Mary, the New Eve?

[dan1el]

I was in moral theology when we struck a convo about Mary there, so I thought I would bring it here, where it belongs:

Why is Mary called the New Eve when it is obvious that the “New Eve” is the Church?
Compare:

Adam - had a wife, named Eve.
Last Adam 1 Cor 15:45 (Christ) - has a Wife, the Church.

This verse of Scripture is addressed to the Church (congregation) at Corinth in 2 Cor 11:3
“But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.”
In that verse, Paul compares the Church to Eve.

• just as the serpent deceived Eve (wife of Adam) into eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
• so you (the wife of the Last Adam) might be led astray from the simplicity of devotion to Christ.

Again, Paul says,
“For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.”** 2 Cor 11:2**
Paul has compared the congregation, collectively, as being a virgin which he has betrothed to a Husband - and that husband is Christ. The wife of Adam was Eve. The wife of the Last Adam, is the Church, here.

Again, it is written:
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Eph. 5:22-27
Here Paul compares the husband’s headship of the wife to that of Christ’s over the Church. Then he says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church (His wife) and gave Himself for it.
Lastly, the marriage feast is between the Bride and the Bridegroom, which, undeniably, is speaking of the Church and Jesus.
Who are the bride and bridegroom? Jesus and the Church.
“He who has the bride is the bridegroom…” John 3:29

This is also spoken of in Rev 19:7 “Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.” and Rev 22:17 says "The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come’ ". Who is the Bride? Mary? No; the Church, which is therefore, the New Eve, of the Last Adam 1 Cor 15:45, Christ.
So, Eve was the wife of Adam. The Church is the Wife/Bride of Christ, the Bridegroom.

Does anyone get what I’m saying, I think it is obvious! I am a fool in Christ, I don’t know anything; this is so obvious that even I, a fool, can see it!

The Church is the Bride of Christ - the New Eve, who was the bride of Adam.

 

[thistle]

I was in moral theology when we struck a convo about Mary there, so I thought I would bring it here, where it belongs:

Why is Mary called the New Eve when it is obvious that the “New Eve” is the Church?
Compare:

Adam - had a wife, named Eve.
Last Adam 1 Cor 15:45 (Christ) - has a Wife, the Church.

This verse of Scripture is addressed to the Church (congregation) at Corinth in 2 Cor 11:3
“But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.”
In that verse, Paul compares the Church to Eve.

• just as the serpent deceived Eve (wife of Adam) into eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
• so you (the wife of the Last Adam) might be led astray from the simplicity of devotion to Christ.

Again, Paul says,
“For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.”** 2 Cor 11:2**
Paul has compared the congregation, collectively, as being a virgin which he has betrothed to a Husband - and that husband is Christ. The wife of Adam was Eve. The wife of the Last Adam, is the Church, here.

Again, it is written:
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Eph. 5:22-27
Here Paul compares the husband’s headship of the wife to that of Christ’s over the Church. Then he says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the Church (His wife) and gave Himself for it.
Lastly, the marriage feast is between the Bride and the Bridegroom, which, undeniably, is speaking of the Church and Jesus.
Who are the bride and bridegroom? Jesus and the Church.
“He who has the bride is the bridegroom…” John 3:29

This is also spoken of in Rev 19:7 “Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.” and Rev 22:17 says "The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come’ ". Who is the Bride? Mary? No; the Church, which is therefore, the New Eve, of the Last Adam 1 Cor 15:45, Christ.
So, Eve was the wife of Adam. The Church is the Wife/Bride of Christ, the Bridegroom.

Does anyone get what I’m saying, I think it is obvious! I am a fool in Christ, I don’t know anything; this is so obvious that even I, a fool, can see it!

The Church is the Bride of Christ - the New Eve, who was the bride of Adam.

CCC 411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross”, makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience, of Adam. Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve”. Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.

 

[eric_sammons]

dan1el,

Why cannot both Mary and the Church be the new Eve? When it comes to typology, often there are many applications for the same types.

It was St. Irenaeus who first suggested that Mary is the new Eve:

As Eve was seduced by the word of an angel and so fled from God after disobeying his word, Mary in her turn was given the good news by the word of an angel, and bore God in obedience to his word. As Eve was seduced into disobedience to God, so Mary was persuaded into obedience to God; thus the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve.
Against Heresies

It is important to understand that the mysteries of God have many layers and many meanings. It would be wrong to limit these mysteries to one exact meaning.

 

[Nita]

As eric_sammons noted, the Eve typology applies to both Mary and the Church. And as Blessed Isaac notes below, it can apply to individual Christians also.

Here is the quote - from a sermon by Blessed Isaac of Stella that is in the Liturgy of Hours, Office of Readings for the 2nd week of Advent (Re Mary and the Church/Body of Christ):

Both are mothers, both are virgins. Each conceives of the same Spirit, without concupiscence. Each gives birth to a child of God the Father, without sin. Without any sin, Mary gave birth to Christ the head for the sake of his body. By the forgiveness of every sin, the Church gave birth to the body, for the sake of its head. …

In the inspired Scriptures, what is said in a universal sense of the virgin mother, the Church, is understood in an individual sense of the Virgin Mary; and what is said in a particular sense of the virgin mother Mary is rightly understood in a general sense of the virgin mother, the Church. When either is spoken of, the meaning can be understood of both, almost without qualification.

In a way, every Christian is also believed to be a bride of God’s Word, a mother of Christ, his daughter and sister, at once virginal and fruitful. These words are used in a universal sense of the Church, in a special sense of Mary, in a particular sense of the individual Christian. …

(Bolding and italics are mine)

 

[John7]

Does anyone get what I’m saying, I think it is obvious! I am a fool in Christ, I don’t know anything; this is so obvious that even I, a fool, can see it!

The Church is the Bride of Christ - the New Eve, who was the bride of Adam.

Yea, I get it. The other problem I have with Mary being the ‘new Eve’ would be that Adam and Eve were married. So then also the new Adam (Christ) would be married to the new Eve (Mary). Meaning that Jesus would be married to his mother…but that’s disgusting (see 1 Cor 5:1).

 

[Todd_Easton]

Yea, I get it. The other problem I have with Mary being the ‘new Eve’ would be that Adam and Eve were married. So then also the new Adam (Christ) would be married to the new Eve (Mary). Meaning that Jesus would be married to his mother…but that’s disgusting (see 1 Cor 5:1).

It would be disgusting if Mary as the new Eve was to be understood in a carnal sense. It would be just as disgusting if the male members of the Church as the bride of Christ was to be understood in a carnal sense. Fortunately, Mary as the new Eve is to be understood only in a spiritual sense, in the sense that her obedience was as instrumental in the restoration of all mankind as the old Eve’s disobedience was instrumental in the fall of all mankind.

 

[Eucharisted]

Mary is a sign of the Catholic Church. So she is the new Eve, Mother of men, married to the new Adam, Jesus, Father of men. The crucifixion is the wedding feast of the Lamb, when Jesus took the Church - in the person of Mary - as His Bride. But because every marriage needs to be consummated in the bedroom, so too dose this wedding: at the moment of His death, Jesus consummated His mystical marriage to Mary in light of their inseperable union and immolation. The crucifixion, of course, was the corporal reality of the wedding, while the Eucharist which Jesus instituted at Passover is the spiritual reality of the wedding. The two go hand in hand.

Furthermore, because Jesus is Himself the union of God and man - being the God-Man - and by His death He has universalized Israel, making the Church - His People - Catholic, He has, in Mary, wed all mankind. This is further argued by the fact that, just as our first parents were the man and woman of all men, so too the new Adam and Eve are the man and woman of all men.

 

[cfrancis]

Yea, I get it. The other problem I have with Mary being the ‘new Eve’ would be that Adam and Eve were married. So then also the new Adam (Christ) would be married to the new Eve (Mary). Meaning that Jesus would be married to his mother…but that’s disgusting (see 1 Cor 5:1).

Following your logic, I guess that means as Christ is the new Adam, and Adam sinned, that means Christ can’t be the new Adam…you could get yourself mentally tied in knots if you tried to make each type fit perfectly!

 

[NotWorthy]

It was St. Irenaeus who first suggested that Mary is the new Eve:

If I’m not mistaken, St. Ireneaus was about 30 years too late to have this title. I think St. Justin Martyr is the oldest known writer on this topic.

But remember, this doesn’t mean that the teaching was there earlier than even 150AD. It’s just the oldest **known **writing on Mary being the New Eve.

Appended:
Ah, here it is.

Justin Martyr wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew *(ca. A.D. 150), Justin explains that Christ destroyed Satan’s work in the same way evil originally entered the world. Evil entered through Eve while she was still a virgin; so too salvation entered through Mary while she was still a virgin. Each woman willingly participated in the act they performed. Neither was an unconscious instrument. Eve listened to the serpent and conceived death. Mary listened to the angel Gabriel and conceived life. Justin sees this clearly in Luke 1:38 when Mary says, “Let it be to me according to your word.” Thus, for Justin, Christ’s becoming a man involved his Mother’s willing cooperation in undoing the tangled web of sin that Eve introduced.

 

[dan1el]

From the very beginning, false doctrines have been preached, so… Here is a doctrine that dates back a long time, too:

"17and their talk will spread like [a]gangrene. Among them are (C)Hymenaeus and Philetus,

18men who have gone astray from the truth saying that (D)the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset (E)the faith of some." 2 T 2:17,18

And we are told:
“As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming…” Eph 4:14

and
“21But (A)examine everything carefully; (B)hold fast to that which is good;” 1 Th 5:21

and in the book of Acts 17:11, the people in Berea are doing exactly as 1 Th 5:21 (and common sense) tells us:
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Any doctrine the Apostle was attempting to feed them, they would** verify through the Scriptures**, with readiness of mind - and they were called noble for being that way. Has something changed since then? I test everything as hard as I can possibly test it - until the breaking point. I would prefer to be the one to break it - if it can be broken - rather than to be made a fool of for leaning on something that I haven’t even tested to see if it is sturdy enough to hold my weight or not. That is called being careful and humble - is there any other way that we live life…?

Search the compilation of letters - referred to as the “new testament” - and see how many times it says “that the Scripture might be fulfilled” or “it is written” or how many times the Apostle Paul (who at one time, in Galatians 2:13, was used by God to correct the Apostle Peter in his hypocrisy - and all those who followed in his hypocrisy - which we all are capable of, being imperfect) quoted the “Old Testament”

*** The Apostle Paul received the entire revelation of Jesus through the Old Testament:***

Basically, Paul says, “The Gospel that I am sharing with you, I was not told about by any man, but it was revealed to me - revealed by Jesus Christ, Himself to me. I spent three years alone, learning from the Spirit of God, then I went and spent 15 days with Peter, but aside from this, I had no support except the Spirit of God and the Scripture.” ** Gal 1:11-23**

Here, he says something that we ought to take special note of about the “sacred writings” (old testament):

“15and that (A)from childhood you have known (B)the sacred writings which are able to (C)give you the wisdom that leads to (D)salvation through faith which is in (E)Christ Jesus.” 2 Tim 3:15

So, how important are the Old Testament Scriptures to Paul?? Very.
1 - He received the entire revelation of the Gospel through the Holy Spirit’s revealing the “types and shadows” which spoke about Christ (in the old testament).
2 - He says that they are able to give you wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3 - In every one of his writings, he shows that the foundation for everything he is instructing comes from the “Old Testament”, quoting scripture every time he speaks, showing that his faith rested upon the Spirit-breathed word. Jesus said, “My words are Spirit and they are life.” John 6:63 It is written of the Old Testament Scriptures:
“… but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”** 2 Pet 1:21**
and " 16(F)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that (G)the man of God may be adequate, (H)equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16,17

What Scripture? Old Testament, for there was no “new testament” at the time.

Why mention that? If Paul had so many important things to say, why is neither Mary being a “New Eve”, nor any SINGLE Mariologic doctrine spoken of in the letters NOR in the Old Testament? Never once did a prophet prophesy about any Queen of the Kingdom of the Heavens.
Flesh does not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven 1 Cor 15:50; don’t think you can just take Jesus’ mother and make her the queen in heaven just because it is a Hebrew tradition; God Almighty is both male and female - God gave birth to Himself!
The Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD. He gave birth to the thoughts of His mind when He opened His mouth and spoke. Have you ever heard the expression “This was the brainchild of…” ? That is what we are talking about, here.
You may ask, “How could Mary have sin and give birth to Jesus who had NO SIN?” How did Enoch get into Heaven without dying -and without the substitution for his sins, Jesus? Do you have the answer? What about Elijah? How could he be let into heaven without Jesus’ atoning sacrifice? The secret things belong to the Lord; but we shouldn’t ADD to the Word. Moses’ body was also taken into the glory, as it is written, the angel contended for his body and did not bring a railing accusation against the devil Jude 1:9.

Elsewhere, the Apostle Paul speaks of various authorities, among which are 1 Cor 11:3
1 - God, the head of Christ
2 - Christ, the head of man
3 - Man, the head of Christ

I would think that if there were an urgent truth to express about a queen (queens are authority figures), it would’ve been mentioned here, but it was not…

In the end, I understand that the control is God’s - and God moves hearts however He pleases; so, God bless and have mercy on you all - and me.

 

[dan1el]

EDIT - took too long editing…

From the very beginning, false doctrines have been preached, so… Here is a doctrine that dates back a long time, too:

“saying that (D)the resurrection has already taken place, and they upset (E)the faith of some.” 2 T 2:17,18

“As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine…” Eph 4:14

“But examine (test) everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;” 1 Th 5:21

Acts 17:11 has an example of the people in Berea as doing just so:
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

The Apostles THEMSELVES were not taken on their word, but were tested against the everlasting word, which alone will withstand the test of time, and never fade for all eternity Is 40:8. On the contrary, any doctrine the Apostle was attempting to bless them with, they would verify through the Scriptures, with readiness of mind - and they were called noble for being that way.
Has something changed since then? I test everything as hard as I can possibly test it - until the breaking point. I would prefer to be the one to break it - if it can be broken - rather than to be made a fool of for leaning on something that I haven’t even tested to see if it is sturdy enough to hold my weight or not. That is called being careful and humble - is there any other way that we live life…?

Search the compilation of letters - referred to as the “new testament” - and see how many times it says “that the Scripture might be fulfilled” or “it is written”; look at how many times the Apostle Paul quoted the “Old Testament”! The truth in Paul was greater than that of the truth in Peter (who walked with the Lord Himself), who was “beguiled by the serpent” and led into hypocrisy - and with him, many of the flock followed in Galatians 2:13 - only because Paul was intimately acquainted with the written Word of God, which was, and is, the perfect mirror for the spirit within us; it tears apart truth from the spirit from what my soul THINKS is true. (Thank God for correction that comes through the Scriptures!) Thank God for the operation of the grace of the Lord operating in the Body of Christ Ps 133, whereby the hypocrisy of him who SAW the Lord was corrected by one who had not - Paul.

** The Apostle Paul received the entire revelation of Jesus through the Old Testament:**

Basically, Paul says, “The Gospel that I am sharing with you, I was not told about by any man, but it was revealed to me - revealed by Jesus Christ, Himself to me. I spent three years alone, learning from the Spirit of God, then I went and spent 15 days with Peter, but aside from this, I had no support except the Spirit of God and the Scripture.” ** Gal 1:11-23**

Here, he says something that we ought to take special note of about the “sacred writings” (old testament):

“and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to (D)salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Tim 3:15

So, how important are the Old Testament Scriptures to Paul?? Very.
1 - He received the entire revelation of the Gospel through the Holy Spirit’s revealing the “types and shadows” which spoke about Christ (in the old testament).
2 - He says that they are able to give you wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
3 - In every one of his writings, he shows that the foundation for everything he is instructing comes from the “Old Testament”, quoting scripture every time he speaks, showing that his faith rested upon the Spirit-breathed word.
The Scriptures are the Word of God; Jesus is also the Word of God. If you had an intimate knowledge of the Scriptures, you could possibly have an intimate knowledge of Jesus Christ. However, for some, the Scriptures become a stumbling block, as it did for many of those of the circumcision Titus 1:10, and obviously, for people who loved the praise of men (Pharisees, scribes, hypocrites) and therefore hated Christ, because they were envious of how He seemed to steal the praise from them that they loved Mark 12:38; 15:10, not knowing that He did not seek their honor, but only sought to bring honor to His Father John 8:49; Whose praise was not of men, but of God Romans 2:29.

 

[dan1el]

1. Jesus has said: “My words are Spirit” John 6:63
   2a) All Scripture is God-breathed 2 Tim 3:16,17
   2b) Men were moved upon by the Holy Spirit and spoke from God ** 2 Pet 1:21**
2. This means that the Old Testament Scripture is not some terrible burden of a law, but spiritual words which are able to fill you with wisdom which leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

If Paul had so many important things to say, why is neither Mary being a “New Eve”, nor any SINGLE Mariologic doctrine spoken of in the letters NOR in the Old Testament? Never once did a prophet prophesy about any Queen of the Kingdom of the Heavens.
Flesh does not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven 1 Cor 15:50; don’t think you can just take Jesus’ mother and make her the queen in heaven just because it is a Hebrew tradition; God Almighty is both male and female - God gave birth to Himself! He is both Queen and King! One of His names is “many-breasted one” ! He is both male and female, and this is made evident in that man was made in His image, and Adam was born with His wife IN him.
The Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD. He gave birth to the thoughts of His mind when He opened His mouth and spoke. Have you ever heard the expression “This was the brainchild of…” ? That is what we are talking about, here.
You may ask, “How could Mary have sin and give birth to Jesus who had NO SIN?” How did Enoch get into Heaven without dying -and without the substitution for his sins, Jesus? Do you have the answer? What about Elijah? How could he be let into heaven without Jesus’ atoning sacrifice? The secret things belong to the Lord Deut 29:29; but we shouldn’t ADD to the Word Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18.

Paul speaks of various authorities, among which are 1 Cor 11:3
1 - God, the head of Christ
2 - Christ, the head of man
3 - Man, the head of woman
God —> Christ —> Man —> Woman

I would think that if there were an urgent truth to express about a queen (queens are authority figures), it would’ve been mentioned here, but it was not…

In the end, however, I understand that the control is God’s - and God moves hearts however He pleases; so, God bless and have mercy on you all - and me. I just thought I would share my enthusiasm for the Word of our God with you, my brothers and sisters, because it brings joy - and that joy is our strength! ttyl!

 

[NotWorthy]

• Mary, the New Eve is spoken of throughout the Old Testament, beginning with Genesis 3:15.
• Mary, Queen of Heaven is spoken of throughout the Old Testament, in regards to the Gebira (the Mother of the king of Israel being the Queen).
• Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant is spoken of throughout the Old and the New Testament (See the link between 2nd Samuel 6 and Luke 2).

I (or numerous of my brothers) can go into further detail should anyone wish. But we’ve already demonstrated that the Church has taught this from her very roots.

You Il-logic stems from the fact that you think the Scriptures record all that Jesus taught and all that St. Paul taught. Sacred Tradition leads us further down the road than the obstacles you’ve placed on the highway to faith.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Never once did a prophet prophesy about any Queen of the Kingdom of the Heavens.

Psalm 45:7-10 says:Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows; your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia. From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad; daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.The inspired author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:7-8) applies the above verses 7-8 to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Verse 10 mentions the queen at his right hand. According to Jewish custom, beginning with Solomon (1 Kings 2:19), the queen at the king’s right hand is the king’s mother, not the king’s bride.

Such a position of honor as queen in the Kingdom of her divine Son for the Virgin Mary is fitting, not only because of her physical relationship to her Son but because of her faithfulness. In the parable of the talents, Jesus Christ said, “His master said to him, `Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.” (Matthew 25:14-30) And, to his apostles Jesus said, "You are those who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28-30) The Virgin Mary, by her obedience to the word of God, proved a good and faithful servent, not in a small matter but in the most important matter ever asked of a mere creature, to carry her Creator, the incarnate Son of God, in her womb, to suckle Him at her breasts, and otherwise “mother” him, attend to His human needs from His conception until He reached adulthood. Next to Jesus Christ, no one was more responsible for the salvation He gained for mankind than the woman who brought Him into the world. It is fitting that the Virgin Mary should be given queenship of her son’s kingdom, second in honor only to him.

 

[eric_sammons]

If I’m not mistaken, St. Ireneaus was about 30 years too late to have this title. I think St. Justin Martyr is the oldest known writer on this topic.

Thank you for the correction! When I wrote that, something in the back of my mind told me I should confirm, but then I posted anyway.

 

[cfrancis]

Why mention that? If Paul had so many important things to say, why is neither Mary being a “New Eve”, nor any SINGLE Mariologic doctrine spoken of in the letters NOR in the Old Testament? Never once did a prophet prophesy about any Queen of the Kingdom of the Heavens.

Again, following the logic that underpins your position, “If Paul had so many important things to say” why didn’t Paul:

• provide us the canon of Scripture, telling us exactly what books are inspired and to be considered Scripture (this would have prevented much debate and brought us the BIble 300 years sooner)?
• define the doctrine of the Trinity, which would have prevented at least 3 three heresies?

 

[dan1el]

• Mary, the New Eve is spoken of throughout the Old Testament, beginning with Genesis 3:15.QUOTE]

Can two people claim the same title?
Both the Church as the New Eve AND Mary (Miriam)?
Do not sit there and tell me that Mary is the “type” of the church - types and shadows do not come through people but through Scripture. The Son of Perdition, Judas, was fulfillment of Scripture - and it is also written that another Son of Perdition is coming - one who will fall away from the faith and take others with him; therefore, we understand that he was a type of the son of perdition to come. However, as far as the mother of Jesus being a “type”, this is not spoken of - how would that go? “A virgin will give birth to a son” “and just as you have heard, there are those virgins coming who will give birth to sons” not really; the comparison between the son of perdition, Judas, and the son of perdition who is to come, are exact: they betray the Lord and walk away from the faith; comparing how God miraculously created the Lord in the womb of the virgin, Miriam to believers who become pregnant with the word of God and bear fruit by abiding in His word, and “keeping” His commandments (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth Eph 5:9) part of which is mothering and fathering children in the Lord:
“My children, with whom **I am again in labor **until Christ is formed in you–” Gal 4:19
?
Now that I mention that, are you going to still say that it is somehow Mary who is giving birth to all the people in the church? She is not our mother, but it is so very clearly stated that the one giving birth was Zion/New Jerusalem, which Paul was member of Gal 4:26, which predates Mary. New Jerusalem is the Mother of us all. If Mary was truly important in terms of being a type of her, it would’ve been mentioned somewhere. If she was truly as venerated by the Apostle Paul, you could be absolutely certain that he would’ve gone into it - he took rabbit trails everytime he opened his pen!!
It would’ve read like this:
“But Jerusalem which is above is free, and mother of us all - of the which you know that our divine mother, the queen of the kingdom of the Heavens, who stands at the right hand of her Son, our Lord, stands as a type and shadow of all those who would be bring sons into the Kingdom of the Heavens”. If she was really venerated, as she is at this present day in the catholic church, she would’ve been mentioned somewhere in those writings, don’t you think? You mention her at every opening prayer; if she was truly venerated like she is today, don’t you think her name would’ve been used once or twice in all those very important letters (Epistle means very important letter) ??

As far as the woman in Rev 12, it is obviously New Jerusalem, the mother of us all. Gal 4:26 If Scripture does not interpret Scripture, anywhere you go in the world, the symbols mean something different, so people could have a “private interpretation”, but they are not open to being privately interpreted - they must be interpreted in the light of Scripture - “in Your light we see Light” I could go into further detail on the woman in revelation, who is obviously New Jerusalem. She has a crown of 12 stars, the 12 “stars” being 12 sons of God, angels, standing guard at her “gates” Rev 21:9-12

"9(A)Then one of the seven angels who had the (B)seven bowls full of the (C)seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, “(D)Come here, I will show you the (E)bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

10And (F)he carried me away ain the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me (H)the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
11having (I)the glory of God Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a (J)stone of (K)crystal-clear jasper.

12It had a great and high wall, (L)with twelve (M)gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel."

The bride = the holy city, New Jerusalem. Remember that Jesus says that we are in Him, and He in us.
Nowhere is Miriam mentioned, because she is one of the many members of the collective Body of Christ.

As far as the queen standing on the right hand of the king, etc., I will study that, because that is something I have not studied up until this point.

 

[dan1el]

Again, following the logic that underpins your position, “If Paul had so many important things to say” why didn’t Paul:

• provide us the canon of Scripture, telling us exactly what books are inspired and to be considered Scripture (this would have prevented much debate and brought us the BIble 300 years sooner)?
• define the doctrine of the Trinity, which would have prevented at least 3 three heresies?

Who is to say what should be canonized? I have seen recently on EWTN that a woman was canonized, a woman who penned “know that doctors can go where priests cannot go” or something to that effect, saying that these people have a duty which a priest cannot fulfill… excuse me!? I thought that it said “go preach the gospel, lay hands on the sick, and they will recover!” if you do not have healings, what exactly are you preaching??? So, you can “canonize” what ever you want. It’s funny how a quote from the book of Enoch made it into the canon in the book of James, but the book itself did not.
What is truly important is simply that we have the old testament - that is plenty of canon right there. Paul and Peter tell us to read those writings and Jesus tells us that they are spirit and life, and they sanctify us. “sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth” John 17:17. The problem comes when men desire to make a name stand, rather than depend on the Lord’s power, which had departed to a great degree by the time men stood up to try to physically FORCE the church together by letters and physical documents, rather than by being dependent on the Lord’s grace. Paul told us what to read: the old testament, “which is able to make you wise unto salvation”.

The doctrine of a “trinity” is NOT important. I can read the Scripture and see that there is a Father, who gives His Son, and that the Son said He would send the Helper, the Spirit of Truth, and that this Person was the Administrator in the Church Acts 15:28. I do not need a title “trinity”. The essence is more important than the word “trinity”. It exists as truth with or without it.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thank you for the correction! When I wrote that, something in the back of my mind told me I should confirm, but then I posted anyway.

No, no problem. It just shows the consistency in Mother Church’s teachings!!!

I love consistency!

 

[NotWorthy]

Can two people claim the same title?
Both the Church as the New Eve AND Mary (Miriam)?

Well, of course. When the Church is a type of Mary (or is it the other day around?), then the Church and Mary being the New Eve is entirely consistent with Catholic Doctrine.

Do not sit there and tell me that Mary is the “type” of the church - types and shadows do not come through people but through Scripture.

What? Moses wasn’t a type of Jesus? Joshua? Elisha? Mary, through Scripture is the type you mention.

The Son of Perdition, Judas, was fulfillment of Scripture - and it is also written that another Son of Perdition is coming - one who will fall away from the faith and take others with him; therefore, we understand that he was a type of the son of perdition to come.
“My children, with whom **I am again in labor **until Christ is formed in you–” Gal 4:19
?

Ummmmm, you’ve totally loss me on this. Are we still discussing the same topic?

Now that I mention that, are you going to still say that it is somehow Mary who is giving birth to all the people in the church? She is not our mother, but it is so very clearly stated that the one giving birth was Zion/New Jerusalem, which Paul was member of Gal 4:26, which predates Mary. New Jerusalem is the Mother of us all. If Mary was truly important in terms of being a type of her, it would’ve been mentioned somewhere. If she was truly as venerated by the Apostle Paul, you could be absolutely certain that he would’ve gone into it - he took rabbit trails everytime he opened his pen!!
It would’ve read like this:

Wow, you could re-write all of Scripture if it suits you. You’re simply looking for verses - Sola Verse-ura so to speak - and you’re missing the forest for these trees, my friend. I think that Paul dealt with people in danger of falling away. So many of his Epistles deal with:
a) Churches that turn away from his teaching, often falling back to Judaism.
b) How to build the new Church (Timothy, Titus, etc.)

The Church was still dealing with so many of these issues, that I can’t tell you that they had much concerns over the Communion of Saints, so to speak. You must crawl before you can walk.

As far as the woman in Rev 12, it is obviously New Jerusalem, the mother of us all. Gal 4:26 If Scripture does not interpret Scripture, anywhere you go in the world, the symbols mean something different, so people could have a “private interpretation”, but they are not open to being privately interpreted - they must be interpreted in the light of Scripture - “in Your light we see Light” I could go into further detail on the woman in revelation, who is obviously New Jerusalem. She has a crown of 12 stars, the 12 “stars” being 12 sons of God, angels, standing guard at her “gates” Rev 21:9-12

Please don’t patronize me with your infallible interpretations, all the while saying the Church can’t be infallible. The Woman gave birth to a Child, who is Jesus. There’s no “obviously this is Jerusalem” interpretation here, unless someone has a pre-conceived way of interpreting Scripture, which I’m afraid you are doing. The most obvious and literal interpetation would be that the Woman is Mary. The less obvious is that it could be Jerusalem.

"9(A)Then one of the seven angels who had the (B)seven bowls full of the (C)seven last plagues came and spoke with me, saying, “(D)Come here, I will show you the (E)bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

10And (F)he carried me away ain the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me (H)the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,
11having (I)the glory of God Her brilliance was like a very costly stone, as a (J)stone of (K)crystal-clear jasper.

12It had a great and high wall, (L)with twelve (M)gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel."

The bride = the holy city, New Jerusalem. Remember that Jesus says that we are in Him, and He in us.
Nowhere is Miriam mentioned, because she is one of the many members of the collective Body of Christ.

As far as the queen standing on the right hand of the king, etc., I will study that, because that is something I have not studied up until this point.

I think you will find that the New Jerusalem is the Catholic Church, and Mary is the Mother of that Church.