Not all the Church Fathers said Mary was sinless

MrMoe said:

You're making an assumption that God's heavenly kingdom works the same as a an earthly kingdom. Like you said, 'Old Testament Jewish culture'. The heavenly kingdom will include many gentiles.
The bible tells us we will rule as kings and priest also Jesus says in Matthew 12:50 that he has many mothers. So if Jesus has many mothers then there will be many queens, not just one.



This is a non sequitur. Because Jesus is called the new Adam it does not follow that there has to be a new Eve too. Neither Jesus or any of the New Testament writers ever talk about a "New Eve". The Eve to the first Adam was his wife not his mother, so if you want to be consistent with your parallels then the wife of Jesus would be his bride the church not Mary.

Also you're appealing to authority, which is another logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Click to expand...

How can you appeal to the authority of the Scriptures--the Canon of which comes from Catholic Authority--and then argue that one can't appeal to authority?

The Bible says to "hold fast to the tradtions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15)

The documentation of the oral tradition that Mary is the New Eve is already there in the 100s in St. Justin and St. Irenaeus.

patricius79 said:

How can you appeal to the authority of the Scriptures--the Canon of which comes from Catholic Authority--and then argue that one can't appeal to authority?

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand what Appeal to authority (or argument from authority) actually is.

Here are two examples:

1. Person A is an authority on a particular topic
2. Person A says something about that topic
3. Person A is probably correct

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

The topic/subject here being Mary and person A being the church father(s).
I'm sure both of us agree that the scriptures are inspired and infallibly true, that Mary was a real person and that everything written about her in the bible actually happened, otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

As you have been shown not all the CF's agreed with each other and did not say their claims were infallibly true.

The Wikipedia page says:
" ..authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts."

I see Catholics constantly quote the CF's (even Martin Luther when it suits their argument) as if this proves they are right when in fact they could both be wrong.

People will often use the ATA when they have a weak argument and want their position to appear stronger. In the end all it proves is that someone else agrees with you.

The Bible says to "hold fast to the tradtions, just as they were handed on, whether orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15)

The documentation of the oral tradition that Mary is the New Eve is already there in the 100s in St. Justin and St. Irenaeus.

Click to expand...

The author would have been talking about the traditions that were already present at his time, like the Sabbath and Passover, both which have traceable Godly origins.
These two beliefs about Mary however could have been started by anyone.

I showed you that your explanations for Mary being queen of heaven and the new Eve have logical flaws. I think this is evidence for these two beliefs about Mary just being bad eisegesis.

MrMoe said:

I think you misunderstand what Appeal to authority (or argument from authority) actually is.

Here are two examples:

1. Person A is an authority on a particular topic
2. Person A says something about that topic
3. Person A is probably correct

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

The topic/subject here being Mary and person A being the church father(s).
I'm sure both of us agree that the scriptures are inspired and infallibly true, that Mary was a real person and that everything written about her in the bible actually happened, otherwise we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

As you have been shown not all the CF's agreed with each other and did not say their claims were infallibly true.

The Wikipedia page says:
" ..authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts."

I see Catholics constantly quote the CF's (even Martin Luther when it suits their argument) as if this proves they are right when in fact they could both be wrong.

People will often use the ATA when they have a weak argument and want their position to appear stronger. In the end all it proves is that someone else agrees with you.



The author would have been talking about the traditions that were already present at his time, like the Sabbath and Passover, both which have traceable Godly origins.
These two beliefs about Mary however could have been started by anyone.

I showed you that your explanations for Mary being queen of heaven and the new Eve have logical flaws. I think this is evidence for these two beliefs about Mary just being bad eisegesis.

Click to expand...

Well, for example, I could say "Augustine said Mary sinless, so she was sinless".

But I'm not making that claim. The fact that Augustine--and Ambrose, Ephrem, etc--said Mary is sinless only suggests that this may be the case.

But the real standard has three parts: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, which cannot be separated.

When Protestants appeal to Scripture, they have a problem, since we know which books are in the Bible through the Catholic Tradition and Magisteriu, which holds that Mary is siness.

They also have another problem, in that they are appealing to their own authority, because they are appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture, which could be wrong.

patricius79 said:

Well, for example, I could say "Augustine said Mary sinless, so she was sinless".

But I'm not making that claim. The fact that Augustine--and Ambrose, Ephrem, etc--said Mary is sinless only suggests that this may be the case.

But the real standard has three parts: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, which cannot be separated.

When Protestants appeal to Scripture, they have a problem, since we know which books are in the Bible through the Catholic Tradition and Magisteriu, which holds that Mary is siness.

They also have another problem, in that they are appealing to their own authority, because they are appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture, which could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Indeed, any human interpretation of scripture could be erroneous. To elevate certain individuals into a position of infallible interpretation is, at best, a great leap of faith, and, at worst, a recipe for disaster.

bbbbbbb said:

Indeed, any human interpretation of scripture could be erroneous. To elevate certain individuals into a position of infallible interpretation is, at best, a great leap of faith, and, at worst, a recipe for disaster.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Bible says that.

There must be an infallible authority in the Church with the ability to settle doctrine, since the Church and Christ (the Truth) are united.

The Church has always believed that Mary is the New Eve, in that she believed the angel and concieved God, where Eve believed the Devil and conceived death. And great Christian Bishops like Augustine and Athanasius and Ambrose have testified to Mary's sinlessness; and more importantly the Vicar of Christ has confirmed dogmaticaly that Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

patricius79 said:

I don't think the Bible says that.

There must be an infallible authority in the Church with the ability to settle doctrine, since the Church and Christ (the Truth) are united.

The Church has always believed that Mary is the New Eve, in that she believed the angel and concieved God, where Eve believed the Devil and conceived death. And great Christian Bishops like Augustine and Athanasius and Ambrose have testified to Mary's sinlessness; and more importantly the Vicar of Christ has confirmed dogmaticaly that Mary was Immaculately Conceived.

Click to expand...

I always enjoy reading "The Church has always believed that . . ." because I know that what follows will be some dogmatic statement that can be easily shown not to have "always" been believed by "the Church." In this particular case I think you will be very hard pressed to find much in the way of proof that anyone in "the Church" stated that Mary is the New Eve until centuries after the apostolic era. Other, later, theologians have woven together a theology to support this notion, but none of the ECF's categorically stated "Mary is the New Eve." If I am wrong, please provide direct references with this statement.

Thank you.

patricius79 said:

Well, for example, I could say "Augustine said Mary sinless, so she was sinless".

But I'm not making that claim. The fact that Augustine--and Ambrose, Ephrem, etc--said Mary is sinless only suggests that this may be the case.

Click to expand...

You just demonstrated the my first example of ATA.

Person A is an authority on a particular topic
Person A says something about that topic
Person A is probably correct

I could use the same argument. For example, I could say " The fact that John Chrysostom said Mary was a sinner only suggests that this may be the case''

I think you have conformation bias.

But the real standard has three parts: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, which cannot be separated.

Click to expand...

They can be (and should be) separated if they are the traditions of men, Mark 7:8.
For example, Catholics believe in the assumption of Mary. They believe that Mary never saw death and was assumed bodily in heaven. The Eastern Orthodox church believes in the Dormition of Mary. They believe that Mary died then was bodily resurrected and taken up into heaven. Both claim tradition.
There were Latin Catholics saying that Eastern Catholics were not real Catholics for having different beliefs about the Assumption of Mary and Eastern Catholics trying to use this difference to show that Latin theology is flawed.

This shows that it's likely these beliefs about Mary were myths that people started to believe as fact including the fallible CF's.
The same thing still happens today. Goldfish have three second memories, bats are blind, sugar makes kids hyper. None of those are true but people believe them because they heard it from someone who seemed like they knew what they were talking about or kept hearing it so it must be true. Just watch shows like Mythbusters and Q.I. to see how many things people believe that are not true.

And the magisterium would be more appealing to authority.

When Protestants appeal to Scripture, they have a problem, since we know which books are in the Bible through the Catholic Tradition and Magisteriu, which holds that Mary is siness.

Click to expand...

The bible does not say Mary was sinless. There are verses that point to her being sinful.

The catholic traditions of Mary are untrustworthy and contradictory. They appear in history many years after the time of Mary and there is no proof the twelve apostles of Jesus ever believed them.

They also have another problem, in that they are appealing to their own authority, because they are appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture, which could be wrong.

Click to expand...

This is not true.
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:5

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 1 Corinthians 2:13

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1 Peter 1:20

Appealing to our own authority would be against scripture.

For Catholics it's seems if you lack wisdom, you should ask of the pope and magisterium.
If the pope says the woman of Revelation is Mary (which is a private interpretation) you have to believe it.
The magisterium says its infallible but the only proof I've seen is them saying they're infallible. They're say they're infallible therefore they're infallible, which sounds like circular reasoning.

You're basically trusting in man and putting faith in them that they have the correct interpretation instead of using critical thinking which the bible tells us to do.

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. Jeremiah 17:5

bbbbbbb said:

I always enjoy reading "The Church has always believed that . . ." because I know that what follows will be some dogmatic statement that can be easily shown not to have "always" been believed by "the Church." In this particular case I think you will be very hard pressed to find much in the way of proof that anyone in "the Church" stated that Mary is the New Eve until centuries after the apostolic era. Other, later, theologians have woven together a theology to support this notion, but none of the ECF's categorically stated "Mary is the New Eve." If I am wrong, please provide direct references with this statement.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all compared Mary to Eve. Justin and Irenaeus are in the 100s. Tertullian in the early 200s. They said that whereas Eve brought death to the world Mary brought life.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

As the New Eve, Mary couldn't have been conceived under Original Sin, since that would make her unlike the New Adam, and since even the first Adam and the first Eve were created in a sinless state.

MrMoe said:

You just demonstrated the my first example of ATA.

Person A is an authority on a particular topic
Person A says something about that topic
Person A is probably correct

Click to expand...

I didn't say Augustine is probably correct just because he says something.

Nor would I accept Protestant interpretations of Scripture--which go beyond Scripture--and claim that Mary sinned.

I especially wouldn't trust them because whereas writings like Irenaeus and Justin in the 100s saw Mary as the New Eve, Protestantism didn't start until the 1500s.

Yes, there were people in the early Church who thought Mary sinned, but they weren't Protestants, and they were wrong.

Chrysostom thought that Mary sinned somewhat, but he also said that Mary is Ever-Virgin and the New Eve.

patricius79 said:

Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all compared Mary to Eve. Justin and Irenaeus are in the 100s. Tertullian in the early 200s. They said that whereas Eve brought death to the world Mary brought life.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-full-of-grace

As the New Eve, Mary couldn't have been conceived under Original Sin, since that would make her unlike the New Adam, and since even the first Adam and the first Eve were created in a sinless state.

Click to expand...

Indeed, these individuals noted certain comparisons between Mary and Eve, but none of them flatly stated that she was the New Eve.

bbbbbbb said:

Indeed, these individuals noted certain comparisons between Mary and Eve, but none of them flatly stated that she was the New Eve.

Click to expand...

Nor does the Bible flatly state Sola Scriptura, or that Mary sinned, or any of the distinctively non-Catholic doctrines.

But how could the Mother of Life not be the New Eve?d

Moreover Justin and Irenaeus are both very clear in the 100s.

Irenaeus writes:

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: “Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey…. having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…. Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.” [Irenaeus Against Heresies]
http://jimmyakin.com/the-key-to-understanding-mary

That seems very clear to me. And the article I link to there by Jimmy Akin is really convincing.

patricius79 said:

Nor does the Bible flatly state Sola Scriptura, or that Mary sinned, or any of the distinctively non-Catholic doctrines.

But how could the Mother of Life not be the New Eve?d

Moreover Justin and Irenaeus are both very clear in the 100s.

Irenaeus writes:

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: “Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey…. having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…. Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.” [Irenaeus Against Heresies]
http://jimmyakin.com/the-key-to-understanding-mary

That seems very clear to me. And the article I link to there by Jimmy Akin is really convincing.

Click to expand...

There are multitudes of analogies that can, and have, been made both by the writers of inspired scripture and by other writers. Many of these analogies are quite plausible, but many border on the bizarre and absurd, even though, at the time, they may have been sincerely held by their proponents. For example, there is the famous Tree of Jesse which was quite popular during the Middle Ages. Aspects of it are, indeed, biblical, but some are not. This depiction of the geneology of Christ is rife with potential analogies.

One can easily, and accurately say that Jesus Christ is the second David (although I am unaware of any who do) and draw analogies between David and Jesus Christ, not the least of which is the monarchial office of both. If one were to take episodes from each life and attempt to draw contrasts and comparisons then one is treading on thin ice, indeed.

Back to Eve. The concept of Mary being the New Eve is closely drawn from Jesus being the second Adam. If one is to be consistent, one might say that even as Eve was created from Adam's rib, so Mary was formed from Jesus. Or, as Eve was the fitting helpmate (and queen) for Adam, so Mary is the fitting helpmate and queen for Jesus.

No, you would be hard pressed to find any ECF who would do more than strike some interesting similarities and contrasts between the two and leave it at that.

bbbbbbb said:

There are multitudes of analogies that can, and have, been made both by the writers of inspired scripture and by other writers. Many of these analogies are quite plausible, but many border on the bizarre and absurd, even though, at the time, they may have been sincerely held by their proponents. For example, there is the famous Tree of Jesse which was quite popular during the Middle Ages. Aspects of it are, indeed, biblical, but some are not. This depiction of the geneology of Christ is rife with potential analogies.

One can easily, and accurately say that Jesus Christ is the second David (although I am unaware of any who do) and draw analogies between David and Jesus Christ, not the least of which is the monarchial office of both. If one were to take episodes from each life and attempt to draw contrasts and comparisons then one is treading on thin ice, indeed.

Back to Eve. The concept of Mary being the New Eve is closely drawn from Jesus being the second Adam. If one is to be consistent, one might say that even as Eve was created from Adam's rib, so Mary was formed from Jesus. Or, as Eve was the fitting helpmate (and queen) for Adam, so Mary is the fitting helpmate and queen for Jesus.

No, you would be hard pressed to find any ECF who would do more than strike some interesting similarities and contrasts between the two and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

They do strike some very compelling similarities and contrasts.

The explicit idea that "Mary is the New Eve" may not be there, but the big seed is there.


[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin.
(Dialogue with Trypho, 100, A.D. 160)
http://www.churchpop.com/2014/09/11/7-church-fathers-mary-new-eve/

As i understand it "Eve" means "mother of the living", yet through her and the first adam we all die.

But Mary, the New Eve, is the Mother of Life itself, by being the mother of the New Adam. In consenting to be the Mother of Life, she becomes the source of life for all humanity.

In St. Irenaeus's words in the 100s, she becomes the "cause of our salvation", but only in dependence on the New Adam, her Divine Son.

The New Adam is not entirely like the first Adam, or David, or Moses, or Elisha, etc. But the typology is there. Likewise Mary is not entirely like Eve, or Rebekah, or Esther, or Jael, etc. But the typology is there.

Likewise with Mary, who is in a sense formed from the Second Adam. Namely, that she was immaculately conceived through the grace of His redemption. In other words, all that the New Eve is comes from the New Adam, our God.

patricius79 said:

I didn't say Augustine is probably correct just because he says something.

Click to expand...

I said "says something about that topic" not just " says something". The topic in this case being Mary's sinlessness.

Also "suggests this may be the case" is basically the same thing as saying "probably correct" since both imply the person might be right.

Nor would I accept Protestant interpretations of Scripture--which go beyond Scripture--and claim that Mary sinned.

Click to expand...

This is a very strange accusation since it is Catholics who will constantly appeal to church fathers and oral traditions both which are not found in scripture so are beyond scripture and it's protestants who are the one who will rarely if ever go beyond scripture to back up their claims.

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia says about the immaculate conception: "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture."

You are accusing protestants of doing the very thing catholics do.

I especially wouldn't trust them because whereas writings like Irenaeus and Justin in the 100s saw Mary as the New Eve, Protestantism didn't start until the 1500s.

Click to expand...

Just because something is older doesn't automatically make it more reliable.

Yes, there were people in the early Church who thought Mary sinned, but they weren't Protestants, and they were wrong.

Click to expand...

How do you know they were wrong?

Chrysostom thought that Mary sinned somewhat, but he also said that Mary is Ever-Virgin and the New Eve.

Click to expand...

Again how do you know he was wrong about Mary sinning and not about the other ones?

MrMoe said:

I said "says something about that topic" not just " says something".

The topic in this case being Mary's sinlessness.

Also "suggests this may be the case" is basically the same thing as saying "probably correct" since both imply the person might be right.

Click to expand...

Sure, it just means having an open heart.

This is a very strange accusation since it is Catholics who will constantly appeal to church fathers and oral traditions both which are not found in scripture so are beyond scripture and it's protestants who are the one who will rarely if ever go beyond scripture to back up their claims.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. I think that Protestantism constantly goes beyond Scripture, and the issue of claiming that the Mother of God sinned is a case in point.

Moreoever, the N.T. Canon was determined by the Tradition and Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which believes Mary is sinless

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia says about the immaculate conception: "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture."

You are accusing protestants of doing the very thing catholics do.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

But whereas the N.T. Christians did not go by the Bible alone, Protestant claim the un-Biblical tradition of Sola Scriptura, when the Bible says to hold fast to the oral traditions (2 Thes 2:15.)

I noticed you didn't answer my last two questions. I'll write them again in case you accidently missed them.

How do you know those who thought Mary sinned were wrong?

How do you know Chrysostom was wrong about Mary sinning and not about her being ever-virgin and the new Eve?.

patricius79 said:

Sure, it just means having an open heart.

Click to expand...

Having an open heart shouldn't mean switching off our critical thinking part of our brain too.

I don't agree. I think that Protestantism constantly goes beyond Scripture, and the issue of claiming that the Mother of God sinned is a case in point.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

But whereas the N.T. Christians did not go by the Bible alone, Protestant claim the un-Biblical tradition of Sola Scriptura, when the Bible says to hold fast to the oral traditions (2 Thes 2:15.)

Click to expand...

You have two contradicting views. First you accuse of protestants of constantly going beyond scripture then say they stick to Sola Scriptura, which is the exact opposite of going beyond scripture. You can't have it both ways.

Also 2 Thess 2:15 simply says 'traditions' not 'oral traditions'. You've added to Paul's words.

patricius79 said:

They do strike some very compelling similarities and contrasts.

The explicit idea that "Mary is the New Eve" may not be there, but the big seed is there.


[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin.
(Dialogue with Trypho, 100, A.D. 160)
http://www.churchpop.com/2014/09/11/7-church-fathers-mary-new-eve/

As i understand it "Eve" means "mother of the living", yet through her and the first adam we all die.

But Mary, the New Eve, is the Mother of Life itself, by being the mother of the New Adam. In consenting to be the Mother of Life, she becomes the source of life for all humanity.

In St. Irenaeus's words in the 100s, she becomes the "cause of our salvation", but only in dependence on the New Adam, her Divine Son.

The New Adam is not entirely like the first Adam, or David, or Moses, or Elisha, etc. But the typology is there. Likewise Mary is not entirely like Eve, or Rebekah, or Esther, or Jael, etc. But the typology is there.

Likewise with Mary, who is in a sense formed from the Second Adam. Namely, that she was immaculately conceived through the grace of His redemption. In other words, all that the New Eve is comes from the New Adam, our God.

Click to expand...

Good. We seem to be making progress here. We are in agreement that The explicit idea that "Mary is the New Eve" may not be there. In fact, I think we both know that it is not there and that it required later theologians to flesh it out. They could have also fleshed out Mary as the New Ruth, the New Esther, the New Deborah, etc., but they did not. If they had, would that have been valid theology? I think not. Just because one can find some interesting analogies (and scripture is brimming with them) one ought not to set sail with them and end up in some strange and exotic port, as interesting as it may be.

However, I digress. We have reached the conclusion of my assertion, which was that the Church has not believed that Mary is the New Eve from the beginning. We have agreed now that this is so. As a result, I hope that you will no longer assert that the Church has believed this from the beginning.

MrMoe said:

I noticed you didn't answer my last two questions. I'll write them again in case you accidently missed them.

How do you know those who thought Mary sinned were wrong? How do you know Chrysostom was wrong about Mary sinning and not about her being ever-virgin and the new Eve?.

Click to expand...

Because of the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, which is His Body, the fulness of the one who fills all things in every way.

It is so clear that Mary is the New Eve. How could she not be when she is the Mother of Life?

You have two contradicting views. First you accuse of protestants of constantly going beyond scripture then say they stick to Sola Scriptura, which is the exact opposite of going beyond scripture. You can't have it both ways.

Also 2 Thess 2:15 simply says 'traditions' not 'oral traditions'. You've added to Paul's words.

Click to expand...

2 Thes 2:15 says to hold fast to the traditions whether given orally or by letter.

Protestants claim to follow Sola Scriptura. But Sola Scriptura is not ever taught in the Bible. And in practice Protestants constantly go beyond Scripture, including in their discussions of the Mother of God.

bbbbbbb said:

Good. We seem to be making progress here. We are in agreement that The explicit idea that "Mary is the New Eve" may not be there. In fact, I think we both know that it is not there and that it required later theologians to flesh it out. They could have also fleshed out Mary as the New Ruth, the New Esther, the New Deborah, etc., but they did not. If they had, would that have been valid theology? I think not. Just because one can find some interesting analogies (and scripture is brimming with them) one ought not to set sail with them and end up in some strange and exotic port, as interesting as it may be.

However, I digress. We have reached the conclusion of my assertion, which was that the Church has not believed that Mary is the New Eve from the beginning. We have agreed now that this is so. As a result, I hope that you will no longer assert that the Church has believed this from the beginning.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Clearly the Church did believe Mary, the Mother of Life, is the New Eve. Justin and Irenaeus are clear about this in the 100s. Irenaeus says that all was lost through the Virgin Eve, who disobeyed God, and that was are saved through the Virgin Mary, who believed God.. And so is Augustine later on, even saying that Mary is our mother.

bbbbbbb said:

Good. We seem to be making progress here. We are in agreement that The explicit idea that "Mary is the New Eve" may not be there. In fact, I think we both know that it is not there and that it required later theologians to flesh it out. They could have also fleshed out Mary as the New Ruth, the New Esther, the New Deborah, etc., but they did not. If they had, would that have been valid theology? I think not. Just because one can find some interesting analogies (and scripture is brimming with them) one ought not to set sail with them and end up in some strange and exotic port, as interesting as it may be.

However, I digress. We have reached the conclusion of my assertion, which was that the Church has not believed that Mary is the New Eve from the beginning. We have agreed now that this is so. As a result, I hope that you will no longer assert that the Church has believed this from the beginning.

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Clearly the Church did believe Mary, the Mother of Life, is the New Eve. Justin and Irenaeus are clear about this in the 100s. Irenaeus says that all was lost through the Virgin Eve, who disobeyed God, and that was are saved through the Virgin Mary, who believed God.. And so is Augustine later on, even saying that Mary is our mother.

Click to expand...

Just when I was convinced we were in agreement, you have reversed course on me. You wrote, The explicit idea that "Mary is the New Eve" may not be there did you not? If the idea is not there, how can you reasonably assert that the Church clearly did believe an idea that was not even there?