrew originals had no vowel markings. Hebrew was written using only consonants, so you really had to be privy to the oral tradition in order to know how to read the texts. So, for example, the opening lines of Genesis, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” would have read (if the text was in English), “N th bgnnng, Gd crtd th hvns nd th rth.”

You can see how you might run into trouble if you didn’t know the oral tradition that informed you as to how to read the text. Take another example: If I wrote: “tht mn s rd,” what do I mean? Do I mean “that man is rude,” or do I mean “that moon is red?” You would have to know the oral tradition in order to know how to read my writings. The problem of the Hebrew text, in this case, is that the Hi (she) or the Hu (he, it) would have simply read “H” in the original manuscript. The vowel points were not added to the Hebrew text until sometime around the 6th century AD, long after the Latin Vulgate had been written.

 

[Mike_O]

Mike_D30:

That’s not answer enough, Jesus will defeat Satan, even the NAB was changed to reflect this. I don’t find this to be a miniscule detail, I find it to be a major one,. As a revert I have major Mary issues, and stuff like this does shake my faith. It makes me feel that maybe we ahve elevated Mary higher than we ought to. If it doesn’t shake yours God bless, but don’t minimize my concerns.

I do not intend to minimize your concerns, only to point out that single Scriptural verses should not shake the foundations of your faith in Almighty God.

If you have “issues” with the Blessed Mother, consider reading something devotional to understand why the Church honors her:

ewtn.com/library/Montfort/truedevo.htm

Also, try something about St. Maximilian Kolbe, who was visited from a young age by the Blessed Mother and is now in Heaven with her and with God. I would not let your personal dislikes for certain doctrines attempt to override the testimony of saints.

 

[Mike_D30]

Mike O:

I do not intend to minimize your concerns, only to point out that single Scriptural verses should not shake the foundations of your faith in Almighty God.

If you have “issues” with the Blessed Mother, consider reading something devotional to understand why the Church honors her:

ewtn.com/library/Montfort/truedevo.htm

Also, try something about St. Maximilian Kolbe, who was visited from a young age by the Blessed Mother and is now in Heaven with her and with God. I would not let your personal dislikes for certain doctrines attempt to override the testimony of saints.

When did the saints teach that Mary is our Co-redemptrix? From everything I read the idea and terminology just appeared recently. It’s basically a grass roots movement started in the early 1900’s to have this made Dogma, and I say if that happens I am out of here. If I can be a Catholic and believe that Christ alone redeemed us, without anyone else partaking in the redemption, than this is the Church for me, as I love the tradition, the ‘Real Presence’, and everything else about the Chruch. If I have to say Christ couldn’t redeem mankind without Mary as co-redeemer, I may have to go elsewhere, because that is heresy and in no way biblical.

Please don’t confuse the isssue, I already stated I do honor the Blessed Mother. However making the leap from honoring her as the Mother of Christ and indeed all of our mothers, and asking her for interecession and prayers. To, she shared in our redemption with Christ, only Mary dispenses graces, is a HUGE leap, I mean a quantum leap. And it is one that I haven’t been able to make, nor do I think I can ever make.

All I can do is pray this is not made into the fifth Marian Dogma, it will have disastorous results on the Catholic Church especially in the West.

 

[Mike_O]

Mike_D30:

When did the saints teach that Mary is our Co-redemptrix? From everything I read the idea and terminology just appeared recently. It’s basically a grass roots movement started in the early 1900’s to have this made Dogma, and I say if that happens I am out of here. If I can be a Catholic and believe that Christ alone redeemed us, without anyone else partaking in the redemption, than this is the Church for me, as I love the tradition, the ‘Real Presence’, and everything else about the Chruch. If I have to say Christ couldn’t redeem mankind without Mary as co-redeemer, I may have to go elsewhere, because that is heresy and in no way biblical.

Please don’t confuse the isssue, I already stated I do honor the Blessed Mother. However making the leap from honoring her as the Mother of Christ and indeed all of our mothers, and asking her for interecession and prayers. To, she shared in our redemption with Christ, only Mary dispenses graces, is a HUGE leap, I mean a quantum leap. And it is one that I haven’t been able to make, nor do I think I can ever make.

All I can do is pray this is not made into the fifth Marian Dogma, it will have disastorous results on the Catholic Church especially in the West.

Co-Redemptrix does not mean that Mary has redeemed humanity.

It means that God could have chosen to incarnate His Son in whatever manner He willed.

But He chose to incarnate His Son in the womb of the Immaculate Mother. It was the decision, the will, the desire of God Himself to choose Mary. In light of this decision, Mary participates in the redemption of mankind. She does not herself redeem man; that is Christ’s perogative. But without her submission to God, redemption as we know it–the Incarnation of Christ and His birth from His mother, Mary–would not have happened. We cannot speculate about the other ways by which God could have accomplished the redemption of man, because He chose this way, and therefore, Mary merits special honor.

The issue is not that Christ “could NOT” redeem mankind without Mary.

It is that He chose to accomplish redemption in this way, just as He chose to incarnate Himself as a Palestinian Jew 2,000 years ago rather than a Frenchman 500 years ago or an Englishman 200 years ago. Because God has chosen this way, we are compelled to give honor to the one He has chosen.

We ask the prayers of many people. Surely, in your lifetime, you have asked another human being to pray for you?

Then why would you not ask the only human being to never have sinned for her prayers? There is no one greater than Mary in Heaven or Earth EXCEPT God. Consider that for a moment. Of all the saints, all those who have ever or will ever serve God, she is the greatest, and the most humble.

And this is why we honor her. Do not be fooled into thinking that honoring Mary takes away from worship owed Christ. Certainly not.

Consider both that, at the wedding of Cana, Mary tells the servants–and us–“Do whatever he tells you.”

Then, as He dies, Christ tells St. John–and us–“Behold thy mother.”

 

[tm30]

Also note that this passage not only refers to the seed as Jesus Christ, but we cannot forget that, at His crucificion, we all became the “seed” of Mary. Therefore, as the “adoptive” children of the Blessed Mother, we, as the body of Christ, are also prophesied of in Genesis 3:15, called to crush the head of the serpent every day of our lives.

The “he/she” debate is not material to salvation. I was created by God, but it’s also true that my mom and dad created me, too. If I give credit to my parents for creating me through intercourse, does that mean I’m saying God didn’t create me, too? The statement, “my parents created me”, is just as factual as, “God created me.”

Jesus crushed the head of the serpent. But Mary did it first by assenting to God’s will. And since God’s will is perfect, Mary’s
“yes” made the salvation of the world a *fete accompli. *God’s plan, as revealed by the Prophets, was to bring the Messiah of a virgin in Bethlehem. The universal fact that God usurps no one’s will essentially makes Mary the only hinge in this plan. For God’s will to be done (to enter the world in infancy) required Mary to agree with her own free will. After that, it’s a done deal. In an abstract sense, salvation was “won” when Mary humbled herself before the will of God as much as death was “won” when Eve placed herself above God’s will.

In this way, she is a “co” Redemptrix, but not the Savior and Redeemer, per se. Her temporal “yes” facilitated an “eternal” salvation. So there is no substative difference in either translation anymore than, “there is but one mediator to God, Jesus Christ”, condemns devotion to the saints…

 

[Mike_D30]

Mike O:

Then why would you not ask the only human being to never have sinned for her prayers? There is no one greater than Mary in Heaven or Earth EXCEPT God. Consider that for a moment. Of all the saints, all those who have ever or will ever serve God, she is the greatest, and the most humble.

And this is why we honor her. Do not be fooled into thinking that honoring Mary takes away from worship owed Christ. Certainly not.

Consider both that, at the wedding of Cana, Mary tells the servants–and us–“Do whatever he tells you.”

Then, as He dies, Christ tells St. John–and us–“Behold thy mother.”

Mike,

I already stated I have no problem with honoring Mary as the mother of God. I have no problem with asking her for intecession. However calling her a co-redemptrix I do have a problem with. From what I can tell I hear these examples:

1. Mary cooperated with God, so she is given the title coredemptrix.
2. Mary suffered at the cross with Jesus, so she can be called coredemptrix (this is the scariest one to me).
3. Some have even stated that without Mary Christ never could’ve attoned for us.

This things I listed are not about honoring Mary, it’s much more than that. The word co-redemptrix has a much deeper meaning than simply Mary fits into Gods plan, of course she does, and deserves honoring. However giving her titles of Co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix is troubling. Once co-redemptrix is made Dogma we can’t go back, it’s either believe Mary aided in redeeming mankind not just Christ alone, because that is what co-redemptrix means. If I was a co-producer it would mean me and another producer combined to produce a film.

If Co-redemptrix doesn’t really mean she shared in our redemption along with Christ, and Christ alone wasn’t sufficient. Why would we use that terminology? That’s what co-redemptrix means.

I CAN’T be the only Catholic grapling seriously with this issue. I know I’m not I’ve gotten several PM’s from people equally disturbed.

I can only hope and pray that Pope Benedict can come out, and give us clear definitions to Mary’s role (and it is a very honorable and important role) and make that dogma, and pray that it isn’t the title co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix.

God Bless I’ll keep praying but I’m deeply bothered by all of this.

 

[tm30]

1. Mary cooperated with God, so she is given the title coredemptrix.
2. Mary suffered at the cross with Jesus, so she can be called coredemptrix (this is the scariest one to me).
3. Some have even stated that without Mary Christ never could’ve attoned for us.

Every day of her life, Mary had to positively will Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Every day she spent raising the Lord from His infancy was positively willed on the path to Calvary. She positively willed His sacrifice when she asked Him to reveal His powers at Cana. There could be no middle ground. In spite of the immense love she had towards her Child, Mary’s will was perfectly conformed to that of her Son. She had to will not only Jesus’ suffering, but her own suffering as well.

Could Jesus Christ atone for our sins without Mary? Anything is possible, but what was God’s plan of direct action? God could have intervened in the Garden of Eden and killed the serpent before He could tempt Eve, but that wasn’t His plan in giving us free will. He would not have a world that adored Him of necessity. He also would not come into this world but through a woman.

Think about it. If you’re going to argue that because Christ didn’t need Mary for our atonement she does not merit the title of “co” Redemptrix, you’re also going to have to explain why Jesus had to suffer and die in the first place when, conceivably, He could simply will the world to be redeemed by usurping all of our free wills and having mass, worldwide atonement for sin and saving Himself the trouble of being scourged and all that. And that’s where Peter got into trouble, trying to convince Jesus not to go to Jerusalem because He would die on the cross - which didn’t seem necessary to him. But He had to die on the Cross because that was God’s plan - His perfect will. His perfect will was for Mary to be the “tabernacle” for His Son until birth, and a representation of the bridal Church throughout His life. That was the plan. And the plan NEEDED Mary’s fiat. Thus, “co” Redemptrix.

 

[Mike_O]

Mike_D30:

1. Mary cooperated with God, so she is given the title coredemptrix.

Yes. That one should not be too hard.

1. Mary suffered at the cross with Jesus, so she can be called coredemptrix (this is the scariest one to me).

Please, there is no need for dramatics. There is nothing “scary” about this. You have misunderstood, and this can be corrected. But when you begin to allow your own misunderstandings to threaten the foundations of your faith–and hopefully we agree there is nothing so important as the faith–then there is a problem.

Mary did indeed suffer ENORMOUSLY at the foot of the cross!

She is the Mother of God, she watched her Son scourged far beyond the normal dictates of the law, crowned with thorns, beaten as He fell on the long road to Golgotha, then tortured and murdered as nails were driven into His palms. You know all of this. I heard one saint say that, had God not intervened on Mary’s behalf, her suffering would have killed her, so terrible was it in its extent.

Would you not expect a parent to suffer in watching such an episode? And what if this parent was the Mother of God?

1. Some have even stated that without Mary Christ never could’ve attoned for us.

They are incorrect.

The word co-redemptrix has a much deeper meaning than simply Mary fits into Gods plan, of course she does, and deserves honoring. However giving her titles of Co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix is troubling.

No, you are endowing these terms with your own meanings and ignoring what they actually do mean. This has been explained on this thread. If it troubles you, I must conclude that you have not read what was written. Co-redemptrix means Mary participated in the redemption of mankind with the Fiat she issued to God. This is logic. Nothing to be troubled about.

She is mediatrix because she prays for sinners on Earth and obtains for them graces. She has more power than the other saints, in doing so, however, because she is the Mother of God, second only to Him.

Christ alone wasn’t sufficient. Why would we use that terminology? That’s what co-redemptrix means.

No, it doesn’t. Here is your problem. No one said Christ was not sufficient (except you, it seems).

But Christ chose Mary. It’s best that we honor the one Christ chose, rather than quibbling about terms and assigning them false meanings.

I CAN’T be the only Catholic grapling seriously with this issue. I know I’m not I’ve gotten several PM’s from people equally disturbed.

Then please make an effort to recognize that your understanding has been flawed. Hopefully this thread can correct it. Consider privately e-mailing Father Serpa. But your statement about Christ being “insufficient” points to the fact that you do not understand as yet.