Thank you.
Is Mary the New Eve?
- Thread starter Major
- Start date
Huntingteckel
Inactive
The device you used was meant to annoy, so it isn't allowed here.
of course,
otherwise you are like simon who tried to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit for money.
a lot of lazy Christians like to pull out the grace card.
I think if you study the posts that are in this thread, the sticking point has been that Mary is not mentioned as being the new Eve in the Bible.
Nobody is denigrating Mary, merely opposing the idea that the Bible can be made to teach other than what it does. It wouldn't matter if the topic of discussion mentioned Mary or not. Anytime someone tries to add traditions or the ideas of men to the Bible, there is going to be friction. The same thing is happening on the thread about guardian angels.
So my point is that the things RCC adherents hold to be important but are not contained in the Bible should not be pushed onto others. If it was something fundamental and necessary for salvation then that could reasonably be discussed. IMHO.
A woman is going to be m0re interested in the lives of the women of the Bible, such as Eve or Mary and others. Simply put, because women look to women as someone to possibly emulate in action and speech. Men will look to more men.
In this, I would say Lady Mary would be a much better example for a young women. We know slightly more about her and she is an excellent example of a pious woman. She is definitely someone to emulate and love.
But in this, Christ Jesus would be the most important example to everyone (regardless of sex), should we be emulating - But for a woman, having a woman to look up to as to what we are to do and be and attempt to live up to, Mary would be it. She was a woman of prayer, faithful to God, she was a good and faithful wife, she was a loving mother.
She was that woman that is praised at the gate.
So, it is perhaps that sometimes Lady Mary is not someone many men will spend much time considering the life of, even though they love her also.
I've just looked up St George's in Norwich, the nearest city to me (a small city but one that at one time used to claim to have a church for each week of the year [and a pub for each day of the year]). It has three, St George Colegate, St George Tombland and St George Sprowston. The first two are Church of England but, as I suspected, they were dedicated when the church in England was part of the Roman Catholic church. The third appears to be 20th century and is Roman Catholic.
I'd guess St George may well have been popular in England as he is the patron saint but if (as I thought you were trying to do in a previous post) you are trying to work down Church of England=Anglican vs Roman Catholic dedications, it isn't going to work.
Saint calvin. I like it! It is Biblical!
Amen! That is what I gathered as well from the post.
HisManySongs
Passed on, February 28, 2022
I wasn't referring to you specifically Calvin. I just mean in general, I don't understand why there is objection to calling Mary the new Eve.
I think mary has nothing to do with eve, because Jesus is somewhere referred to as the second adam, so how can adam be born of eve, its nonsense,
mary was chosen and blessed end of story, even on the cross Jesus recinded or nulified their relationship by declaring that John was now her son.
He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" 27Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.
OK, I took your post to be addressed to me.
I'd be just guessing, but I think any reference to Mary that is outside the authority of Scripture would tend to act like an instance of Mary worship.
The RCC of course deny this, and most others reject their denials. hence this thread.
As I have indicated previous I don't object to the RCC making this claim in fact I might have hinted that I think it has some merit
My only personal objection is in the use of the word "new". I think ultimate or 'last' would be more fitting for Mary, because there will be no future Marys. But 'new' allows for the possibility of Mary being replaced at some time in the future by another, which means Jesus would be replaced by another...we have more or less seen this begin to be attempted back around 610AD.
Last edited:
OK, I took your post to be addressed to me.
I'd be just guessing, but I think any reference to Mary that is outside the authority of Scripture would tend to act like an instance of Mary worship.
The RCC of course deny this, and most others reject their denials. hence this thread.
As I have indicated previous I don't object to the RCC making this claim in fact I might have hinted that I think it has some merit
My only personal objection is in the use of the word "new". I think ultimate or 'last' would be more fitting for Mary, because there will be no future Marys. But 'new' allows for the possibility of Mary being replaced at some time in the future by another, which means Jesus would be replaced by another...we have more or less seen this begin to happen back around 610AD.
I think Justin Martyr used to term "Second Mary." But whether the word used is New, Second, or Last, it's really not important. It's not a dogmatic phrase or anything like that. What really matters is the substance behind the phrase. The Catholic Church itself doesn't have an official word for it at all in fact, except for possibly "The Virgin Mary."
Even the word "Transubstantiation" wasn't coined until the medieval era to describe what was always believed in the Church.
Understandable. I think people use the word "new" because so many people refer to Christ as the "New" Adam as opposed to the Last Adam or the Second Adam...even though they technically all work.
OK, I took your post to be addressed to me.
I'd be just guessing, but I think any reference to Mary that is outside the authority of Scripture would tend to act like an instance of Mary worship.
The RCC of course deny this, and most others reject their denials. hence this thread.
As I have indicated previous I don't object to the RCC making this claim in fact I might have hinted that I think it has some merit
My only personal objection is in the use of the word "new". I think ultimate or 'last' would be more fitting for Mary, because there will be no future Marys. But 'new' allows for the possibility of Mary being replaced at some time in the future by another, which means Jesus would be replaced by another...we have more or less seen this begin to be attempted back around 610AD.
The term does come from Paul's assertion that Jesus is the new Adam, which makes Mary a good 'new Eve'.
Certainly Paul's analogy is not indicating there will be a 'new Jesus'
I do not consider the phrase to come from Paul and he does not indicate it or reference Eve. He contrasts the 1st Adam to Jesus and Him being the 2nd Adam but that is as far as he goes.
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
You thought I was...um, what did you think I was trying to do?? I am confused.
I thought you were trying to work out whether one could tell whether a church was Roman Catholic or Church Of England, etc. by its name.
PeaceLikeaRiver
Inactive
Well, yes I was, but I had no preconceived ideas about the name "George" at all, apart from its importance to the C of E.