Dishonoring Mary

[Bastoune]

I loved this article I found on the internet recently:

http://mysticalrose.tripod.com/marian1.html

It discusses the Virgin Mary's role as the New Eve, through the Scriptures...

 

[tigersnare]

The seed is referred to in the singular as "he will crush your head" -- the "he" is supposed to refer to the Messiah, not the "seed" (although "seed" is a masculine word "spermatos" in the Greek [Septuagint] and in the Hebrew "zera", I think as well is masculine -- the word "zera" is the same in singular and plural forms but the singular of who would crush the head lends support that "seed" here is singular) See Gal. 3:16 to see the contrast of "seeds."

Ok I see where you are coming from, it seems most translations I have seen refer to seed as "offspring", and do so throught the rest of the book. I need to study this more....


Back to the question, following that heurmeneutic, who is the serpent's "seed" or "offspring"?

 

[raptor13]

Sin came from Satan, didnt it?

 

[Benedicta00]

Ok I see where you are coming from, it seems most translations I have seen refer to seed as "offspring", and do so throught the rest of the book. I need to study this more....


Back to the question, following that heurmeneutic, who is the serpent's "seed" or "offspring"?

Original sin is his seed. That is his nasty gift to us.

 

[Axion]

Following a different hermeneutic I've heard, is this was the start of the line of promise which we can follow all the way through the rest of the bible. aka Children of God and Children of Satan
But surely Noah, then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc etc.....aka the line the of promise.....no?

Unlike the accepted hermeneutic that comes down to us from the Early fathers of the Church, who were themselves taught by the Apostles, this idea seems to have been dreamed up fairly recently.

If the Woman's seed {singular} is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc, Who is the Woman who is mother of the children of God?

And who are the "children of Satan" specifically? What is their line? Do they have a mother?

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[tigersnare]

If the Woman's seed {singular} is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc, Who is the Woman who is mother of the children of God?

I could be wrong, but the stress isn't on the woman so much as it is her "seed", which may or not be singular. And you're asking "who is the mother"? Mother only applies to your interpretation, the stress in the other interpretation I've heard is on the lines, the serpants line, and the woman's line. For example.....Kain vs Able, Isaac vs Ishmeal, Jacob vs Esau etc, Jesus vs Pharisees(brood of vipers). *( "vs" as in denoting the difference, aka a split, aka two different lines.)

And who are the "children of Satan" specifically? What is their line? Do they have a mother??

Genesis 3:15. "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

The children of Satan are those who are not children of God following this heurmeneutic, as pointed out above, but starting at the fall and continuing even to now.

Their line, also pointed out above, supposedly it is easily traced throughout the bible, I can see it comes from.

Do they have a mother? Like the verse says, Satan seed and the Woman's seed, that would tend to lead me to believe they dont' have a mother as Satan isn't a woman (as for as I know).

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

That's fine, it doesn't have too.

 

[Bastoune]

In the second century, St. Irenaeus writes:

"The Word will become flesh, and the Son of God the son of man _ the Pure One opening purely that pure womb, which generates men unto God." (Against Heresies, 1.509; 189 AD)​

Mary's womb, the same pure womb which bore Jesus, also "generates men unto God"! Second century Christians clearly recognized that Mary is the spiritual Mother of all who are in Christ. In the third century A.D., the Christian writer Origen indicated that John 19:25-27 relates to Mary's spiritual Motherhood:

"No one can apprehend the meaning of it (John's Gospel) except he have lain on Jesus' breast and received from Jesus Mary to be his mother also....For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother "Woman, behold thy son" and not "Behold you have this son also", then He virtually said to her "Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou dost bear". Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him, if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary "Behold thy son Christ". (Origen, Commentary on John, Bk 1, ch.6)​

Note Origen's allusion to Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me". Christans share in the very life of Jesus, the Son of Mary! Saint Augustine writes at the beginning of the fifth century:

"But plainly (Mary) is, in spirit, Mother of us who are His members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that Head might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is mother of that very Head." (Augustine, On Holy Virginity, 6,6,)​

If all the baptized have "put on Christ" (Gal 3:27), are members of His Body (Ephesians 5:29-31) and if they no longer live, but Christ lives in them, then Christ's Mother becomes their Mother as well? http://mysticalrose.tripod.com/marian10.html

 

[Bastoune]

1. The Woman of Genesis 3:15 is Eve, not Mary. Even Catholic theologian Ludwig van Ott acknowledges that the literal sense of this text is that "between Satan and his followers on the one hand, and Eve and her posterity on the other hand, there is to be constant moral warfare....The posterity of Eve includes the Messiah, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan" (1).
   
   Scripture has many senses; the literal sense is only one. This passage has both a literal/historical sense and a prophetic/messianic sense. The Church has always believed that Genesis 3:15 had a deeper, messianic significance beyond what may seem to be the literal sense. Most Protestants acknowledge this, calling Jesus the Seed of the woman and using this passage to prove His virginal conception.
   
   When God first spoke these words in the Garden of Eden, those present may have thought that He was only referring to Eve, since she was the only woman at that time. But God was more truly referring to a later woman who would conceive and bear the Savior while remaining a virgin. This of course is Mary, and her association here with the first Eve indicates that she would be a "new" Eve, a replacement for the original mother of the race.
   
   As for Ludwig van Ott, he does not deny this messianic significance of Genesis 3:15. In fact, he goes on to say: "The seed of the woman was understood to refer to the Redeemer...and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen as the woman. Since the second century this direct messianic-marian interpretation has been expounded by individual Fathers" (2). So Ott also points out the deeper significance of this verse. Selectively quoting him does novt prove your point!
   
2. "The literal sense of (Genesis 3:15) is that Eve (not Mary) and her posterity are in moral welfare against Satan and his offspring, culminating in the crushing victory of the Messiah over Satan and his hosts. The "woman" is obviously Eve, and the 'seed of the woman' is clearly the literal offspring of Eve (see Gen. 4:1, 25), leading up to and culminating in the victory of Christ over Satan (Romans 16:20)". (3)
   
   This interpretation of this passage not only contradicts the early Christian interpretation as represented by the Fathers, but also that of many Protestants! It effectively throws away the messianic significance of Genesis 3:15 by arguing that the "seed of the woman" is just Eve's general posterity, not the Messiah!
   
   Is this how far some Protestants are willing to go to cut down Mary? They are willing to cut down Jesus in the process?
   
   Here is St. Irenaeus of Lyons explanation of Gen 3:15:
   'As thou canst perceive in Genesis that God said to the serpent, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed...". For from that time, He who should be born of a woman, [namely] from the Virgin, after the likeness of Adam, was preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent' (Against Heresies, 4:XXI:1).​
   Irenaeus wrote this in 189 AD! He was the disciple of a Christian named Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle himself! We can safely trust his interpretation.
   
3. The Woman of Revelations 12:1 is Israel and the Church, not Mary.
   
   The Woman clothed with the sun is a composite image of Israel, Mary and the Church, and hence the totality of the New Eve. Her celestial garments and "birth pangs" relate to Israel (see Gen. 37:9-10), her giving birth to Christ identifies her with Mary (compare Rev 12:5 with Luke 2:7) and her later persecution by the Devil associates her with the Church (Rev. 12:13-17). All three of these feminine entities are combined in the image of the New Eve.
   
   Consider this: there are three in this sign -- the dragon, the child, and the woman. The dragon signifies a person, namely Satan; the child is Jesus Christ, another Person, so consistent exegesis would demand that the woman also be an individual person. Israel and the Church are not individual persons, but Mary is. So this must be Mary. As we saw above, Mary is the personification of Daughter Zion. She is also the Image and Model of Mother Church. So in this vision she stands in for both of them.
   
4. The Church is the New Eve, since she is the Bride of Christ.
   
   Yes, Mother Church is the New Eve, and Mary is the Image and Model of the Church, as well as her pre-eminent member. So she is the "personal" New Eve, as the Church is the "corporate" New Eve. We parallel Jesus and Mary because both are "persons"; Jesus Christ is not a corporate entity but a Divine Person, and Mary is a human person. Therefore Mary-as-New Eve parallels Jesus-as-New Adam more precisely than does the Church. Yet the Church is not excluded from being the New Eve, the Mother of redeemed humanity.
   
5. Eve was Adam's wife, but Mary was Jesus' Mother; so Mary could not be the New Eve.
   
   I Corinthians 11:12 says "As the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God". That means that in the beginning the first woman was formed from the first man, but ever since then all men have been born of woman. If that is the current, divinely ordained order of things, it is fitting that the New Adam should be born of the New Eve.
   
   Besides, all members of the Church make up the "Bride of Christ". Since Mary is a member of the Church, she is also the "bride of Christ" in a spiritual sense.
   
6. The New Adam needs no "New Eve"; He saves us all by Himself.
   
   Mary does not "help" Jesus save the world, nor does Jesus need her help. His death is sufficient to redeem everyone. Yet though He did not need her, He chooses to include a woman in His work because the original Fall involved a man and a woman. So now a Man and a woman are involved in bringing about the Redemption; the Man directly, the woman indirectly and subordinate to Him. Jesus does not need Mary, He freely chose her out of His infinite generosity.
   
7. Why must a woman be involved in the Redemption?
   
   Because in God's original plan, life - both physical and spiritual - must be transmitted by a man and a woman. Had Adam and Eve not fallen, they would have transmitted spiritual life to their children along with their physical existence. When they fell they lost their spiritual life and so could not give it to their offspring.
   
   Since God had ordained that all life must come from both a man and a woman, he ordained that the restoration of spiritual life to humanity must also occur by a man and a woman. The Man is Jesus Christ, and the woman is the Virgin Mary.
   
8. So you're saying that as Adam and Eve both sinned, so Jesus and Mary both save us from sin? That‘s blasphemy! Mary is not our savior!
   
   The Church does not teach that Mary is our savior. Though Adam and Eve both sinned, they did not sin equally. The Bible says "in Adam all die" (I Corinthians 15:22), not "in Adam and Eve all die". It also says "by one man sin entered into the world" (Romans 5:12), not "by one man and one woman"! Eve's sin was not equal to that of Adam. Hers was the first human sin, and the impetus for his disobedience, but his sin actually caused the Fall since he was the first human being and thus the head of the human race.
   
   Because the man's sin caused the Fall, the Savior had to be a man - a "New Adam" to be the head of a new, redeemed humanity. This is why St. Paul writes "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive" (I Cor 15:22) and "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" (Romans 5:19). The first man sinned, the Man Jesus saves us from sin. Paul never mentions Eve in any of the First Adam/Second Adam passages.
   
   The first woman's sin did not directly cause the Fall, but it was the first act of disobedience against God. So God chose to have another woman--Mary--undo that first act of disobedience. As Eve disobeyed God and became the indirect cause of the Fall by giving Adam the fruit (Genesis 3:6), so Mary obeyed God (Lk 1:38) and so became the indirect cause of our salvation by bringing the Savior into the world.
   
   Mary is the indirect cause of the Redemption, not the direct cause. Even as Eve was the indirect, not direct, cause of the Fall. Jesus is the direct cause of our salvation, Who saves us by His Death and Resurrection. Yet He could not have died or risen had he not assumed a human nature, which He got from Mary. Thus she did play a part in bringing about our Redemption, but her role was not equal to that of Jesus, even as Eve's sin was not equal to Adam's. Thus Jesus is our Savior, not Mary.
   
9. Is this related to the Catholic belief that Mary is the "Coredemptrix"?
   
   Those who use that Marian title (which has not been officially defined by the Church) do use the New Eve concept to support it. Like the title New Eve, Coredemptrix does not mean that Mary is equal to Jesus or redeems the world with Him. The suffix "co" comes from the Latin word cum, meaning "with". So Coredemptrix literally means "Woman with the Redeemer", not "fellow-Redeemer" (as some non-Catholics falsely interpret it). It simply signifies that Mary is the Woman associated with Jesus our Redeemer, not "another Savior" apart from Him.
   
   As stated above, however, the title has not been declared an article of faith, so one does not have to use it. (For a more thorough treatment of the Coredemptrix concept, see Is Mary the Coredemptrix?).
   
10. This "New Eve" thing is another Catholic invention fabricated to exalt Mary. As we saw above, this is a very ancient Christian teaching, based on the Bible and taught by second century Christians. Mary-as-New Eve is not a later concept; it is one of the earliest Christian portrayals of Mary! We Catholics believe it because we are the same Church that existed and taught it in the early centuries.
    

WORKS CITED

1. Ludwig van Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
2. Ibid.
3. Norman Giesler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask

(from source above)

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Bastoune

I am interseted in one thing you said:

"Irenaeus wrote this in 189 AD! He was the disciple of a Christian named Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle himself! We can safely trust his interpretation. "

Is this your standard of acceptance of the people who's work you quoted?

Thank you,

BBAS

 

[Bastoune]

Good Day, Bastoune

I am interseted in one thing you said:

"Irenaeus wrote this in 189 AD! He was the disciple of a Christian named Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle himself! We can safely trust his interpretation. "

Is this your standard of acceptance of the people who's work you quoted?

Thank you,

BBAS

Well, would someone who speaks and understood the language of the Bible, lived closer to the time of Jesus, and was taught by someone who was taught by an APOSTLE have maybe, just possibly a more accurate interpretation and orthodox theology of Scripture, than say, a man in the 16th Century who is reading the texts based on his own historical context? My bets are on Irenaeus to know what he's talking about

Protestant theologian David W. Bercot, in his book Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? (Scroll Publishing Co., 1989) took, what he described as a “new look at today’s Evangelical Church in light of early Christianity.” He denounces false doctrines which “reformers” introduced such as symbolic baptism, Calvinist predestination, and salvation by faith alone.

In his book, Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding Scripture (Scroll Publishing Co., 1992), Bercot says that it is arrogance to reject the early Church Fathers’ interpretations of the Bible in favor of our own modern-day interpretations: “Your quest is to find out how the primitive Church in general understood the New Testament. In other words, what was the ‘course of performance’ of the first generations of Christians? After you have read enough of their works to have a good feel for their culture, mindset, and overall Christian beliefs, go back and re-read the New Testament. Read it through their pattern of thinking. See what new things you will discover. When you’re through, you’re free to go back and pick up all of your former beliefs, if you like. But perhaps you never will” (p. 165-166). He talked of great Church fathers like Polycarp (A.D.69-155), a disciple of John the Apostle himself. This man, like so many other early Christian leaders, refused to renounce Jesus Christ, and became a martyr for the faith. Men willing to die for the teachings of the Apostles, Bercot argues, would not be likely to corrupt those teachings knowingly.

Therefore, these men’s interpretations of the Bible are more than likely more solid than those of Fundamentalism which finds its roots only about 150 years ago. Apostolic Succession (a whole other topic) has been the assurance of passing sound doctrine. (cf. 1 Tim. 5:22)

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Bercot sounds like an intelligent man...I may have to pick up his book.

 

[Christy4Christ]

I just looked up the meaning of the word blessed in the dictionary. It is funny how we hear words our whole life and always think we know what they mean because of the context they are used in yet we never really look at the proper definition. I know that I myself have never really bothered to look up the meaning of the word blessed. Maybe if the people who claim there is nothing scriptural for honoring Mary would have looked up this definition a long time ago THEY might see that there is scripture right in front of their faces that says we should honor her.


Merriam-Webster Dictionary says this:

Main Entry: bless
Pronunciation: 'bles
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): blessed /'blest/; also blest /'blest/; bless·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English blEtsian, from blOd blood; from the use of blood in consecration
1 : to hallow or consecrate by religious rite or word
2 : to hallow with the sign of the cross3 : to invoke divine care for <bless your heart>
4 a : PRAISE, GLORIFY <bless his holy name> b : to speak well of : APPROVE
5 : to confer prosperity or happiness upon
6 archaic : PROTECT, PRESERVE
7 : ENDOW, FAVOR <blessed with athletic ability>

Here is what the Cambridge dictionary says:

blessed [Show phonetics]
adjective
1 FORMAL holy:

 

[Epiphany]

Do they really believe this??? How stupid can one group be? And where did they get the trade mark on truly saved?

To Life Immortal

um, People,don't get too upset; Landover Baptist is a parody/satire/humour site. It is not real. They're making fun of people who go overboard on religion. Check out the rest of the site. It's comedy.

Peace and Long Life
~*~ Epiphany ~*~

 

[Raist3001]

The Ark of the Old Covenant was the holding place for the Ten Commandments, which was the word of God. In the Bible, St. John calls Jesus the word of God as well, and Mary, by carrying Him in her womb, became the Ark of the New Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant is a holy and pure thing. If Mary had original sin, she would not have been pure, and therefore could not have been the Ark of the New Covenant. This idea is presented in the Bible when we compare the Old Testament to the New Testament. Notice these similarities:

Old Covenant: This is when the ark of the covenant was brought before King David.
"David feared the LORD that day and said, 'How can the ark of the LORD come to me?'." 2 Samuel 6:9

New Covenant: This is when Mary went to visit her cousin Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist.
"And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43

Old Covenant: This is when the prophet David danced for joy because he was in the presence of the ark, which held the word of God.
"Saul's daughter Michal looked down through the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD." 2 Samuel 6:16

New Covenant: This is when the prophet John the Baptist leaped for joy while in his mother Elizabeth's womb. He did this when he heard the voice of Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus, who is also called the Word of God.
"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit." Luke 1:41

Old Covenant: The Israelites were filled with great joy because they were so close to the ark that held the word of God.
"As he and all the Israelites were bringing up the ark of the LORD with shouts of joy and to the sound of the horn." 2 Samuel 6:15

New Covenant: This shows how filled with joy Elizabeth and John the Baptist were to be in the presence of Mary, who held the Word of God.
"Elizabeth cried out in a loud voice and said, 'Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!'." Luke 1:42
"For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy." Luke 1:44

If this is true, that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, then she must have been pure, and could not have any sin on her soul. The fact that Mary was born without original sin has been a clear teaching of not only the Catholic Church, but of the founders of Protestantism as well. Only recently have some Protestant denominations gone away from this traditional Christian teaching.

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." [Martin Luther; "Sermon On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God", 1527]

ALSO.....

When Jesus made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, He rode on a donkey [colt] which had not been ridden by anyone else (Mark 11:2-10). He was also buried in a grave which no one else had used (John 19:41.) These things were not necessary, but it was only fitting that the donkey and the grave used by Christ were used by no one else, as it indicated how special Jesus was.

In the Old Testament there are types that prefigure people, or events, in the New Testament. The NT person or event which is being prefigured is called the archetype. The archetype in the New Testament is always greater. Adam for example is a type of Christ. Cf Rom 5:14.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Welcome Raist