Catholics and being born again...

12,307 Views | 174 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by CrackerJackAg
lobopride
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thaddeus73 said:

Mary is the new Eden (God lived in both places)...

Mary is the first Christian...

Mary is the first Evangelist....

Mary is the new Eve...

Mary is the Queen of Heaven...

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Mary is the conduit for all Grace (Jesus) in the world.

Mary says to do WHATEVER Jesus tells you.

Mary says that "All generations WILL CALL ME BLESSED."

After Jesus, she is the most important person in the bible, the living tabernacle of the living God.

Case closed...


Stop worshiping Mary.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lobopride said:

Thaddeus73 said:

Mary is the new Eden (God lived in both places)...

Mary is the first Christian...

Mary is the first Evangelist....

Mary is the new Eve...

Mary is the Queen of Heaven...

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Mary is the conduit for all Grace (Jesus) in the world.

Mary says to do WHATEVER Jesus tells you.

Mary says that "All generations WILL CALL ME BLESSED."

After Jesus, she is the most important person in the bible, the living tabernacle of the living God.

Case closed...


Stop worshiping Mary.
Someone needs to expand their vocabulary. Veneration and reverence are not worship. Absolutely no one else in the Bible (barring Jesus) had such a significant role as Mary. She was chosen by God as the conduit to bring Christ into this world as a man. I think too often people just see her as a footnote but never giver her proper (or any) respect because they're afraid that would be 'worship' and too close to Catholicism.
Would be interest if someone student before Christ and when he asked them what they thought of his mother...and they just said "meh".
lobopride
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluHorseShu said:

lobopride said:

Thaddeus73 said:

Mary is the new Eden (God lived in both places)...

Mary is the first Christian...

Mary is the first Evangelist....

Mary is the new Eve...

Mary is the Queen of Heaven...

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Mary is the conduit for all Grace (Jesus) in the world.

Mary says to do WHATEVER Jesus tells you.

Mary says that "All generations WILL CALL ME BLESSED."

After Jesus, she is the most important person in the bible, the living tabernacle of the living God.

Case closed...


Stop worshiping Mary.
Someone needs to expand their vocabulary. Veneration and reverence are not worship. Absolutely no one else in the Bible (barring Jesus) had such a significant role as Mary. She was chosen by God as the conduit to bring Christ into this world as a man. I think too often people just see her as a footnote but never giver her proper (or any) respect because they're afraid that would be 'worship' and too close to Catholicism.
Would be interest if someone student before Christ and when he asked them what they thought of his mother...and they just said "meh".


My answer is that she's blessed among women. Full stop.
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Stop worshiping Mary.
Notice that we don't offer sacrifice to Mary, like we do to God the Father in the Mass by offering up the body, blood, soul, and divinity of His Son Jesus to Him.

Your idea of worship is nuts, and certainly not biblical....
lobopride
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thaddeus73 said:

Quote:

Stop worshiping Mary.
Notice that we don't offer sacrifice to Mary, like we do to God the Father in the Mass by offering up the body, blood, soul, and divinity of His Son Jesus to Him.

Your idea of worship is nuts, and certainly not biblical....
When we visited Mexico there was a carved image of a cross and the person on it was Mary being crucified.

It had the rare combination of both blasphemy and idolatry. I was impressed.

13 The carpenter measures with a line
and makes an outline with a marker;
he roughs it out with chisels
and marks it with compasses.
He shapes it in human form,
human form in all its glory,
that it may dwell in a shrine.
14 He cut down cedars,
or perhaps took a cypress or oak.
He let it grow among the trees of the forest,
or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow.
15 It is used as fuel for burning;
some of it he takes and warms himself,
he kindles a fire and bakes bread.
But he also fashions a god and worships it;
he makes an idol and bows down to it.
16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire;
over it he prepares his meal,
he roasts his meat and eats his fill.
He also warms himself and says,
"Ah! I am warm; I see the fire."
17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol;
he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says,
"Save me! You are my god!"
18 They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand.
19 No one stops to think,
no one has the knowledge or understanding to say,
"Half of it I used for fuel;
I even baked bread over its coals,
I roasted meat and I ate.
Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left?
Shall I bow down to a block of wood?"
20 Such a person feeds on ashes; a deluded heart misleads him;
he cannot save himself, or say,
"Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?"
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lets not forget that Rome was known in the medieval times for paintings of man hiding in Mary's coat from the vengeful Jesus.

It's fair to say there's a difference between veneration and worship. I think it's also fair to say that the "veneration" shown to Mary is not the same as would be shown to any other being (Thaddeus does a great job of showcasing this), and veneration isn't the right word anymore. It's certainly fair to say that there's more worship elements in this respect than even Roman Catholics might want to admit to.
Thaddeus73
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No Catholic worships Mary by offering sacrifice to her, like in the bible.

Protestants build up a straw man "Mary worship" argument, and knock it down every time.

We worship Jesus. We worship the Eucharist, which is Jesus. Nothing else. We do, like Jesus did, honor His mother, unlike Protestants, who denigrate her every chance they get, because to denigrate Jesus' mother, in their minds, is to show Jesus how much you love him. Try this at home with your own mother and father, and see if it works there...
Dies Irae
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Lets not forget that Rome was known in the medieval times for paintings of man hiding in Mary's coat from the vengeful Jesus.

It's fair to say there's a difference between veneration and worship. I think it's also fair to say that the "veneration" shown to Mary is not the same as would be shown to any other being (Thaddeus does a great job of showcasing this), and veneration isn't the right word anymore. It's certainly fair to say that there's more worship elements in this respect than even Roman Catholics might want to admit to.



You can never love nor respect the Blessed Virgin more than her Son did. Every aspect of Mary points to Jesus, tells us to "do whatever He tells you". Mary should be venerated above all creation, other than Jesus she's the only sinless person to ever exist.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Look at verse 15 a little closer and consider to whom this promise from God would apply. Eve was not given her name until after the fall, and what he said in verse 15 comes to fruition through Mary, not Eve. Eve lost her status as the Woman in the fall. Mary fulfilled her role as the Woman who God declared would have enmity between her and sin, and provide the seed (virgin birth) for her offspring who would also have this same enmity. The Woman is Mary. In this example Women is more of a title or role than a name. I am not just looking for feminine words and haphazardly apply them to Mary as you suggest. It causes me no problem to back up a few verses or look at the entire book of Genesis if you like. It changes nothing about Mary and her role as the New Eve, the Woman.
I know this is an old thread, but I just have to say that this connection to Mary is illogical.



Quote:

12 The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Quote:

14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you."


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 3:1216.


Verses 12-16 reference woman, which up to this point is how Eve is known and clearly indicate Eve. Yet somehow you want us to believe that verse 15 takes a sharp right turn and is really referring to Mary?
Last I checked, Eve is the maternal beginning of all offspring and descendants, including Jesus. Particularly when in verse 16, it is so clearly and obviously referring to Eve and all of her descendants. I think its actually quite dangerous to take scripture so out of context and I caution against it.

You are correct that the New Testament affirms Jesus is the eventual offspring that defeats Satan. It does not affirm in any way that verse 15 refers to Mary specifically. Really, its obvious that the point of Verse 15 is to highlight the "seed" and all that follows from that moment, not so much the "woman".
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bob_Ag said:

Quote:

Look at verse 15 a little closer and consider to whom this promise from God would apply. Eve was not given her name until after the fall, and what he said in verse 15 comes to fruition through Mary, not Eve. Eve lost her status as the Woman in the fall. Mary fulfilled her role as the Woman who God declared would have enmity between her and sin, and provide the seed (virgin birth) for her offspring who would also have this same enmity. The Woman is Mary. In this example Women is more of a title or role than a name. I am not just looking for feminine words and haphazardly apply them to Mary as you suggest. It causes me no problem to back up a few verses or look at the entire book of Genesis if you like. It changes nothing about Mary and her role as the New Eve, the Woman.
I know this is an old thread, but I just have to say that this connection to Mary is illogical.



Quote:

12 The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Quote:

14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you."


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 3:1216.


Verses 12-16 reference woman, which up to this point is how Eve is known and clearly indicate Eve. Yet somehow you want us to believe that verse 15 takes a sharp right turn and is really referring to Mary?
Last I checked, Eve is the maternal beginning of all offspring and descendants, including Jesus. Particularly when in verse 16, it is so clearly and obviously referring to Eve and all of her descendants. I think its actually quite dangerous to take scripture so out of context and I caution against it.

You are correct that the New Testament affirms Jesus is the eventual offspring that defeats Satan. It does not affirm in any way that verse 15 refers to Mary specifically. Really, its obvious that the point of Verse 15 is to highlight the "seed" and all that follows from that moment, not so much the "woman".

And this is why the 'bible alone' doesn't work. This is your interpretation of scripture and not to debate its the lack of perspicacity that requires 1) reading all of scripture in context and 2) looking at what the original church fathers taught (and by fathers...I mean those who were students of the apostles etc).
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BluHorseShu said:

Bob_Ag said:

Quote:

Look at verse 15 a little closer and consider to whom this promise from God would apply. Eve was not given her name until after the fall, and what he said in verse 15 comes to fruition through Mary, not Eve. Eve lost her status as the Woman in the fall. Mary fulfilled her role as the Woman who God declared would have enmity between her and sin, and provide the seed (virgin birth) for her offspring who would also have this same enmity. The Woman is Mary. In this example Women is more of a title or role than a name. I am not just looking for feminine words and haphazardly apply them to Mary as you suggest. It causes me no problem to back up a few verses or look at the entire book of Genesis if you like. It changes nothing about Mary and her role as the New Eve, the Woman.
I know this is an old thread, but I just have to say that this connection to Mary is illogical.



Quote:

12 The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Quote:

14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you."


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 3:1216.


Verses 12-16 reference woman, which up to this point is how Eve is known and clearly indicate Eve. Yet somehow you want us to believe that verse 15 takes a sharp right turn and is really referring to Mary?
Last I checked, Eve is the maternal beginning of all offspring and descendants, including Jesus. Particularly when in verse 16, it is so clearly and obviously referring to Eve and all of her descendants. I think its actually quite dangerous to take scripture so out of context and I caution against it.

You are correct that the New Testament affirms Jesus is the eventual offspring that defeats Satan. It does not affirm in any way that verse 15 refers to Mary specifically. Really, its obvious that the point of Verse 15 is to highlight the "seed" and all that follows from that moment, not so much the "woman".

And this is why the 'bible alone' doesn't work. This is your interpretation of scripture and not to debate its the lack of perspicacity that requires 1) reading all of scripture in context and 2) looking at what the original church fathers taught (and by fathers...I mean those who were students of the apostles etc).
Look, I can agree there are passages and sections of the Bible that require context from other books (Revelation being the most obvious example), but what you are talking about here is the equivalent of me saying John 3:16 is not really referring to Jesus and anything else is just your interpretation because I can't trust the Word of God alone. Of course John 3:16 is referring to Jesus and of course Genesis 3:15 is referring to Eve. Just look at the verses immediately before and after it
.
Some passages don't require a PhD in theology or 2,000 years of church history to understand. It would kind of defeat the point of God giving us His word don't you think?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
y'all are talking past one another a bit. it's a prophecy, and the prophecy is fulfilled in Mary. theres a significant shift in the scriptures with Eve that isn't entirely obvious. Adam means man, but also Man in essence, like mankind. Adam was both a man and mankind. Christ is the new Adam, in that He is also mankind in His human nature - St Paul meditates on this in Romans 5. In Greek this is Christ as the new Anthropos, the new Man.

Adam doesn't get a new name....but Eve does! Before the expulsion from paradise Eve is only called Woman, the womankind to Adam's mankind. she does not become Eve until she becomes mother. St John parallels this in his gospel intentionally, and Mary is Woman until she becomes Mother at the foot of cross. Just as Adam is fulfilled and renewed in Christ through obedience (romans 5:19), as St Paul says, St John sees the Woman of Eve fulfilled in Mary, and therefore the prophecy is both made clear and fulfilled - filled to the brim. Also through obedience! which is why on feasts of the Theotokos we read "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

It's about Eve as Woman, and so it is also about Mary. There's no opposition between the two.

The point BluHorseShu is making is that this way of interpreting is passed down, and it illuminates the words on the page.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

y'all are talking past one another a bit. it's a prophecy, and the prophecy is fulfilled in Mary. theres a significant shift in the scriptures with Eve that isn't entirely obvious. Adam means man, but also Man in essence, like mankind. Adam was both a man and mankind. Christ is the new Adam, in that He is also mankind in His human nature - St Paul meditates on this in Romans 5. In Greek this is Christ as the new Anthropos, the new Man.

Adam doesn't get a new name....but Eve does! Before the expulsion from paradise Eve is only called Woman, the womankind to Adam's mankind. she does not become Eve until she becomes mother. St John parallels this in his gospel intentionally, and Mary is Woman until she becomes Mother at the foot of cross. Just as Adam is fulfilled and renewed in Christ through obedience (romans 5:19), as St Paul says, St John sees the Woman of Eve fulfilled in Mary, and therefore the prophecy is both made clear and fulfilled - filled to the brim. Also through obedience! which is why on feasts of the Theotokos we read "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."

It's about Eve as Woman, and so it is also about Mary. There's no opposition between the two.

The point BluHorseShu is making is that this way of interpreting is passed down, and it illuminates the words on the page.


Good post, can't disagree with anything you're saying. It's clearly prophecy and clearly Mary is the penultimate lineage of Eve that leads to Christ Jesus. Mary has to be involved because she literally is the one who gives birth to Jesus, although the woman being referenced is still Eve and her descendancy. The Greek word zera' is what is being used which makes more sense when applied to Eve as opposed to Mary. Although the fulfillment of the prophecy extends beyond just Mary's birth of Jesus. The ensuing enmity or hostility continues today, does it not? That's why verse 15 alludes to Mary in some ways, but it's not the central tenet.

However, I don't think any of that is getting to the point of contention here.

The issue is taking verse 15 and making it fit a certain theological dogma.

.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What Greek word zera?

And no, the prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. All prophecy is fulfilled in Christ.

You say fits a dogma - the view I have is the teaching comes from the text.

I guess I don't understand the point of contention.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bob_Ag said:

BluHorseShu said:

Bob_Ag said:

Quote:

Look at verse 15 a little closer and consider to whom this promise from God would apply. Eve was not given her name until after the fall, and what he said in verse 15 comes to fruition through Mary, not Eve. Eve lost her status as the Woman in the fall. Mary fulfilled her role as the Woman who God declared would have enmity between her and sin, and provide the seed (virgin birth) for her offspring who would also have this same enmity. The Woman is Mary. In this example Women is more of a title or role than a name. I am not just looking for feminine words and haphazardly apply them to Mary as you suggest. It causes me no problem to back up a few verses or look at the entire book of Genesis if you like. It changes nothing about Mary and her role as the New Eve, the Woman.
I know this is an old thread, but I just have to say that this connection to Mary is illogical.



Quote:

12 The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Quote:

14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you."


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 3:1216.


Verses 12-16 reference woman, which up to this point is how Eve is known and clearly indicate Eve. Yet somehow you want us to believe that verse 15 takes a sharp right turn and is really referring to Mary?
Last I checked, Eve is the maternal beginning of all offspring and descendants, including Jesus. Particularly when in verse 16, it is so clearly and obviously referring to Eve and all of her descendants. I think its actually quite dangerous to take scripture so out of context and I caution against it.

You are correct that the New Testament affirms Jesus is the eventual offspring that defeats Satan. It does not affirm in any way that verse 15 refers to Mary specifically. Really, its obvious that the point of Verse 15 is to highlight the "seed" and all that follows from that moment, not so much the "woman".

And this is why the 'bible alone' doesn't work. This is your interpretation of scripture and not to debate its the lack of perspicacity that requires 1) reading all of scripture in context and 2) looking at what the original church fathers taught (and by fathers...I mean those who were students of the apostles etc).
Look, I can agree there are passages and sections of the Bible that require context from other books (Revelation being the most obvious example), but what you are talking about here is the equivalent of me saying John 3:16 is not really referring to Jesus and anything else is just your interpretation because I can't trust the Word of God alone. Of course John 3:16 is referring to Jesus and of course Genesis 3:15 is referring to Eve. Just look at the verses immediately before and after it
.
Some passages don't require a PhD in theology or 2,000 years of church history to understand. It would kind of defeat the point of God giving us His word don't you think?
Absolutely many passages stand alone and easy to discern for the average person. I'm just saying that if in its entirety, scripture was easy to discern....there would have been 500+ years of trying to draw new interpretations out of it. Sitting alone under a tree reading the Bible for the first time, I don't believe most people would understand everything...but certainly alot.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Zobel said:

What Greek word zera?

And no, the prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. All prophecy is fulfilled in Christ.

You say fits a dogma - the view I have is the teaching comes from the text.

I guess I don't understand the point of contention.
Hebrew word...not Greek, mistype.

You're literally saying what I'm saying.

The prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, not Mary's birth of Christ. Hence the reason I'm pointing out enmity with satan still exists today because only part of the story has happened. It didn't end when Jesus was born. That's how we know verse 15 is not about referencing Mary (Woman is referring to Eve and her offspring that leads to Christ...ultimately through Mary) specifically and it shouldn't be used as a proof text for the veneration of Mary (dogma as declared by the RCC). It doesn't make any sense to apply that verse in that way and is taking it way out of context of the verses immediately prior and after it.

The teaching does come from the text. That's the whole point.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BluHorseShu said:

Bob_Ag said:

BluHorseShu said:

Bob_Ag said:

Quote:

Look at verse 15 a little closer and consider to whom this promise from God would apply. Eve was not given her name until after the fall, and what he said in verse 15 comes to fruition through Mary, not Eve. Eve lost her status as the Woman in the fall. Mary fulfilled her role as the Woman who God declared would have enmity between her and sin, and provide the seed (virgin birth) for her offspring who would also have this same enmity. The Woman is Mary. In this example Women is more of a title or role than a name. I am not just looking for feminine words and haphazardly apply them to Mary as you suggest. It causes me no problem to back up a few verses or look at the entire book of Genesis if you like. It changes nothing about Mary and her role as the New Eve, the Woman.
I know this is an old thread, but I just have to say that this connection to Mary is illogical.



Quote:

12 The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Quote:

14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you."


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 3:1216.


Verses 12-16 reference woman, which up to this point is how Eve is known and clearly indicate Eve. Yet somehow you want us to believe that verse 15 takes a sharp right turn and is really referring to Mary?
Last I checked, Eve is the maternal beginning of all offspring and descendants, including Jesus. Particularly when in verse 16, it is so clearly and obviously referring to Eve and all of her descendants. I think its actually quite dangerous to take scripture so out of context and I caution against it.

You are correct that the New Testament affirms Jesus is the eventual offspring that defeats Satan. It does not affirm in any way that verse 15 refers to Mary specifically. Really, its obvious that the point of Verse 15 is to highlight the "seed" and all that follows from that moment, not so much the "woman".

And this is why the 'bible alone' doesn't work. This is your interpretation of scripture and not to debate its the lack of perspicacity that requires 1) reading all of scripture in context and 2) looking at what the original church fathers taught (and by fathers...I mean those who were students of the apostles etc).
Look, I can agree there are passages and sections of the Bible that require context from other books (Revelation being the most obvious example), but what you are talking about here is the equivalent of me saying John 3:16 is not really referring to Jesus and anything else is just your interpretation because I can't trust the Word of God alone. Of course John 3:16 is referring to Jesus and of course Genesis 3:15 is referring to Eve. Just look at the verses immediately before and after it
.
Some passages don't require a PhD in theology or 2,000 years of church history to understand. It would kind of defeat the point of God giving us His word don't you think?
Absolutely many passages stand alone and easy to discern for the average person. I'm just saying that if in its entirety, scripture was easy to discern....there would have been 500+ years of trying to draw new interpretations out of it. Sitting alone under a tree reading the Bible for the first time, I don't believe most people would understand everything...but certainly alot.
I agree with you completely here. And I'm definitely not saying that to fully understand the Bible you can really rely on the Bible alone. You need context from other scriptures, Hebrew and Greek translations, historical perspective, teachings, etc.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

The prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, not Mary's birth of Christ. Hence the reason I'm pointing out enmity with satan still exists today because only part of the story has happened. It didn't end when Jesus was born.
It didn't end when Jesus was born, it ended when Jesus trampled down death by death in the Resurrection and ascended to the Father to rule in the midst of His enemies. It will truly end at the last judgment. But this particular thing is fulfilled.
Quote:

Woman is referring to Eve and her offspring that leads to Christ...ultimately through Mary
Just as St Paul understands Abraham's seed to be singular (Gal 3:16) from the Greek, here too the seed is singular in the Greek. The Seed is Christ, and He crushed Satan's head, though He was struck. So no, it is not Eve's offspring in a general sense, but Christ in particular.

Eve is the antitype to Mary; Mary is Woman and Mother fulfilled. There is no opposition between this being spoken to Eve, and fulfilled in Mary. Both are Woman, both become Mother. It's both, and there's no problem with that.

So how can we say this is out of context? It's completely a contextual read - you agreed. This verse absolutely is about Mary, because it is fulfilled in her. It's incredibly important that this is not my reading, this is St John's reading.

Perhaps you are taking an overly wooden understanding of the word fulfilled. But let's take an example. We probably agree that the virgin birth of Isaiah was spoken about Mary - at least I hope we do, because St Matthew certainly did. However, within the text of Isaiah it is clear he was talking about a child born in that time, probably Isaiah's own son. Isaiah gives a sign to Ahaz (king of Judah) that refers to two kings (Resin of Aram and Pekah of the northern kingdom of Israel) who's land will be deserted before the boy is of age. 2 Kings tells us Assyria invaded and conquered the Northern Kingdom, saving Judah as promised to Ahaz. So is Isaiah 7:14 about Mary or about another girl who lived 500 years before? The answer is yes. The sign was given to Ahaz, and fulfilled in Mary - in Christ. This case is no different.
Quote:

it shouldn't be used as a proof text for the veneration of Mary (dogma as declared by the RCC). It doesn't make any sense to apply that verse in that way and is taking it way out of context of the verses immediately prior and after it.
I really don't understand your objection here. No one is pointing to this verse as a proof text to say that Mary should be venerated. This verse is part of a tapestry of symbols in the scripture, once piece out of many, that tells us who Mary is. Unless you say - this verse is not part of understanding who Mary is - then I don't understand the problem.

When we see who Mary is - an image of the Church, of Israel, the bride unwedded, the faithful bride, the faithful Israel, the obedient Woman, the Mother, the ark of the covenant, the one who contains the uncontainable, the queen mother, the one full of grace, the one who will be called blessed by all nations - we honor her.

This honor is distinct and fundamentally apart from worship. We venerate her as we venerate all of the saints, because they have been made like Christ through grace. We honor them because they are friends of God, faithful servants of the Master. We do not worship them - worship and service are due to God alone. Nor would they accept our worship.

You are coming at it backwards - you say, show me where Mary should be venerated, this verse doesn't say she should be venerated, so it can't be dogma. That's not the structure of the claim being presented.
TAM85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Many Catholics see Mary as the great intercessor. Pray the rosary which ends with,

"Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, amen." and

It finishes with "Glory be to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world without end, amen."
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Very well stated, Zobel. The Orthodox and Catholic interpretive lens naturally incorporates typology in a way many Protestant have difficulty seeing or understanding. This is why proof-texting your way through scripture can be problematic.

The Woman in Genesis and in Revelation are perfect examples where Mary is an obvious (and I would argue primary) reference/anti-type. For Gen 3:15 or Revelation 12 to be interpreted to the exclusion of Mary is simply missing the mark entirely, as was argued earlier in this thread. These references can an do also encompass other types - but Mary is The Woman. This has always been understood by the Church from the very beginning.

Thank you for your way of explaining the faith and beliefs. I always learn something from your contributions.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluHorseShu said:

Bob_Ag said:

BluHorseShu said:

Bob_Ag said:

Quote:

Look at verse 15 a little closer and consider to whom this promise from God would apply. Eve was not given her name until after the fall, and what he said in verse 15 comes to fruition through Mary, not Eve. Eve lost her status as the Woman in the fall. Mary fulfilled her role as the Woman who God declared would have enmity between her and sin, and provide the seed (virgin birth) for her offspring who would also have this same enmity. The Woman is Mary. In this example Women is more of a title or role than a name. I am not just looking for feminine words and haphazardly apply them to Mary as you suggest. It causes me no problem to back up a few verses or look at the entire book of Genesis if you like. It changes nothing about Mary and her role as the New Eve, the Woman.
I know this is an old thread, but I just have to say that this connection to Mary is illogical.



Quote:

12 The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Quote:

14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel."

16 To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you."


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 3:1216.


Verses 12-16 reference woman, which up to this point is how Eve is known and clearly indicate Eve. Yet somehow you want us to believe that verse 15 takes a sharp right turn and is really referring to Mary?
Last I checked, Eve is the maternal beginning of all offspring and descendants, including Jesus. Particularly when in verse 16, it is so clearly and obviously referring to Eve and all of her descendants. I think its actually quite dangerous to take scripture so out of context and I caution against it.

You are correct that the New Testament affirms Jesus is the eventual offspring that defeats Satan. It does not affirm in any way that verse 15 refers to Mary specifically. Really, its obvious that the point of Verse 15 is to highlight the "seed" and all that follows from that moment, not so much the "woman".

And this is why the 'bible alone' doesn't work. This is your interpretation of scripture and not to debate its the lack of perspicacity that requires 1) reading all of scripture in context and 2) looking at what the original church fathers taught (and by fathers...I mean those who were students of the apostles etc).
Look, I can agree there are passages and sections of the Bible that require context from other books (Revelation being the most obvious example), but what you are talking about here is the equivalent of me saying John 3:16 is not really referring to Jesus and anything else is just your interpretation because I can't trust the Word of God alone. Of course John 3:16 is referring to Jesus and of course Genesis 3:15 is referring to Eve. Just look at the verses immediately before and after it
.
Some passages don't require a PhD in theology or 2,000 years of church history to understand. It would kind of defeat the point of God giving us His word don't you think?
Absolutely many passages stand alone and easy to discern for the average person. I'm just saying that if in its entirety, scripture was easy to discern....there would have been 500+ years of trying to draw new interpretations out of it. Sitting alone under a tree reading the Bible for the first time, I don't believe most people would understand everything...but certainly alot.

500 years? Surely you mean 2000 years? I know Rome likes to blame the Reformation for every ill, but the Reformation was really nothing new.

Most of the heresies and schisms were not between christians and non-christians, but between christian groups.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

It didn't end when Jesus was born, it ended when Jesus trampled down death by death in the Resurrection and ascended to the Father to rule in the midst of His enemies. It will truly end at the last judgment. But this particular thing is fulfilled.
I'm not sure if this is a rebuttal but you are literally repeating what I said. It didn't end at the birth of Christ. We both agree.


Quote:

Just as St Paul understands Abraham's seed to be singular (Gal 3:16) from the Greek, here too the seed is singular in the Greek. The Seed is Christ, and He crushed Satan's head, though He was struck. So no, it is not Eve's offspring in a general sense, but Christ in particular.
You do understand the term can literally mean the singular and plural at the same time? It can mean one offspring or many offsprings. The same word is used several times in multiple passages through the OT. In one sense its plural. All of the descendants (believers or the Church) of Eve have enmity with satan (Eph 6:12). Then of course it can refer to the seed of Mary.

Quote:

So how can we say this is out of context? It's completely a contextual read - you agreed. This verse absolutely is about Mary, because it is fulfilled in her.
No this verse is about Christ Jesus and God's first biblical hint at redemption during the fall of Adam and Eve. He curses satan, then Eve, then Adam. To Eve, he speaks directly of her offspring knowing it is ultimately Jesus. To satan, he tells him that "He will crush your head". It is fulfilled in Christ's actions ultimately, but begins with offspring which references the eventual humanly birth of Jesus, Mary's offspring. No one is debating the interpretation of the verse. We are all saying the same thing. You can't remove Eve or Mary from the passage, but its truly about our Savior. However, just because the verse includes Mary, doesn't mean its the focal point.

Quote:

Eve is the antitype to Mary; Mary is Woman and Mother fulfilled. There is no opposition between this being spoken to Eve, and fulfilled in Mary. Both are Woman, both become Mother. It's both, and there's no problem with that.

Yes I agree, I told you that is not the point of contention.

Quote:

I really don't understand your objection here. No one is pointing to this verse as a proof text to say that Mary should be venerated.

I don't understand how you can say that. We are literally on a thread discussing Catholic Dogma in regards to Mary which references Genesis 3:15 several times by Catholic posters here. To me, and several others, that takes the verse out of context of its purpose. Mary is alluded to obviously, but as I said, the verse is about Jesus. It just seems odd to take the first prophetic message of the Bible and make it all about Mary when God is clearly telling us its about Christ. That does not mean she is not celebrated or is being denigrated in any way. She is certainly revered, but God is telling us this passage is about the eventual defeat of satan by Jesus. We know that by looking at the whole verse and not just one part of it.
Quote:

You are coming at it backwards - you say, show me where Mary should be venerated, this verse doesn't say she should be venerated, so it can't be dogma. That's not the structure of the claim being presented.
I disagree and it is what is being presented. I just merely posted an objection.



Either way, its an interesting topic and I don't see anyone of us changing our minds on it.




Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Quote:

You do understand the term can literally mean the singular and plural at the same time? It can mean one offspring or many offsprings. The same word is used several times in multiple passages through the OT. In one sense its plural. All of the descendants (believers or the Church) of Eve have enmity with satan (Eph 6:12). Then of course it can refer to the seed of Mary.
I actually strongly disagree here. This is a translation error. It can mean singular and plural at the same time in English. Not in Greek. In Greek the singular and plural of the word seed are different. Interestingly enough in Hebrew it is more like English in the ambiguity of whether it is singular or plural. That's why we know St Paul had the Greek in mind when he spoke about it in Galatians - he wrote "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say 'and to seeds' as of many but 'and to your seed' as of One, who is Christ." Here St Paul makes a theological point based solely on the grammar of the Greek. Likewise, in Genesis 3:15 the word "seed" is singular, not plural.

Quote:

However, just because the verse includes Mary, doesn't mean its the focal point.
... who said it was the focal point? I said it was about Mary, and indeed it is - when it is your (Woman) seed (singular), the singular seed of is Christ, and the Woman who gives birth to Him is Mary. Everything said about Mary is Christological in this way.

Quote:

It just seems odd to take the first prophetic message of the Bible and make it all about Mary when God is clearly telling us its about Christ. That does not mean she is not celebrated or is being denigrated in any way. She is certainly revered, but God is telling us this passage is about the eventual defeat of satan by Jesus. We know that by looking at the whole verse and not just one part of it.
I don't get it. It is both. It being about Christ does not make it not about Mary. It being about Mary does not make it not about Christ. I didn't say it is "all about Mary" much less only about Mary. But it is about her. She is part of the story - an important part. The beautiful thing about God's love is He chooses to work through people to affect salvation. This is why the works we do through the Spirit are truly Good - they're His works, not ours. This is no different. The bold part seems to apply more to you than me. If we look at the whole verse, we understand there is something to learn about Woman along with the Seed. It doesn't lessen Christ that we honor people for their part, because this is His choice to include people in salvation. Honor directed to the saints and prophets - including the Theotokos - is directed to him.

Formally we say this when speaking of icons - the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it. But there's a second confession here hidden in the first, which is that we each of us are images of God. Therefore the honor directed to the saints passes to their prototype, which is Christ.

Quote:

I disagree and it is what is being presented. I just merely posted an objection.

Unless you can quote to me where someone said something like "Genesis 3:15 says we should venerate Mary" this is just handwaving. We should venerate Mary because of who she is, in Christ, and what she did, in Christ. Genesis 3:15 is part of understanding who she is, along with a whole basket of other information. This honor passes to Christ, who is the prototype for all Mankind. (Indeed when we say in the symbol of faith He "became man" man is in the sense of anthropos, not anir "a man"... it uses the special word enanthropisanta, He en-human-ed or mankinded Himself.)
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Gen 3:15
" I will put enmity between you and The Woman."

Before God speaks to or about the Woman's offspring - notice he first speaks to the Woman. The Woman is Mary - there could be multiple meanings but Mary is absolutely one of them. Enmity is complete opposition or hatred. Her offspring is Jesus. It is only through the Blessed Virgin Mary that the Jews could identify Jesus as the true Messiah as the prophesies were OT fulfilled through her.

Yes, everything about Mary leads us to Christ and who Christ is, but again that is not to the exclusion of who Mary is. Mary, our Theotokos, does not become meaningless because she brings our savior into this fallen world, but to the contrary she becomes the Queen Mother. It's beautiful.

AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Faithful Ag said:

Very well stated, Zobel. The Orthodox and Catholic interpretive lens naturally incorporates typology in a way many Protestant have difficulty seeing or understanding. This is why proof-texting your way through scripture can be problematic.

The Woman in Genesis and in Revelation are perfect examples where Mary is an obvious (and I would argue primary) reference/anti-type. For Gen 3:15 or Revelation 12 to be interpreted to the exclusion of Mary is simply missing the mark entirely, as was argued earlier in this thread. These references can an do also encompass other types - but Mary is The Woman. This has always been understood by the Church from the very beginning.

Thank you for your way of explaining the faith and beliefs. I always learn something from your contributions.

The reason of typology is generally dismissed by not just Reformers, but a lot of the historic church is because it lends itself to fanciful ideas, whether they fit within the text itself or other.

So sure, in a system that makes unwritten and unverifiable claims, typology is great because you can make Scripture say what you want it to say as you do in the second paragraph.

Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

The reason of typology is generally dismissed by not just Reformers, but a lot of the historic church is because it lends itself to fanciful ideas, whether they fit within the text itself or other.

So sure, in a system that makes unwritten and unverifiable claims, typology is great because you can make Scripture say what you want it to say as you do in the second paragraph.


Comical. This from the one who says this verse below is speaking about Genesis 37 and Joseph's dream because he had a sun and a moon it - AND IN NO WAY WOULD ADMIT THE BELOW ALLUDING TO MARY, WHO GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS. Sorry, but I find your position completely untenable.
Revelation 11-12 said:

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I actually strongly disagree here. This is a translation error. It can mean singular and plural at the same time in English. Not in Greek. In Greek the singular and plural of the word seed are different. Interestingly enough in Hebrew it is more like English in the ambiguity of whether it is singular or plural. That's why we know St Paul had the Greek in mind when he spoke about it in Galatians - he wrote "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say 'and to seeds' as of many but 'and to your seed' as of One, who is Christ." Here St Paul makes a theological point based solely on the grammar of the Greek. Likewise, in Genesis 3:15 the word "seed" is singular, not plural.
It's not ambiguity. The singular or plural are given from the context of the phrase and can mean both at the same time. How do we know this? Because when we read the whole verse of Gen 3:15, we know that it is true that we, believers, the Church (descendant - plural), and Christ (singular-seed) all have enmity with satan.

Once again, just read Ephesians 6. Paul is talking to us, the Church. Plural

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.....16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one;

Strongly disagree all you want, but several scholars also disagree with you and interpret the verse to mean Eve's descendants in the plural.


Quote:

I don't get it. It is both. It being about Christ does not make it not about Mary. It being about Mary does not make it not about Christ. I didn't say it is "all about Mary" much less only about Mary. But it is about her. She is part of the story - an important part. The beautiful thing about God's love is He chooses to work through people to affect salvation. This is why the works we do through the Spirit are truly Good - they're His works, not ours. This is no different. The bold part seems to apply more to you than me. If we look at the whole verse, we understand there is something to learn about Woman along with the Seed. It doesn't lessen Christ that we honor people for their part, because this is His choice to include people in salvation. Honor directed to the saints and prophets - including the Theotokos - is directed to him.

The verse and the passage is literally about all of us. God curses all of mankind, all of womankind, and Satan and his followers (all plural). As noted above, the woman's offspring includes all of us. It's also referring to the body of believers, the overall Church. We are the reflections of light in a dark world dwelled upon by the devil and his followers. We have enmity with the evil one. This is why you can't eliminate the plurality of the verse and the Woman's offspring. Its illogical that God is only referring to Mary as the woman and Christ as the only seed because in verse 16 and 17 He is literally referring to all of Adam and Eves descendants. When you make it only singular like you are doing, you are making it more about Mary than it is referring to and that is what I'm saying when mention its being taken out of context. Of course it includes Mary because it includes ALL of us. However, we all understand the penultimate fulfillment comes at the second coming of Jesus.

Just because you pick and choose verses that use the word singularly doesn't change the fact the very same word is used 204 times in the Old Testament and the overwhelming majority are PLURAL in usage.

Quote:

Unless you can quote to me where someone said something like "Genesis 3:15 says we should venerate Mary" this is just handwaving
Look at the very next post after yours.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Before God speaks to or about the Woman's offspring - notice he first speaks to the Woman. The Woman is Mary - there could be multiple meanings but Mary is absolutely one of them. Enmity is complete opposition or hatred. Her offspring is Jesus. It is only through the Blessed Virgin Mary that the Jews could identify Jesus as the true Messiah as the prophesies were OT fulfilled through her.

Yes, everything about Mary leads us to Christ and who Christ is, but again that is not to the exclusion of who Mary is. Mary, our Theotokos, does not become meaningless because she brings our savior into this fallen world, but to the contrary she becomes the Queen Mother. It's beautiful.
There is a big difference in saying the verse is about Mary like Zobel is doing, and you saying the woman is Mary.

Tell me, who is God talking to in verse 16?
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In Verse 15 God is speaking to the serpent and the consequences of the relationship between the serpent (Devil/sin) and the Woman (Mary), and then the same enmity between the devil and HER offspring. We as humans, fallen men, do not have enmity between us and the devil/sin. That is the battle we fight every day and often lose and need forgiveness. You do see that the offspring being foretold is Jesus Christ, which means the Woman in the same verse would be his mother, Mary. Mary's desire is to do the will of God, and his perfectly aligned with her son.

Quote:

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


Then God turns to the woman (Eve) in verse 16 to speak of the consequences of her sin on her and future generations. There is conflict between her and her husband and their desires.
Quote:

To the woman he said,
"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you."


While on it's face it would appear God was just talking about the Woman generally, Jesus helps us understand what this verse was foreshadowing when he bestows the title of Woman on his mother at the wedding in Cana and again at the foot of the Cross. The church has always recognized this as a type of Mary in Genesis.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

How do we know this? Because when we read the whole verse of Gen 3:15, we know that it is true that we, believers, the Church (descendant - plural), and Christ (singular-seed) all have enmity with satan.
this is just a circular argument that you know you're right because when you read it it you see that it says you're right. All descendants of Eve are not the church, so this falls apart on casual examination anyway. Cain doesn't have enmity with Satan - he belonged to the evil one.

St Paul makes a theological point that seed is singular in the Greek. It is also singular in the Greek here. Therefore in the Greek it cannot be - literally - plural. The offspring spoken of is singular, one seed. If we use an English word that is like "seed" in Greek this would be like you arguing the word son means all of us. It does not, and literally cannot.

In Hebrew it is ambiguous. In Greek it is not. St Paul looks to the Greek and says - it is singular, and therefore about Christ. Take it up with him.
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

In Verse 15 God is speaking to the serpent and the consequences of the relationship between the serpent (Devil/sin) and the Woman (Mary), and then the same enmity between the devil and HER offspring. We as humans, fallen men, do not have enmity between us and the devil/sin. That is the battle we fight every day and often lose and need forgiveness. You do see that the offspring being foretold is Jesus Christ, which means the Woman in the same verse would be his mother, Mary. Mary's desire is to do the will of God, and his perfectly aligned with her son.
Paul says otherwise.

Quote:


Then God turns to the woman (Eve) in verse 16 to speak of the consequences of her sin on her and future generations. There is conflict between her and her husband and their desires.
Yes God is addressing Eve in verse 16, just like he was in verse 15.

Quote:

While on it's face it would appear God was just talking about the Woman generally, Jesus helps us understand what this verse was foreshadowing when he bestows the title of Woman on his mother at the wedding in Cana and again at the foot of the Cross. The church has always recognized this as a type of Mary in Genesis.
That's great, but are you really arguing that God is not bestowing a curse on womanhood here?
Bob_Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

this is just a circular argument that you know you're right because when you read it it you see that it says you're right. All descendants of Eve are not the church, so this falls apart on casual examination anyway. Cain doesn't have enmity with Satan - he belonged to the evil one.
I never once said this. I said we, us, believer, the Church and Christ Jesus are descendants of Eve. My answers remain the same, perhaps it is you going around in circles?

Quote:

St Paul makes a theological point that seed is singular in the Greek. It is also singular in the Greek here. Therefore in the Greek it cannot be - literally - plural. The offspring spoken of is singular, one seed. If we use an English word that is like "seed" in Greek this would be like you arguing the word son means all of us. It does not, and literally cannot.

In Hebrew it is ambiguous. In Greek it is not. St Paul looks to the Greek and says - it is singular, and therefore about Christ. Take it up with him.
Why? Paul is not even referencing this verse. It's a non sequitur. Seed, offspring, and descendants are used hundreds if not thousands of times in the Bible.

Genesis 46:6-7
6 They also took their livestock and their goods, which they had gained in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob and all his offspring with him, 7 his sons, and his sons' sons with him, his daughters, and his sons' daughters. All his offspring he brought with him into Egypt.


Same Hebrew word zera' being used. Do you think offspring here is referring to singular or plural?

It's quite odd that you are so adamant about using semantics to constrain scripture. God is not trying to trick us with his Word.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bob_Ag said:

Quote:

In Verse 15 God is speaking to the serpent and the consequences of the relationship between the serpent (Devil/sin) and the Woman (Mary), and then the same enmity between the devil and HER offspring. We as humans, fallen men, do not have enmity between us and the devil/sin. That is the battle we fight every day and often lose and need forgiveness. You do see that the offspring being foretold is Jesus Christ, which means the Woman in the same verse would be his mother, Mary. Mary's desire is to do the will of God, and his perfectly aligned with her son.
Paul says otherwise.
Can you be more specific here? Paul says a lot of things.

Bob_Ag said:

Quote:


Then God turns to the woman (Eve) in verse 16 to speak of the consequences of her sin on her and future generations. There is conflict between her and her husband and their desires.
Yes God is addressing Eve in verse 16, just like he was in verse 15.
In Verse 15 God was addressing the Serpent, not the Woman. God Spoke of the Woman and of her offspring. The offspring with enmity that will crush the head of the Serpent is Jesus, the New Adam, which he completed through the Cross and his Glorious Resurrection. The Woman who will give birth to Jesus, her offspring, is Mary, the New Eve. Notice in the garden how Eve becomes the mother of the living and Adam and Eve are then given clothes, and in contrast at the foot of the Cross Mary is revealed as the mother of the Church while Jesus was stripped naked on the Cross? Eve was taken from the flesh of Adam. Jesus took on his flesh from Mary, and Jesus gives that flesh to all of us on the Cross and in the Eucharist. The parallels are not accidental. Jesus calls our attention to this when he calls his mother by her title and reveals who she is, the Woman.

Bob_Ag said:

Quote:

While on it's face it would appear God was just talking about the Woman generally, Jesus helps us understand what this verse was foreshadowing when he bestows the title of Woman on his mother at the wedding in Cana and again at the foot of the Cross. The church has always recognized this as a type of Mary in Genesis.
That's great, but are you really arguing that God is not bestowing a curse on womanhood here?
The consequences of sin is death. Punishment was handed down by God to Women, Men, and to the Serpent. Jesus, born of the Woman, the New Eve, the Arc of His Covenant, the Theotokos, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God and the Mother of all Christians, overcame death through his Cross and Resurrection.

That is what I am arguing.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Quote:

Why? Paul is not even referencing this verse. It's a non sequitur. Seed, offspring, and descendants are used hundreds if not thousands of times in the Bible.
In Galations St Paul reads closely the promise to Abraham. He notes "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say "and to seeds" as of many but "and to your seed" as of One, who is Christ."

As I noted before, this point cannot be made in the Hebrew from this word alone, because the plural in Hebrew is the same as the plural in English - seed / seed is ambiguous as to whether you are talking about one, or many. Just like fish or deer. But St Paul looks at the Greek, and in the Greek the plural is not the same as the singular. They are different words. So he rightly notes that this promise is not to many, but to one.

The Greek word in Genesis 3:15 is singular, not plural. This promise cannot be to many, but to one.

This pattern of translation is consistent in the Hebrew, though. When zera is about many offspring, i.e., posterity, the pronouns are always plural, but when it denotes a specific descendent the syntax of the surrounding words is singular (Gen 4:25, 2 Sam 7:12-15, Gen 21:13, Gen 38:9, 1 Sam 1;11, Isaiah 41:8). And the Greek follows these in the use of singular and plural.

Aside from the plural/singular syntax you also get the gendering in Greek - when seed is singular, the pronouns are masculine even though "seed" is neuter. The singular "he" that crushes the head is referring back to the same singular offspring. Otherwise you have the strange reading where we talk about a "they" and the next sentence introduce a new "he" who is otherwise unreferenced. This is clear enough from the whole passage in the Hebrew, but in the Greek it grammatically can not be read any other way. Seed here is one person.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Faithful Ag said:

AgLiving06 said:

The reason of typology is generally dismissed by not just Reformers, but a lot of the historic church is because it lends itself to fanciful ideas, whether they fit within the text itself or other.

So sure, in a system that makes unwritten and unverifiable claims, typology is great because you can make Scripture say what you want it to say as you do in the second paragraph.


Comical. This from the one who says this verse below is speaking about Genesis 37 and Joseph's dream because he had a sun and a moon it - AND IN NO WAY WOULD ADMIT THE BELOW ALLUDING TO MARY, WHO GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS. Sorry, but I find your position completely untenable.
Revelation 11-12 said:

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail.
And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.


We going to do this once again?

It's your argument that:

1. Mary cried out in pain from the birth of Jesus?
2. She was clothes in the sun with the moon under her feet?
3. At Jesus birth, there was a literal dragon standing before her?

and so forth.

As before, you want to argue that this one word is literal, but everything else is figurative because of what your unwritten tradition has claimed as truth.

Lets not forget the lack of historical evidences for the claim and what you are left with is an unwritten tradition that doesn't align with Scripture or history.


 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.