Is Mary the New Eve?

[calvin]

I didn't say there are only two infallible teachings -- for instance, The Bible being God-breathed is an infallible teaching. Christ being both man and divine is an infallible teaching -- rather, these are dogmatic teachings.

But only two times in history has a pope spoken infallibly...that's what I said. A lot of people think that every time an encyclical comes forward, it is the pope speaking infallibly, but it's almost always not. Only twice in all of Catholic history has the pope done this.

However, this is a dogmatic position when it comes to Mary. For instance, one must believe she was a virgin--that Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

When asked whether one has to have a devotion to her in order to reach heaven, I have a general answer, which was no. And that's true--that's the general answer to the general question. But if we wanted to go deeper, that you'll find much more than just "no."

For instance, if I asked you "Do I have to go to read the Bible in order to go to heaven?" the general answer to that is no. We are not saved by reading the Bible. However, reading the Bible strengthens our faith which is necessary to going to heaven. I said in a previous thread recently that at the at some point, we were all brand new Christians with very little knowledge. But if our Christianity--our knowledge, our faith, our relationship with Christ--doesn't mature, then that could be a severe problem.

Thanks for your reply Lysander. I don't think you are fully understanding what I am confused about though.
Since it is way off topic let's move to another thread?

 

[Major]

When I say Mary's obedience, I am speaking in regards to her saying Yes to God's request of her to be the mother of our Lord. Her sinning or not sinning is for a different thread -- one of which we've had many.

Larry......what is the Bible verse that tells us Mary was asked to be the vessel of Christ's incarnation?

Where did she say YES to a request?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Not only is the term..."New Eve" not found in the Bible, IMO the teaching from the Catholic believers you mentioned on the topic was done by them to support their opinions instead of commenting on the Bible they commented on the opinions of men which as we all now know have become the "traditions" the church falls back on to support its teachings.

I myself would question how they could be right when it's just their commentary provided they had no real connection to the faith, but the Catholic believers I mentioned were actual students of the Apostles; these were the students of John the Apostle, Peter the Apostle, and Paul the Apostle. Their commentary was one degree from those who actually wrote the Gospels. Surely, their commentary has to have some validity. These weren't just random guys who happened to be Catholic -- these were 1st and 2nd century Christians who were personally taught by the gospel writers.

Not bad.

Now allow me to speak to the phrase of .."Mary was the mother of God". IMO we need to compare oranges to oranges. I think to say that organized Christianity recognize and accept Mary as the mother of God is a bit of a stretch. Certainly some do but not all. The idea was not some kind of universal decision. Wasn't it a decision by the Catholic church and then some of the then churches simply fell in line.

Larry, I am sure that you know that the phrase “mother of God” originated with and continues to be used in the RCC. One of the topics at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 was the use of the Greek term Theotókos, or “God-bearer,” in reference to Mary. That council officially proclaimed Mary as the “mother of God,” and the doctrine was later included in the Catholic catechism. The idea behind calling Mary the “mother of God” is that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God.

The major problem with this teachig is that the term “God” implies the totality of Yahweh, and we know that Yahweh has no beginning and no end.

Psalms 90:2(ESV)
2 "Before the mountains were brought forth,or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

1 Tim. 6:15-16(ESV)
15 "which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen."

That tells us that God is immortal. Being immortal, God never was “born” and never had a “mother.” The second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, did have a beginning to His earthly ministry when he was conceived in Mary’s womb and was born, but from eternity past He had always been the Son of God.

John 1:1-2
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God."

Now consider Phillipians 2:6-7
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

That gives us a bit more insight on what transpired when Jesus left heaven to become man. Jesus was already one with the Father, but He set aside His rights as Divinity and took the form of a baby and went on to live the normal life of a Jewish boy, obeying His earthly parents.

A mother by definition precedes her child and at some point is more powerful than her child. So to call Mary the “mother of God” gives the misleading implication that Mary preceded and at one time was more powerful than the Lord God Almighty. Although Catholic doctrine tries to deny this implication, it is inescapable.

It is biblical to say that Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ during His incarnation on the earth. However, Catholics believe it is not enough to say that Mary was the mother of Jesus. Pope John Paul II, in a speech in 1996, encouraged people “not only to invoke the Blessed Virgin as the Mother of Jesus, but also to recognize her as Mother of God” (L'Osservatore Romano, 4 December 1996, p. 11). This is not biblical. The Lord God Almighty has no mother, since He has no beginning and no end (Genesis 1:1; Revelation 4:8).
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html#ixzz3EEZFVcvH

When this statement came from the Council of Ephesus, this wasn't some sort of change in doctrine, but an official statement to be made on where the Church stands.

The position of Mary being the mother of God isn't any different from what you believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trouble you're having with this term is that some might take it as meaning "Mary gave birth to God" as in God the father. But of course that's not what it means. If people walk away with that statement, then they don't know the gospel, but what it does mean is that Mary gave birth to Jesus who happens to be God in the flesh. That's all. It's a recognition that she carried the divine son and gave birth to Him. It also means that God directly chose her to carry out this mission. It's not, nor has it ever been, a statement of "God has always been....but still, Mary gave birth to God." I think most people with half a brain would know that doesn't even make any sense. It would disrupt the omnipotence of God and would mean God couldn't even be real.

The discussion is now getting hung up on terminology rather than substance. "Means to and ends," "New Eve," "Mother of God," all of these phrases are only phrases to describe what is self-evident, not change what is true.

If we can, I'd like to try and move forward with the conversation rather than taking two steps forward and three steps back.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Thanks for your reply Lysander. I don't think you are fully understanding what I am confused about though.
Since it is way off topic let's move to another thread?

No worries.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Larry......what is the Bible verse that tells us Mary was asked to be the vessel of Christ's incarnation?

Where did she say YES to a request?

Major, I think I've answered this twice already to Cloud. I'm not sure if you are asking just to debate or if you honestly hold the position that God commanded this to Mary giving her no choice. But if you really are asking because you disagree, I can only recommend reading the response I gave Cloud.

I mean no disrespect, but I can't keep answering the same questions 3 or 4 times over again. The discussion goes nowhere.

 

[Major]

Major, I think I've answered this twice already to Cloud. I'm not sure if you are asking just to debate or if you honestly hold the position that God commanded this to Mary giving her no choice. But if you really are asking because you disagree, I can only recommend reading the response I gave Cloud.

I mean no disrespect, but I can't keep answering the same questions 3 or 4 times over again. The discussion goes nowhere.

My apologies. I must not have read all of the responces. So instead of asking I will just make a comment instead.

I was asking if there is Biblical truth that says Mary actually was asked in order to be obedient to God. That seems to be what I am hearing over and over that Mary was obedient and Eve was not. But where do we find that actually taking place.

When I read the Scriptures, it is Gabriel informing Mary of what is going to happen and not if she is OK with it which seems to rule out obedience.

 

[Major]

I myself would question how they could be right when it's just their commentary provided they had no real connection to the faith, but the Catholic believers I mentioned were actual students of the Apostles; these were the students of John the Apostle, Peter the Apostle, and Paul the Apostle. Their commentary was one degree from those who actually wrote the Gospels. Surely, their commentary has to have some validity. These weren't just random guys who happened to be Catholic -- these were 1st and 2nd century Christians who were personally taught by the gospel writers.

Not bad.



When this statement came from the Council of Ephesus, this wasn't some sort of change in doctrine, but an official statement to be made on where the Church stands.

The position of Mary being the mother of God isn't any different from what you believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trouble you're having with this term is that some might take it as meaning "Mary gave birth to God" as in God the father. But of course that's not what it means. If people walk away with that statement, then they don't know the gospel, but what it does mean is that Mary gave birth to Jesus who happens to be God in the flesh. That's all. It's a recognition that she carried the divine son and gave birth to Him. It also means that God directly chose her to carry out this mission. It's not, nor has it ever been, a statement of "God has always been....but still, Mary gave birth to God." I think most people with half a brain would know that doesn't even make any sense. It would disrupt the omnipotence of God and would mean God couldn't even be real.

The discussion is now getting hung up on terminology rather than substance. "Means to and ends," "New Eve," "Mother of God," all of these phrases are only phrases to describe what is self-evident, not change what is true.

If we can, I'd like to try and move forward with the conversation rather than taking two steps forward and three steps back.

The fact that some of the men in question were only 1 generation removed from the originals or even studied with him really does not mean that what they postulated was as fruitful or enlightened as was the apostles.

Jesus had to rebuke many who lived with Him and the apostles themselves had to reprove and reject some that had erroneous doctrines and teachings while the apostles were yet still alive. Just because a man lived in the 1st or 2nd century did not mean that is understanding was equal to those who had penned the Scriptures. They were prone to the same things we are today.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

My apologies. I must not have read all of the responces. So instead of asking I will just make a comment instead.

I was asking if there is Biblical truth that says Mary actually was asked in order to be obedient to God. That seems to be what I am hearing over and over that Mary was obedient and Eve was not. But where do we find that actually taking place.

When I read the Scriptures, it is Gabriel informing Mary of what is going to happen and not if she is OK with it which seems to rule out obedience.

There's reason to believe that had she said no, God would not enforce this as Love can only be voluntarily given, and this holy conception required Mary's obedience of love to God. This is the reasoning behind it.

But we also look at Luke 1:38 where it says: And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that Mary was going to carry Jesus, no ifs, ands, or buts about it -- no matter what Mary thought, it was happening. Mary, being a human being, had will. Should could have proceeded with it kicking and screaming, not willingly consenting to it, and had an attitude of anger toward God, especially because of how taboo and absolutely horrifying this was in ancient Hebrew times. But that was not her response. Her actual verbal and active response was that of obedience.

Now most do believe that she could have said no and she would not have carried Jesus, but even if we were to say she had to regardless, she actually wanted to obey. She put her heart and soul into God's plan, and that's what Eve couldn't do.

 

[Major]

There's reason to believe that had she said no, God would not enforce this as Love can only be voluntarily given, and this holy conception required Mary's obedience of love to God. This is the reasoning behind it.

But we also look at Luke 1:38 where it says: And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that Mary was going to carry Jesus, no ifs, ands, or buts about it -- no matter what Mary thought, it was happening. Mary, being a human being, had will. Should could have proceeded with it kicking and screaming, not willingly consenting to it, and had an attitude of anger toward God, especially because of how taboo and absolutely horrifying this was in ancient Hebrew times. But that was not her response. Her actual verbal and active response was that of obedience.

Now most do believe that she could have said no and she would not have carried Jesus, but even if we were to say she had to regardless, she actually wanted to obey. She put her heart and soul into God's plan, and that's what Eve couldn't do.

With all due respect, I hear you and understand where you are coming from as a Catholic but I have to disagree. IMO Gabriel "announced" to Mary what was going to happen.

Luke 1:30
30 "Then the angel told her: Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name Jesus."

 

[aha]

am at lost with the ensuing suggestion:

Seems the premise/conclusion is :

IF “it is not a command”, therefore, not obedience?

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

There is certainly no passage that says God commanded it either -- I'm not going by my own interpretation, but on what practically every Biblical scholar and theologian has recognized trough understand who and what God is.

Lys, this may look like a trivial point, but I'm bringing it up again because I sense the RCC viewpoint of this event is being used to elevate Mary beyond what is in the Scriptures (the "new Eve" viewpoint).

Please, you have to admit, that every gospel that reports this event does NOT show a request being made to Mary. There is a prophecy from the angel that tells her only what God is going to do. He is not commanding her either, I agree. By inaccurately saying that Mary was REQUESTED to be the Holy Vessel, it seems to imply she had something to do with it. It was purely God's choice and God's work. Her humbleness and acceptance of God's will is fortunate and praiseworthy for her, but even her choice to accept this was God's will, not her own.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

Argh! How does one overcome the straw man arguments? If I leave them alone, it looks like I'm in agreement with them. If I don't leave them alone, I'm in danger of looking argumentative!

 

[LysanderShapiro]

The fact that some of the men in question were only 1 generation removed from the originals or even studied with him really does not mean that what they postulated was as fruitful or enlightened as was the apostles.

Jesus had to rebuke many who lived with Him and the apostles themselves had to reprove and reject some that had erroneous doctrines and teachings while the apostles were yet still alive. Just because a man lived in the 1st or 2nd century did not mean that is understanding was equal to those who had penned the Scriptures. They were prone to the same things we are today.

And you're right that we can't take things at face value, but I'd definitely encourage actually reading their letters -- they're amazing, and their citings are incredibly detailed and well-thought out.

Even some of the Apostles were treading iffy waters after Christ's ascension, so it's not just the fact they were so close in degree to Christ, but their being there animated the validity in what they wrote.

We can't say they are just wrong either without reading what they wrote.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

With all due respect, I hear you and understand where you are coming from as a Catholic but I have to disagree. IMO Gabriel "announced" to Mary what was going to happen.

Luke 1:30
30 "Then the angel told her: Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 Now listen: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call His name Jesus."

That's absolutely fine. I am not trying to change anyone's minds. I only mean to explain where and why many Christians do hold this position.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Lys, this may look like a trivial point, but I'm bringing it up again because I sense the RCC viewpoint of this event is being used to elevate Mary beyond what is in the Scriptures (the "new Eve" viewpoint).

Please, you have to admit, that every gospel that reports this event does NOT show a request being made to Mary. There is a prophecy from the angel that tells her only what God is going to do. He is not commanding her either, I agree. By inaccurately saying that Mary was REQUESTED to be the Holy Vessel, it seems to imply she had something to do with it. It was purely God's choice and God's work. Her humbleness and acceptance of God's will is fortunate and praiseworthy for her, but even her choice to accept this was God's will, not her own.

I'm not sure I can agree. Mary's continuation in carrying Christ in her womb, in giving birth to Him, and raising Him, were acts of love toward God. God cannot force others to love because by doing that, that literally contradicts what love is. Love can only be valid if it is voluntary. It was God's will that Mary accept it, but because Mary also had a will (as we all do), she could have responded in rejecting or accepting. Her response was accepting. Her continuation of it was not that of a robot who has no will of its own.

In fact, that is one of the most important and beautiful aspects about God.

No one has to obey God. No one has to submit to Him. And anyone who claims that we are forced into it doesn't understand the idea when we say that God is love.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Argh! How does one overcome the straw man arguments? If I leave them alone, it looks like I'm in agreement with them. If I don't leave them alone, I'm in danger of looking argumentative!

No one is trying to put you in a tough position.
It's OK if we disagree here. No one thinks any less of you, and the reality is not everyone here submits to an identical doctrine. Some of us here are non-denominational, some are baptist, some are Catholic, some are still trying to figure out exactly where they stand.

We will never entirely agree. Nor is it likely any of us will change anyone's minds in here. At least, not overnight -- not even in a span of a month or two.

I think as long as the discussion continues respectfully (or ends if it needs t0) but in looking at what we mean, not in trying to put words in each others' mouths or push them into a corner they never even meant to be in, then we shouldn't worry so much.

Personally, I'm just glad the conversation can be had.

 

[aha]

.

 

[aha]

Her humbleness and acceptance of God's will is fortunate and praiseworthy for her, but even her choice to accept this was God's will, not her own.

observation: the first part indicate the very meaning of obedience... while the second part seems to indicate a question do we have free will or not?

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I have to leave for awhile, but hopefully will be back soon.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

observation: the first part indicate the very meaning of obedience... while the second part seems to indicate a question do we have free will or not?

Hello aha~
I am not questioning Mary's obedience to the announcement of the angel telling her what is going to happen. I am clarifying that the announcement of the angel can in no way be considered a request of Mary, and when speaking of the event, the wording "request of Mary" is inaccurate and misleading. (and possibly used by the RCC to imply elevation of Mary's position). That is what I'm objecting to.