Who was Mary? Choose the one nearest to your own view

  • Mary was immaculately conceived, a perpetual virgin, assumed in heaven and the Mother of God

  • Mary was a blessed woman and a great example to us all and the Mother of our Lord

  • Mary was just another woman

  • Other, Please explain


Results are only viewable after voting.

jamiec

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2020
474
215
Scotland
✟42,255.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Please provide a prayer that states a particular saints was the primary cause and source of a healing.
The Saints, like all other creatures, are instrumental causes of the good they do. The Biblical authors are instrumental causes of their writings (as, in their own ways, are all created authors of created writings).

It is no more wrong to say that a 12th-century Saint works a miracle, than to say that St Paul or Elijah works a miracle: St Francis of Assisi is no more the author of the good God does through him, than the Biblical Saints and Prophets were the authors of the good God does through them.

The only Author of all those good things, is the Tri-Une God. These people are instrumental agents of God, means through whom God the Creator-King brings good things into the world that is His handiwork, for the creatures that are his handiwork. All good things that men on Earth receive, are the work of God, whether through His Saints in heaven, or through his creatures upon Earth.

God is “always” God, & always doing God’s works, always acting as Creator. And sometimes, God “incorporates” created things in His working, so that their lowly created nothingness is made a means by which He acts. The supreme Exemplar of this pattern of Divine Action, is the Incarnate Lord; & the inspiration of Scripture, is like that. The creaturely “sub-mediation” of the Saints, is a mode of this Divine, and in Christ, Theandric, AKA “God-manly”, Action.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JulieB67

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2020
1,572
726
56
Ohio US
✟147,750.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But I know of no reason to think that she was a descendant of David. As far as I can see, both the Gospel genealogies of Christ trace his descent through Joseph, and not through the BVM

The Luke geneology is her's through her father through Nathan back to David. Joseph's is through Solomon back to David. The Matthew starts with 'begat (Joseph's bloodline) and the Luke is "which was" indicates in-laws.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,429
11,980
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,376.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Luke geneology is her's through her father through Nathan back to David. Joseph's is through Solomon back to David. The Matthew starts with 'begat (Joseph's bloodline) and the Luke is "which was" indicates in-laws.
No, they are both through Joseph. Joseph's fathers were half brothers born of the same mother to different fathers, she having remarried after becoming widowed. The one brother married but died without producing an heir, so his brother raised up seed for his dead brother according to the law. Joseph was the biological son of the living brother but the legal son of the deceased brother.
 
Upvote 0

JulieB67

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2020
1,572
726
56
Ohio US
✟147,750.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, they are both through Joseph. Joseph's fathers were half brothers born of the same mother to different fathers, she having remarried after becoming widowed. The one brother married but died without producing an heir, so his brother raised up seed for his dead brother according to the law. Joseph was the biological son of the living brother but the legal son of the deceased brother.

But those different fathers would still have to be brothers for that law to be in effect. And in the end those brothers would be from the same father and bloodline. We know Jacob is the biological father of Joseph and Jacob's father is Matthan. You're saying Heli is the half brother of Jacob. Which indicates Jacob and Heli's fathers Matthan and Matthat would have to be brothers and with their mother marrying them both for this law to be in effect if one of them died. But Matthan's father is Eleazar and Matthat's father is Levi. Both bloodlines are completely different all the way to David. If they were truly brothers upheld to this law that wouldn't be the case. Unless I'm misunderstanding and you're saying Jacob and Heli's mother married different men altogether. Which brother are you saying died?

It was not a standard practice to include the women listed in their geneologies so it would refer back to their husband's name. Especially if there was no son. Joseph was a son of Heli through marriage. But the Luke verses are specifically showing Christ's "true bloodline" back to Judah. It even goes all the way back to Adam. Joseph was not technically a blood relative but again, he is from the Judah as well. Christ was truly from the bloodline of Judah through Mary.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,429
11,980
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,376.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
But those different fathers would still have to be brothers for that law to be in effect.
They were brothers. They shared the same mother.
And in the end those brothers would be from the same father and bloodline.
Where do you get that they must have the same father? They are of the tribe of Judah, both being descendants of David.
We know Jacob is the biological father of Joseph and Jacob's father is Matthan. You're saying Heli is the half brother of Jacob. Which indicates Jacob and Heli's fathers Matthan and Matthat would have to be brothers and with their mother marrying them both for this law to be in effect if one of them died.
Matthan and Matthat were both actually married to the same woman, she having remarried after the death of her first husband. That is simply a widow remarrying. She had two sons, Jacob and Heli one by each of her husbands.
I don't remember the details as to which of Jacob and Heli died childless, but his brother did not have to marry his brother's widow to raise up seed for his brother.
It was not a standard practice to include the women listed in their geneologies so it would refer back to their husband's name.
Matthew specifically mentions 3 women in his genealogy.
Christ was truly from the bloodline of Judah through Mary.
Mary was betrothed to Joseph because they were from the same tribe.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,429
11,980
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,376.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
According to the Q'ran, Mary was the sister of Moses as well as the mother of Jesus.
According to the Bible, Jesus's mother and Moses's sister both have the same name. I cannot fathom why you would even mention the Moslem texts.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,805
13,115
72
✟362,271.00
Faith
Non-Denom
According to the Bible, Jesus's mother and Moses's sister both have the same name. I cannot fathom why you would even mention the Moslem texts.

The title of this thread is "Who is Mary?" As we all know, Mary is a very common name both in the Bible and in western culture. My great aunt and my mother's first cousin were both Mary.

Perhaps it would have been better if the title had been more specific concerning which Mary, out of the myriads of Marys he actually had in mind.

For Mohammed Mary, the mother of Jesus, is also the sister of Moses. This merely represents a very common human ability to misunderstand who a historic personage is. In the past century, for example, there was the quest to find the "historical" Jesus, with no resulting consensus other than agreement that the gospels seriously presented a Jesus that bore little or no resemblance to the actual man.

With Mary the problem is vastly more difficult simply because there is so little primary information provided for the scholar. There is a vast trove of secondary and tertiary information, but its reliability is just as doubtful as Mohammed's claims in the Q'ran which were based on those same secondary and tertiary sources. Unfortunately, being illiterate, Mohammed had to rely on oral traditions of the Christians of his day.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Being born an Anglican with a more Protestant than Catholic outlook and brought up with a high veneration of scripture I have always been intensely sceptical of Catholic and Orthodoc views of Mary and generally dismissed them as Marianity and a distraction from true religion. But recently I have been challenged by some of my readings of the Early Church Fathers who clearly had radically different views to Protestants today. I guess I wanted to use this thread to sift fact from fiction about Mary and to see what is solid and what is not. So I have a list below of assertions people make about Mary. Some of which are directly supported from scripture and some of which have been dominant in tradition. There is also a quiz. I would be really interested to hear how you approach the question of who is right and who is wrong about Mary on the individual assertions below.

1) Parents: Joachim and Anna a barren woman - based on tradition. a descendant of David?
2) Immaculate conception : so she was born without sin - tradition and Catholic doctrine 1854
3) Virgin conception of Jesus by Holy Spirit - Matthew and Lukes gospel, Council of Nicea 325
4) Bore Jesus in her womb leading to her description as the God bearer (Theotokos) or Mother of God as others emphasise - Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) 431 refuted Nestorius who said she was only birth giver of Christ not God
5) Virgin after birth process ie hymen did not break - Constantinople 553
6) Bore other children after Jesus - Josephus mentioned Jesus had a brother James, The bible apparently mentions brothers and sisters. But Catholics suggest these were half brothers from Josephs previous marriage or cousins.
7) Was present during Jesus ministry - mentions in Temple when a child, in Wedding Feast of Canaan, at cross, in room before Pentecost
8) Died in Israel or Ephesus - conflicting traditions
9) Assumed into heaven. Revelation 12:1;5-6 "woman clothed with the sun" - Catholics 1950
10) Visitations and miracles through history. Are these real?

The Catholics seem most devoted to Mary and have most to say about her. But Barth described this devotion as the biggest heresy of the Catholic church

What do you think?

It does not matter what we think. All that matters is WHAT GOD SAID.

Mary was a 1st century Jewish Galilean woman of Nazareth, the wife of Joseph and, according to the gospels, the virgin mother of Jesus.

Luke 1:28........
" And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou AMONG women."
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I’m going to split this into a couple of posts for readability.

I think the idea that if Mary is conceived without sin would make her no longer wish to be a human being is most problematic.

There seems to be a view that this would make Mary somehow “less human,” and a fallen human nature somehow makes us “more human.”

Adam and Eve were created without sin. God’s intent was they would live a sinless life in harmony with him. That was God’s definition of what it means to be “human.” When Adam and Eve freely choose to reject God and follow Satan, they place humanity under the bondage of sin. This is why St. Paul so often refers to sin not as simply acts of wrongdoing, but rather as our cosmic enemy that has enslaved humanity, and over which we have no control (Romans 3:9, Romans 6:6, Romans 6:17).

The “normal” things you mention Jesus would have done as part of being human – those are all true for both him and Mary, as well as Adam and Eve before the fall. But those are completely different than a fallen human nature that is attracted to sin as a “good.” Christ was not enslaved to the powers of sin. He could be tempted, yes, just as Adam and Eve were tempted. At the moment of their temptation though, they were not yet under the bondage of sin. Only when they yielded to Satan do they become enslaved.

Being created without sin simply means Mary is in the same state that Eve was upon her creation. This is why very early in Christian history (before the New Testament was formed, or the dogma of the Trinity developed), the early church fathers recognized Mary as the “new Eve.” There is a strong Scriptural basis for that if you have not explored it.

Eve before the fall had complete freedom of will, was fully human, and had a human experience as God designed. This did not make her “less” human, it made her more so. As with Mary. Being conceived without sin did not mean she was not able to sin any more than Eve was not. It simply means that free from the bondage of sin, she could face the same choices Eve did and choose differently.
You said.........
"Being created without sin simply means Mary is in the same state that Eve was upon her creation."

Mary was NOT CREATED. She was born of the human family in the line of David.

You said.............
"Christ was not enslaved to the powers of sin. He could be tempted, yes, just as Adam and Eve were tempted. At the moment of their temptation though, they were not yet under the bondage of sin. Only when they yielded to Satan do they become enslaved."

Jesus was God and was incarnated with a DIVINE Nature and was unable to sin.

I agree that Adam and Eve initially had no sin, but from the beginning they always had the propensity to sin and the capability for sinning.
We know that is the case because the very 1st time that they were tempted, they disobeyed God.
They were not created as perfect beings, because doing so would have made them a god.

Then you said.......
"the early church fathers recognized Mary as the “new Eve.” There is a strong Scriptural basis for that if you have not explored it."

NOPE! The term “New Eve” appears nowhere in Scripture. In fact, I cannot find it among any of the Church Fathers. Yet this does not prevent apologists, and YOU from saying such outrageous false hoods!

Where does this kind of thing come from????? CATHOLIC Church!

In short being the “New Eve” means that Mary is just like the New Adam in that:
1. No original sin,
2. immaculately conceived,
3. in a sense gave birth to the whole human race,
4. she shares in the resurrection of the New Adam as opposed to the deaths of the original Adam and Eve, and
5. physical ascension into heaven has already occurred.


There’s a problem with all of this. It’s not true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,546.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You said.........
"Being created without sin simply means Mary is in the same state that Eve was upon her creation."

Mary was NOT CREATED. She was born of the human family in the line of David.
?

Every human person is created by God. That’s why we refer to the act of two people who reproduce as procreation – it’s a participation in God’s creative work.

“Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, Give up, and to the south, Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth, every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” (Isaiah 43:5-7)

I do agree she was born of the human family in the line of David. She is still a creature, created by God.


You said.............
"Christ was not enslaved to the powers of sin. He could be tempted, yes, just as Adam and Eve were tempted. At the moment of their temptation though, they were not yet under the bondage of sin. Only when they yielded to Satan do they become enslaved."

Jesus was God and was incarnated with a DIVINE Nature and was unable to sin.

I agree that Adam and Eve initially had no sin, but from the beginning they always had the propensity to sin and the capability for sinning.
We know that is the case because the very 1st time that they were tempted, they disobeyed God.
They were not created as perfect beings, because doing so would have made them a god.

To sin would indeed be contrary to Christ’s divine nature. I simply said that he could be tempted to sin, just as Adam and Eve were tempted. Doesn’t the Bible teach that Christ went into the desert for 40 days and was tempted by Satan? Doesn’t the Bible say “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning” (Hebrews 4:15)?

A perfect human being does not a god make. The Bible refers to those in heaven as the spirts of “just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:23). We’re told by Jesus we must be “perfect as your heavenly father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Being in a state of sinless perfection does not make a person a “god,” it makes them a human being as God created and intended for them to be – without the parasitic infection of sin. The angels who did not follow Satan never sinned but that in no way means they are gods or divine.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,546.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Then you said.......
"the early church fathers recognized Mary as the “new Eve.” There is a strong Scriptural basis for that if you have not explored it."

NOPE! The term “New Eve” appears nowhere in Scripture. In fact, I cannot find it among any of the Church Fathers. Yet this does not prevent apologists, and YOU from saying such outrageous false hoods!

Where does this kind of thing come from????? CATHOLIC Church!

In short being the “New Eve” means that Mary is just like the New Adam in that:
1. No original sin,
2. immaculately conceived,
3. in a sense gave birth to the whole human race,
4. she shares in the resurrection of the New Adam as opposed to the deaths of the original Adam and Eve, and
5. physical ascension into heaven has already occurred.


There’s a problem with all of this. It’s not true.

Mary is the New Eve.

Scripture shows the parallels between Eve and Mary.

There are only two people in the history of humanity who take their flesh from a single person. Eve comes the singular flesh of Adam; Christ comes from the singular flesh of Mary. It is the "reversal" of the fall. That's why your reference here trying to compare Mary to the "new Adam" (who is Christ) is flawed. St. Paul alluded to this when he said "For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God." (1 Corinthians 11:12).

Eve and Mary are both approached by an angel with a decision to make. Eve is approached by the fallen angel, Satan, and Mary is approached by the angel Gabriel. Eve accepts the word of the fallen angel; Mary accepts the word of angel Gabriel.

Both accept the fruit -- Eve accepts the fruit given by the fallen angel. Mary accepts the "fruit" of the incarnation -- "blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42).

Eve's fruit is taken from the tree in the garden that results in the fall of man; Mary's "fruit" is taken from the tree of the cross in a garden that results in the redemption of man.

The disobedience of Eve (the mother of all living – Genesis 3:20) brings spiritual death to her children; Mary's obedience brings spiritual life to her children through Christ -- her children being "those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" (Revelation 12:17). I know you will reject the "woman" in Revelation to be Mary. But isn’t it interesting that in the first encounter with Satan we see in Scripture is doing battle with a woman, and in the book of Revelation we have Satan doing battle with a woman?

Which, by the way, is why Christ refers to Mary as “woman.” Some try to say he is “disassociating” himself with his family relationship to her, as though he could ever ignore the commandment to honor his mother in such a way. Besides, Scripture refers to her as his mother around 25 times – the idea that inspired Scripture would honor that relationship but not Christ is a bit absurd don’t you think?

But there is one other person in Scripture who is known only as “woman,” and that is Eve before the fall.

So let me correct this for you:

In short being the “New Eve” means that Mary is just like Eve in that:
1. No original sin,
2. immaculately conceived,
3. in a sense gave birth to those who keep the commandments and bear testimony to Jesus
4. she shares in the resurrection of the New Adam as Eve shared in the death of Adam
5. physical assumption into heaven has already occurred (because “ascension” means by one’s own power. Mary was assumed. She was taken into heaven not by her own power but by that of her son).
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,546.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
NOPE! The term “New Eve” appears nowhere in Scripture. In fact, I cannot find it among any of the Church Fathers. Yet this does not prevent apologists, and YOU from saying such outrageous false hoods!
The Church fathers don’t use the term “new Eve” just as Scripture doesn’t use the term “new Adam” but does recognize Adam as a “type” of Christ. They recognize Mary as a “type” of Eve:

“He 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. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.' Luke 1:38 And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” (Justin Martyr c. 155)

CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 89-108 (Justin Martyr)

Irenaeus c 189 is the most prolific with his words.

In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. …. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.22 (St. Irenaeus)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The Church fathers don’t use the term “new Eve” just as Scripture doesn’t use the term “new Adam” but does recognize Adam as a “type” of Christ. They recognize Mary as a “type” of Eve:

“He 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. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.' Luke 1:38 And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” (Justin Martyr c. 155)

CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 89-108 (Justin Martyr)

Irenaeus c 189 is the most prolific with his words.

In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. Luke 1:38 But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, Genesis 2:25 inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. …. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.22 (St. Irenaeus)

There is a world of difference between what the Catholic church fathers wrote and what Scripture actually says. They may have their opinions, but others have their opinions. Sola scriptura!
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,546.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There is a world of difference between what the Catholic church fathers wrote and what Scripture actually says. They may have their opinions, but others have their opinions. Sola scriptura!
Have you not yet figured out yet that any Biblical interpretation put forth by a believer in sola-Scriptura is by definition nothing more than an opinion?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Mary is the New Eve.

Scripture shows the parallels between Eve and Mary.

There are only two people in the history of humanity who take their flesh from a single person. Eve comes the singular flesh of Adam; Christ comes from the singular flesh of Mary. It is the "reversal" of the fall. That's why your reference here trying to compare Mary to the "new Adam" (who is Christ) is flawed. St. Paul alluded to this when he said "For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God." (1 Corinthians 11:12).

Eve and Mary are both approached by an angel with a decision to make. Eve is approached by the fallen angel, Satan, and Mary is approached by the angel Gabriel. Eve accepts the word of the fallen angel; Mary accepts the word of angel Gabriel.

Both accept the fruit -- Eve accepts the fruit given by the fallen angel. Mary accepts the "fruit" of the incarnation -- "blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42).

Eve's fruit is taken from the tree in the garden that results in the fall of man; Mary's "fruit" is taken from the tree of the cross in a garden that results in the redemption of man.

The disobedience of Eve (the mother of all living – Genesis 3:20) brings spiritual death to her children; Mary's obedience brings spiritual life to her children through Christ -- her children being "those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" (Revelation 12:17). I know you will reject the "woman" in Revelation to be Mary. But isn’t it interesting that in the first encounter with Satan we see in Scripture is doing battle with a woman, and in the book of Revelation we have Satan doing battle with a woman?

Which, by the way, is why Christ refers to Mary as “woman.” Some try to say he is “disassociating” himself with his family relationship to her, as though he could ever ignore the commandment to honor his mother in such a way. Besides, Scripture refers to her as his mother around 25 times – the idea that inspired Scripture would honor that relationship but not Christ is a bit absurd don’t you think?

But there is one other person in Scripture who is known only as “woman,” and that is Eve before the fall.

So let me correct this for you:

In short being the “New Eve” means that Mary is just like Eve in that:
1. No original sin,
2. immaculately conceived,
3. in a sense gave birth to those who keep the commandments and bear testimony to Jesus
4. she shares in the resurrection of the New Adam as Eve shared in the death of Adam
5. physical assumption into heaven has already occurred (because “ascension” means by one’s own power. Mary was assumed. She was taken into heaven not by her own power but by that of her son).

So, according to your point #1, Eve had no original sin and #2 was immaculately conceived and #3 in a sense gave birth to those who keep the commandments and bear testimony to Jesus.

#5 is preposterous. There is nothing in Scripture that says that Mary was taken into heaven.

Sola scriptura!
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Have you not yet figured out yet that any Biblical interpretation put forth by a believer in sola-Scriptura is by definition nothing more than an opinion?

Have you not yet figured out yet that any Biblical interpretation put forth by a believer in sola-Scriptura is by definition nothing more than an opinion? No, I haven't. The Bible is God's Word to humanity in written form. If people, including Catholic clergy, disagree with what the Bible says, whom should be believed? I will take what the Bible -- God's Word -- says over the opinions of people, including Catholic clergy, every single time! Sola scriptura!
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,546.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So, according to your point #1, Eve had no original sin and #2 was immaculately conceived and #3 in a sense gave birth to those who keep the commandments and bear testimony to Jesus.

#5 is preposterous. There is nothing in Scripture that says that Mary was taken into heaven.

Sola scriptura!
Eve did not have original sin and Scripture says she gave birth to all the living.

There is nothing in Scripture about sola-Scriptura.
 
Upvote 0

narnia59

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 17, 2007
5,746
1,261
✟323,546.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Have you not yet figured out yet that any Biblical interpretation put forth by a believer in sola-Scriptura is by definition nothing more than an opinion? No, I haven't. The Bible is God's Word to humanity in written form. If people, including Catholic clergy, disagree with what the Bible says, whom should be believed? I will take what the Bible -- God's Word -- says over the opinions of people, including Catholic clergy, every single time! Sola scriptura!
Really?

Sola-Scriptura by definition is that the Scriptures alone are infallible and inerrant. Individual interpretations are not.

So like it or not, your interpretation is at minimum just one of many opinions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Really?

Sola-Scriptura by definition is that the Scriptures alone are infallible and inerrant. Individual interpretations are not.

So like it or not, your interpretation is at minimum just one of many opinions.

So we actually agree! You wrote that Sola-Scriptura by definition is that the Scriptures alone are infallible and inerrant. Correct!! Not the inventions of people (men!) who add on all kinds of stuff that isn't in the Bible. Another way of saying this is that if it's not in the Bible, it's man-made! By fallible men!

If the Bible isn't the inerrant standard of the Christian faith, what is???
 
Upvote 0