The assumption of Mary

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

Others here claim the bodily assumption of Mary should be believed because it’s tradition and Paul taught traditions were to be held to (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Tim. 2:15). But Paul, in context, was referring to what he orally taught them concerning Christ and the faith while in their presence on his previous missionary journeys. This in no way gives credence to a doctrine developed by men born long after its claimed event. A dubious occurrence which has absolutely no eyewitnesses, no historical backing, and no Apostolic support. This is totally incongruent with the nature of the true Christian faith which is based on historical facts.

There is nothing in the context of these two letters that limit the teachings of Paul to what was eventually written.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

No, according to the silence and teachings of Scripture, Mary is not in heaven. She, like all who have since died in Christ, is waiting the “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5-6;1 Cor. 15:22-23). At that time Mary will be bodily resurrected and will receive her reward along with the rest of us who have believed and eagerly wait Christ’s return. Mary was an obedient vessel that the Son might be born into this world as a Man (the God-Man, Jesus Christ), to be a [substituting] sacrifice for man’s sins. Scripture takes her no further, nor should we (Gal. 5:9).

I’m perplexed by this statement. Does Kinsman believe in soul sleep? His misunderstanding of Scripture is no doubt caused by his unproven assertion that Scripture is the only authority for doctrine (“sufficient” as he put it) and that private interpretation is sanctioned by Scripture (i.e. the doctrine of Sola Scriptura). Without guidance from the Church and Tradition, Kinsman cannot properly interpret the passages which pertain to Mary. It isn’t only in regards to Mary, but other doctrines are also skewed due to the twisting of Scripture.

From the Fathers, we know that Scripture is not silent about Mary. Her prerogatives and status is known through the types of the OT that prefigured her. Protestants are ambivalent about using such interpretations to establish teaching unless of course it’s convenient. The fear is that anyone can come up with any given doctrine and defend it using typology. However, this need not be the case. For our safeguard is with the Fathers and their implied and expressed interpretations of Scripture.

Both Isaiah and Ezekiel speak of the kings of Babylon and Tyre and their impending judgment (Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-17, respectively). Yet Protestants seem to have no problems applying these verses to Satan and his fall even though strict exegesis does not sustain such interpretation.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

The reason she is called blessed amongst women is because only ONE woman born of Adam could ever become the chosen vessel for the Divine to enter humanity. For this reason she is called “highly favored,” the meaning of “full of grace” (grace means "favor). Bottom line, Scripture does not give her honor beyond the highly unique “favor” of being this chosen vessel. The desire of every orthodox, Jewish woman up to the time of His birth. That’s no small honor, but that honor is restricted.

Yes, Catholics do not worship Mary. God alone is worshipped and adored. Mary is held in the highest honor possible known as hyperdulia. Catholics do prefer the phrase “full of grace.” In this instance (Luke 1:28), “favor” would only be describing God’s disposition towards Mary. “Grace” on the other hand, would suggest an action on God’s part. Indeed, the passage reveals that God performed an action in Mary by conceiving the Savior. Hence, “full of grace” is a correct translation.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

As to some Scriptures that could be interpreted as meaning or hinting to her bodily assumption, sorry, there just are none. One would have to read that fully developed doctrine into a passage (which is called eisegesis), but one could not get that doctrine from that passage (exegesis). Many Catholics view the woman in Rev. 12 as referring to Mary in her exalted, heavenly position. But it’s the “sign” that appears in heaven, not the woman. It’s actually the “male child” she gives birth to that is “caught up to God and to His throne,” while the woman flees to the wilderness to escape persecution by the “dragon” (on earth) for 1260 days (a prophetic sign). Obviously no reference to Mary. Based on the description and context the woman is more likely national Israel (Mary being an Israelite through whom the Messiah was born).

Although the Woman is described as a “sign,” she is a concrete person. We know this because the devil is also called a “sign” but Scripture testifies to his personhood. More importantly there is no reason to separate the sign from the Woman. The sign is the Woman. Notice that both “signs” are in “heaven.” Then we are told that the second sign which is Satan is thrown down from heaven. This strongly argues that the Woman is in heaven like the serpent of old was at one time. The glorious Woman does not seem to be compatible with how John describes national Israel in other parts of Revelation (see 2:9). For some good explanations to the whole chapter of Revelation 12 and the meaning of the fleeing into the desert see:

cathinsight.com/apologetics/womanrev12.htm (caution-I can’t endorse everything on this site)

matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html

geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/wclosun.htm

envoymagazine.com/backissues/article.asp?ID=150

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

The doctrine is virtually unknown in the early church. The story is first found in some apocryphal writings of the late 4th cen. having titles as “The Passing of Mary,” The Obsequies of Mary, and “The Book of the Passing of the Blessed Virgin.” These writings were condemned as spurious in the decretals attributed to Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century (Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, pp. 59, 162). Gregory of Tours (d. 594) was the first orthodox writer to accept the writing as authentic.

and

Kinsman:

All of your quotes directly about the Assumption are from the 6th cen. and beyond. That’s not the “early” church. You acually make my point.

I’m sure it would not matter to Kinsman that the beliefs in Mary as the New Eve, baptismal regeneration, and the Eucharist as understood in Catholicism were all the dominating view of the early Church as even Protestant Patristic Scholars will admit. The Fathers were unanimous on these subjects. Early development is not the determining factor for Kinsman’s interpretation of Scriptural texts in these instances, thus his argument in this regards is pointless.

It will not surprise anyone that the Jews highly disputed the Christian interpretations of Old Testament verses that dealt with the Messiah. They charged us Christians with inventing interpretations and allegorizing Scripture to accommodate our beliefs. Truth be told, even though the Jews were the chosen people of God, they did not fully grasp some of the teachings of the Old Testament. It wasn’t until Christianity came along centuries later that some of the OT meanings were for the first time unlocked by the Holy Spirit. Now it didn’t mean that these meanings weren’t part of the original text. They were always part of the original Old Testament deposit of faith regardless if the interpretations were only understood hundreds of years later. These texts are still disputed between Jews and Christians to this day.

continued. . .

 

[Mathetes007]

Some of these interpretations were put forth for the first time by Christ. For example, when dealing with a question of the afterlife, Jesus responds to His challengers that they know not the Scriptures nor the power of God and offers a new and enlightening interpretation of the words “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (see Matthew 22:29-33 with Exodus 3:6 one of the oldest books of the Old Testament). Clearly no one can charge Jesus, being God, with eisegesis or with inventing a meaning that was not there. Such is the case with Revelation 12. It matters not if the first Marian interpretation of this passage seems to explicitly appear in the third or fourth century (such as in Epiphanius and the History of Joseph the Carpenter). Oddly enough, some of the Fathers that wrote that the Woman of Revelation was the Church also viewed Mary as a prototype and icon of the Church in some of their other writings. Hence, we would not be able to exclude the possibility that they held Mary as the Woman in some sense even though they did not explicitly state it.

For example, Methodius relates that the Woman of Revelation 12:1 is the Church (Concerning Chastity, Discourse VIII, 5). In this discourse, Methodius speaks of the Church as the Temple of God, Jerusalem, Zion, and a Virgin Mother citing Isaiah 66:7-8 (ibid, 5 and 7). However, in another work, Methodius applies these very titles and passage to the Virgin Mother of God (Oration concerning Simeon and Anna, III-IX). There is also Hipploytus of Rome who believed that the Woman was the Church (ANF, Extant Works and Fragments, 61). Yet we see that Hippolytus is one of the earliest writers that equates Mary with the Ark of the Covent (Fragment of St. Hippolytus, quoted by Theodoret, Dialogue I). And the Ark of the Covenant is linked with the Woman of Revelation (Revelation 11:19).

It was a common teaching among the Fathers that Mary represented the Church (for a small sampling see Ambrose [Exposition on Luke 2, 7; Concerning Virgins, Book I, 5, 19-22], Clement of Alexandria [Paedagogus 1, 6], Ephrem [Sermon on the Ressurection 1:534; Hymns on the Crucifixion 4, 17; Diatessaron 12, 5; Hymns on the Unleavened Bread 6, 6-7], and Epiphanius of Salamis [Panarion 78, 19]).

Additionally, we know that Scripture can contain multiple fulfillments and interpretations of any given passage (i.e. Psalm 2:7 was fulfilled at the Incarnation [Hebrews 1:5, 6], at the Sacrifice when Jesus became the high Priest [Hebrews 5:1-10], and at the Resurrection [Acts 13:33]).

 

[jimmy]

She is full of Grace because God filled her with Grace. That is the only way that you can gain grace. To be full of grace means you follow God in every way. There is no other place in the bible where it says that someone is full of grace. Grace persuades you to follow God.can reject it but if you are full of grace you will not reject it.

Jesus did not give us a book. The catholic church gave us a book in about the year 400AD. There is nowhere in the bible that says anything about him giving us a book.

There is also reason why Mary is not mentioned much in the bible. That is becauseit isn’t about her. The whole focus of the new testament is on Jesus. There is no place where it focus’ on another person. It may mention how the apostles taught.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

The doctrine of the “Assumption” is totally extrabiblical. The problem here is that in order for one to become a Roman Catholic he must believe that doctrine. A nonbiblical event which has no eyewitness account, no historical validity, and no Apostolic support. He is required to believe the words of men not even born at the time that event was suppose to have occured. Like I said, what makes the Christian faith completely unique is that it is based on historical facts and the Word of God Almighty.

Yes, in order to become and remain a Catholic one must assent to the dogma of the Assumption. In fact, a Catholic must assent to every defined dogma of the Faith. The reason is rooted in the ministry of the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-17, 25, 26; 16:7-15) to reveal all truth unto the Church. As Paul notes, “now if the dispensation of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such splendor that the Israelites could not look at Moses’ face because of its brightness, fading as this was, will not the dispensation of the Spirit be attended with greater splendor? For if there was splendor in the dispensation of condemnation, the dispensation of righteousness must far exceed it in splendor. Indeed, in this case, what once had splendor has come to have no splendor at all, because of the splendor that surpasses it. For if what faded away came with splendor, what is permanent must have much more splendor. Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not see the end of the fading splendor. But their minds were hardened; for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains un-lifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds; but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:7-18).

continued. . .

 

[Mathetes007]

It is through the ministry of the Spirit that the veil of the Scriptures is lifted. Part of this ministry involves the charism of infallibility that Peter exercised. Peter was given the power to bind on earth what was already bound in heaven and to loose on earth what was already loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:19). Since it is impossible for heaven to accept a teaching that is a lie (Hebrews 6:18), it follows that God must be protecting any teaching that is bound on earth from error (ergo infallibility). Consequently, it is on the authority of the Holy Spirit that we must accept all infallible dogmas or face the consequences (Isaiah 63:10; Matthew 12:31, 32; Acts 5:3-5; Ephesians 4:29, 30; Hebrews 10:26-31). “Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 4:8). Now if the Old Testament Church had the Urim (light, manifestation, explanation) and the Thummim (perfect or perfection) to determine infallible truth (Exodus 28:30), how much more glorious is this for the New Testament Church? Examples of the ministry of the Spirit can be seen throughout the Book of Acts.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

First of all, I don’t talk about any Pauline “traditions,” I can only talk about what Paul wrote to the churches in his letters. Tell me, what are the oral “traditions” Paul talked about? Were you there? What we have passed down to us is only what was written in holy Writ. But I guarantee that what was orally taught was subsequently written for our benefit (for example, 2 Thess. 2:5).

This is an interesting verse. However, again Paul no where states in his epistles that he taught only what he wrote down. Scripture simply does not place such a restriction and neither should we. In the very next verse which Kinsman cited, Paul reminds the Thessalonians that they know what is holding back the revealing of the Antichrist. Yet Paul does not go on to say what it is. Hence we can conclude that Paul indeed taught the Thessalonians more than what is contained in his letter to them.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

The Bible was not “created” in the 4th century. The Old Testament had been around for centuries. Christ Himself quoted from it, as did Peter, Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers. The whole N.T. was written within the first century and all the so-called “church fathers” quoted liberally from those writings. Even Peter himself fully understood that the letters of Paul were in fact Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). When Eusebius was ordered by Constantine to put together 50 Bibles for the churches of Constantinople, the books that constituted his New Testament were exactly the 27 Books we have now. The churches in the Roman Empire, collectively, understood which writings were divinely inspired. And the Council of Carthage in 397 a.d. simply ratified what was already a unanimous judgment by those churches.

You forgot to mention that these early Christians unanimously accepted the longer canon of the Old Testament as well, exactly as the Catholic Church has it today.

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

Your claim that the Church Christ formed was “church centered” from the beginning is more rooted in propaganda than fact. Christ Himself proves your theory wrong: “And beginning with Moses and all the prophets he explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Lk. 24:27; cf. vs. 32) “Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Lk. 24:45). And all the New Testament writers quoted freely from the Old Testament prophets to back up their message. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 twice repeats the phrase, “according to the Scriptures.”

No my friend, like Timothy (3:15-16), the church from its infancy was nurtured on the sacred writings, and encouraged by Peter himself “to long for the pure milk of the Word that by it you may grow in respect to salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2). The introduction of extrabiblical doctrines that came later (like the Marian doctrines) are what caused the Church to veer off course and cause confusion regarding salvation and our eternal inheritance through Christ alone. This is the “leaven” Paul warned about (Gal. 5:9).

Your quotes do not substantiate your claim. No one was stating that the Church did not use or quote or receive God inspired knowledge from the Scriptures. Even the passage which most non-Catholics use to demonstrate Sola Scriptura asserts otherwise (2 Timothy 3:16). Notice also that the very passages you selected (Luke 24) demonstrated that Christ was revealing to the disciples everything concerning Himself in the OT. Yet we have no in-depth exposition from any of the apostles concerning Christ in the OT only passing references. Please tell us beginning from Genesis to Zechariah everything that related to Christ since you claim everything that was taught was written down.

continued. . .

 

[Mathetes007]

As we saw earlier, Jesus made frequent use of types to establish doctrine. Paul seems to be doing the same in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4. We must note that the epistles to the Corinthians predate the writing of the four Gospels. Therefore, when Paul says “according to the Scriptures” he is referring to the Old Testament. Paul states that Jesus was buried and was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. Yet we know that there is no OT passage that directly refers to this. The only reference we have is by viewing Jonah as a type of Jesus (Jonah 1:17; Matthew 12:39, 40). This goes to show that Paul, in accordance with the Scriptures, endorses the use of typology to reveal truth. Although it can be found only through typology, it does not lesson its significance. Notice that Paul precedes his comments by stating that this teaching is of “first importance” (1 Corinthians 15:3). Paul’s assistant, Luke (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24), follows Paul’s lead and teaches that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant in his Gospel using typology (compare Luke 1:39-56 with 2 Samuel 6:8-11).

 

[Mathetes007]

Kinsman:

You keep missing the point. The Trinity IS explicitly taught in the Bible. That’s how we get the doctrine of the Trinity. It’s not a “tradition” or an extrabiblical idea formed in the minds of men centuries later. In the Bible the Father is presented as God, the Son is presented as God, and the Holy Spirity is presented as God. The Bible teaches three distinct Persons, but only one God. The “word” Trinity is not used in the Bible but it is explicitly taught.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in Scripture. It is deduced (therefore implicit) by taking information from various verses and combining them to get the bigger picture. As Kinsman noted, yet contradicted himself, the Bible presents the Father as God, the Son as God, and the Spirit is equated as God. Then we are also taught that the persons are distinct. Additionally, the Scriptures speak of only one God. From this data, we logically deduce the belief in the Trinity. For there are no passages in Scripture, that state “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons in one God.” This would indeed be explicit teaching.

The word “Trinity” was used first in Latin by Tertullian, a writer of the second and third century that lapsed into a heresy known as Montanism. Kinsman claims that the Assumption began with apocryphal tales and thus should be rejected on that account. Yet oddly enough, the word “Trinity” originated in the works of a heretic but it doesn’t stop Kinsman from accepting it. The Council of Rome, from which we get the Gelasian Decree, rejected the writings of Tertullian as well as the apocryphal Passing of Mary. Hence we can infer that the Church rejected the errors in these writings but acknowledged that some truth existed in both.

 

[hlgomez]

Kinsman wrote;
Now put your thinking cap on. According to Roman doctrine Mary was free from original sin, nor did she sin during her earthly life. And since death is an immediate consequence of sin (Rom. 5:12), she herself would not have been subject to physical death.

Your whole idea is just as corrupted as what you are thinking about Mary the Mother of God. In your assumption above, would you think that since Jesus died on the cross he has sinned because he died??? You’re contradicting yourself with your blasphemous assumptions! May God forgive you.

Our blessed Mother Mary was free from sin, with all the graces God has bestowed upon her. Remember the words of Archangel Gabriel?–“Hail, full of grace, the LORD is with you.”
In you human capacity to understand this, would you think that God the Son will allow Himself to be touched by Satan at the moment of His conception in the womb of the Blessed Mother? This is unthinkable for Protestants to believe this! For if Mary was with sin, she was already touched by Satan. Would you think God will allow this?
If you are not able to understand this, pray to God for enlightenment. I’m praying for you. Remember, You are attacking the very Mother of our Saviour whom you claim to be your God. Would you disrespect your God’s mother in this way? May He not hold this against you on Judgement Day.

God Bless you,

Pio

 

[Kinsman]

jimmy:

Jesus did not give us a book. The catholic church gave us a book in about the year 400AD. There is nowhere in the bible that says anything about him giving us a book.

Whoever said “Jesus” authored the Bible? “All Scripture is inspired BY THE HOLY SPIRIT…” (2 Tim. 3:16).

There is also reason why Mary is not mentioned much in the bible. That is becauseit isn’t about her. The whole focus of the new testament is on Jesus. There is no place where it focus’ on another person. It may mention how the apostles taught.

Yes, ABSOLUTELY!!! The N.T. is all about Jesus! In fact, the O.T. is the anticipation of Him; the Gospel accounts are the manifestation of Him; the Book of Acts is the propagation of Him; the Epistles are the explanation of Him; the Book of Revelation is the consummation of Him. Yes…It’s ALL ABOUT HIM. Hence, upon Him, and HIM alone, are we called to place our faith. Faith in Him (His Person and work on our behalf) constitutes personal salvation (Jn. 6:29).

Now, you go through all that writing to reiterate Romanist doctrine on Mary, yet, you still haven’t provided any historical account(s) of those who eyewitnessed her Assumption. You still have not provided any proof to back up this 4th Cen. story. Contrast that with the N.T. which is loaded with eyewitness accounts of Christ’s bodily resurrection and ascension back into Heaven. On this we may confidently set our faith.

When I said Mary is not in Heaven, I obviously meant she is not bodily in Heaven, as Romanism asserts, i.e., her so-called bodily Assumption. In fact, Romanism can’t even decide how she got there: after death or translated apart from death. Now isn’t that amazing, they positively tell you that they know she’s there, and have predicated all sorts of power to her, but they don’t exactly know how.

No, based on lack of any proof, Mary is not bodily in Heaven, but like all the saints (true believers), she awaits the future, resurrection of her body. When her soul and spirit (which is now in Heaven with Christ) will be reunited with her then resurrected, glorified body (Rom. 8:18-23). As will be the case for all true believers in Christ.

Fourth century stories and religious dogmas don’t prove her Assumption. I’m still waiting for someone here to provide that.

I’ll be back later to check in if anyone can provide the historical proof.

 

[1962Missal]

Kinsman:

Fourth century stories and religious dogmas don’t prove her Assumption. I’m still waiting for someone here to do that.

I’ll be back later to check in if anyone can provide the historical proof.

Kinsman, the point of apologetics is not to prove the faith beyond ANY doubt, however skeptical the doubter. It is to show that the faith is reasonable. Now, you are not here for any other reason than to bash the Catholic faith-- unless it is to “save” us all from “Romanism”. I am content that we have done all that is required of us.

Unless you can show me in the Bible where we have to keep answering the questions of an obdurate heretic.

Justin

 

[jimmy]

kinsman

Lack of proof is not a proof that something is not true. That is the most absurd statement I have heard in a long time.

If you go home and there is a broken window and all of your stuff is missing, you would probably come to the conclusion that somone broke into your house and stole your stuff. You would not say, “since I did not see anyone and no one else did then it did not happen.”

Have you provided any proof that it did not exist?
If not then you must surrender to the traditition of the story unless you can somehow prove to yourself that tradition is wrong also.

 

[praisehim]

No where in the Bible does it talk about the assumtion of Mary… so therefore it is not true. The Bible is the ultamate source of information that we need.

Mary was not sinless as Romans 3:23 states that ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. It doesn’t say except Mary.

Yes, Mary was blessed among women. She gave birth to the KING of kings! I’m sure the Bible would have spoken of the assumtion of Mary had it happened.

Jesus Christ was the ONLY sinless person born!
(Heb 4:15: For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.)

The Bible does not talk of Mary being assumed into heaven in ANY way. Please, if there is information of this in the Bible please show me. I have read through it and have found no information on that.

---

Religion is man’s attempt to reach God, while Christianity is God’s attempt to reach man.

 

[jimmy]

Romans 3 23 does not say except Jesus either, so would you assume that Jesus sinned?

As I said earlier, lack of proof for the assumption is not proof against the assumption. That kind of thinking defies logic.
Besides the bible even says that it does not contain everything and that the church is the “pillar and ground of truth” in 1Tim3;15.

In Luke 1 when the angel tells her that she will bear Jesus in her womb he says, “Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord ‘is’ with thee.” No angel would hail a regular human because the angels are created higher than humans.

compare these two verses;
“And I WILL PUT ENMITY BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN(Note: This is singular, meaning* one and only one special woman*, Mary), and BETWEEN YOUR OFFSPRING AND HERS(I.E. Christ); IT (THE SEED) SHALL BRUISE THY (SATAN) head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

"And the GOD OF PEACE SHALL BRUISE SATAN…: (Romans 16:20)

Moses tell us THE SEED shall bruise Satan. St Paul tell us IT IS GOD (CHRIST ) who shall BRUISE SATAN, Therefor the seed HAD to be Christ (God) and the woman his Mother. Hence the prophecy promises a singular woman(Our Blessed Lady) who will be the enemy of the serpent to a marked degree. If Mary were a fallen creature who had sinned or was under the influence of original sin how could she be the enemy of the devil?

“Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.”(John viii. 34)

“For, speaking proud words of vanity, they allure by the desires of fleshly riotousness, those who for a little while escape, such as converse in error: Promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave.” (2 Peter ii.18-19)

“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8)
Obviously, she could not. Therefore in order for there to be true enmity between the Mary and the evil one the woman must be free from all bounds of his control. This Scripture goes on to tells us this is THE SAME ENMITY that will be between Satins offspring and Mary’s offspring *Christ *(God) who was without argument sinless.