Mothra said:

---

Response: The protoevangelium has likewise provided no scriptural support for the belief, which is why I said it is more a theological argument than a scriptural argument for Catholics and the Orthodox. It is an objectively true statement that Genesis 3 does not refer to Mary, nor do any verses referencing Genesis 3 claim it is referencing Mary.

As for who predates whom, my position isn't based on "Protestantism," but scripture, which predates this idea by a pretty good stretch.

---

Well, that's YOUR interpretation of scripture. The Church fathers have their interpretation of scripture as well.

Justin Martyr, writing AD 155-160, who lived in Ephesus, where Mary lived out her years and where John lived, ministered, and died, was influenced by St Polycarp was a student of John. Justin Martyr wrote of Mary being the new Eve.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons who also wrote (in AD 180) that Mary was the new Eve was trained by the same Polycarp who was a student of John.

It was John that links Mary with Eve when using the term "woman" when Jesus addresses her at Cana and at the Cross.

Mothra said:

---

Response: It means what I said in the sentences that followed. The belief is unnecessary and plays not part in salvation.

As for the claim that calling Mary the new Eve "glorifies Jesus," respectfully, I find that position doesn't make a lick of sense.

---

Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Mary only shines because of Jesus. If you can't see the link between the two, then I can't help you. I apologize for not explaining it better.

359 AD: Christ is a creature
381 AD: just kidding…

Just about every ecumenical council has the same story. A large population of the church falls into heresy, then by divine providence and against all odds when a synod represented by every patriarch is called, it reaffirms…

— Benjamin Michael (@RealBenMichael) May 5, 2026

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Response: The protoevangelium has likewise provided no scriptural support for the belief, which is why I said it is more a theological argument than a scriptural argument for Catholics and the Orthodox. It is an objectively true statement that Genesis 3 does not refer to Mary, nor do any verses referencing Genesis 3 claim it is referencing Mary.

As for who predates whom, my position isn't based on "Protestantism," but scripture, which predates this idea by a pretty good stretch.

---

Well, that's YOUR interpretation of scripture. The Church fathers have their interpretation of scripture as well.

Justin Martyr, writing AD 155-160, who lived in Ephesus, where Mary lived out her years and where John lived, ministered, and died, was influenced by St Polycarp was a student of John. Justin Martyr wrote of Mary being the new Eve.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons who also wrote (in AD 180) that Mary was the new Eve was trained by the same Polycarp who was a student of John.

It was John that links Mary with Eve when using the term "woman" when Jesus addresses her at Cana and at the Cross.

Mothra said:

---

Response: It means what I said in the sentences that followed. The belief is unnecessary and plays not part in salvation.

As for the claim that calling Mary the new Eve "glorifies Jesus," respectfully, I find that position doesn't make a lick of sense.

---

Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Mary only shines because of Jesus. If you can't see the link between the two, then I can't help you. I apologize for not explaining it better.

---

You said: "Well, that's YOUR interpretation of scripture. The Church fathers have their interpretation of scripture as well.

Justin Martyr, writing AD 155-160, who lived in Ephesus, where Mary lived out her years and where John lived, ministered, and died, was influenced by St Polycarp was a student of John. Justin Martyr wrote of Mary being the new Eve.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons who also wrote (in AD 180) that Mary was the new Eve was trained by the same Polycarp who was a student of John.

It was John that links Mary with Eve when using the term "woman" when Jesus addresses her at Cana and at the Cross."

Response: Respectfully, none of these statements are "interpretations of scripture." Not a single verse is cited in support of your church fathers' beliefs. Thus, if anything, this only further confirms and corroborates my position: Genesis 3 does not refer to Mary, nor do any verses referencing Genesis 3 claim it is referencing Mary. As I argued above, the only logical interpretation of these verses support that Genesis 3 is referring to Eve.

You said: "Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Mary only shines because of Jesus. If you can't see the link between the two, then I can't help you. I apologize for not explaining it better."

Response: Indeed, we will. I see no logical support for the idea that Mary "shining because of Jesus" in any way "glorifies Jesus." That position doesn't make logical sense to me.

Mothra said:

---

Response: Respectfully, none of these statements are "interpretations of scripture." Not a single verse is cited in support of your church fathers' beliefs. Thus, if anything, this only further confirms and corroborates my position: Genesis 3 does not refer to Mary, nor do any verses referencing Genesis 3 claim it is referencing Mary. As I argued above, the only logical interpretation of these verses support that Genesis 3 is referring to Eve.

---

Are you familiar with the term, Protoevangelium? That's what biblical scholars call Genesis 3:15.

It's called the "first Gospel." Spoke by God who declares enmity between the serpent (Satan) and the woman, prophesying that her offspring (Christ).

Justin Martyr (AD 160) links Mary to Eve and stated -

"And by [Mary] has [Jesus] been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him." (Dialogue with Trypho, 100)

But, if you can't see it, no worries.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Response: Respectfully, none of these statements are "interpretations of scripture." Not a single verse is cited in support of your church fathers' beliefs. Thus, if anything, this only further confirms and corroborates my position: Genesis 3 does not refer to Mary, nor do any verses referencing Genesis 3 claim it is referencing Mary. As I argued above, the only logical interpretation of these verses support that Genesis 3 is referring to Eve.

---

Are you familiar with the term, Protoevangelium? That's what biblical scholars call Genesis 3:15.

It's called the "first Gospel." Spoke by God who declares enmity between the serpent (Satan) and the woman, prophesying that her offspring (Christ).

Justin Martyr (AD 160) links Mary to Eve and stated -

"And by [Mary] has [Jesus] been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him." (Dialogue with Trypho, 100)

But, if you can't see it, no worries.

---

Just to be clear, I was referring to canon when I said "Scripture." I am not referring to writings that didn't make their way into the Bible because they lack historical accuracy and/or apostolic authority. In other words, I wasn't referring to the "Gospel of James."

>”Yeah we go to a megachurch but it’s not THAT bad.”
>The megachurch in question: pic.twitter.com/tCITu8itP9

— CleavetoAntiquity (@C2Antiquity) March 23, 2026

Doc Holliday said:

---

>”Yeah we go to a megachurch but it’s not THAT bad.”
>The megachurch in question: pic.twitter.com/tCITu8itP9

— CleavetoAntiquity (@C2Antiquity) March 23, 2026

---

The Sunday morning worshiptainment session in its full glory. Meanwhile, for 1700 years all around the world the church service begins with the chant, "Blessed is the Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! Now and ever, and unto ages of ages."



"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
- 1st Corinthians 14:33

"But all things must be done properly and in an orderly way."
-1st Corinthians 14:40

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."
- Proverbs 22:28

CokeBear: ' I've never claimed that Mary is the Bride of Christ. You've gone off on another tangent. This concept has nothing to do with being the spouse of Adam/Christ."

Correct me if I misunderstood, but didn't you claim Mary was the "New Eve", when Scripture makes very clear that The Church - if anyone - would fill that role, for the reasons I noted?

Also, why do you keep ignoring the fact that Eve was Adam's mate, while Mary was Jesus' mom?

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

>”Yeah we go to a megachurch but it’s not THAT bad.”
>The megachurch in question: pic.twitter.com/tCITu8itP9

— CleavetoAntiquity (@C2Antiquity) March 23, 2026

---

The Sunday morning worshiptainment session in its full glory. Meanwhile, for 1700 years all around the world the church service begins with the chant, "Blessed is the Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! Now and ever, and unto ages of ages."



"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
- 1st Corinthians 14:33

"But all things must be done properly and in an orderly way."
-1st Corinthians 14:40

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."
- Proverbs 22:28

---

I get that some of your Orthodox folk prefer Gregorian chants to any semblance of modern day worship or illustration (which of course explains why you are such a small sect).

But the truth is there has never been a single, universally fixed Christian liturgy for 1700 years. Early Christian worship varied widely by geography and circumstance, often occurring in homes, with simple patterns of Scripture reading, prayer, psalms, preaching, and Eucharist. Nowhere in the New Testament does it mandate a single liturgical script or opening formula.

Moreover, age alone does not confer theological superiority. To dismiss modern services as "worshiptainment" merely by citing a few examples is a straw man that ignores the seriousness, Scripture-centered preaching, prayer, and genuine devotion present in many non-liturgical traditions. In my experience, a highly formal service can become spiritually routine just as a simpler service can be deeply reverent and formative.

If Orthodox liturgy is what floats your boat, then that is perfectly fine, but it certainly shouldn't require the denigration of other traditions to validate itself.

See my response above. Your denigration of other forms of worship to validate Orthodox liturgy is interesting...

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

It's so remarkable that you agree that the scriptures don't mention Mary as Eve, but you still say it's true.
How can you believe that she is so important as part of the good newsand yet no one, including Jesus, Eve mentions her or her role? Catholics believe she is co-mediator and co-Redemer and yet there is no mention of her outside of the birth of Jesus and the wedding story. This is foolish.


Jesus mentioned the Holy Spirit and then we see the apostles talk about the HS multiple times throughout Acts and teach about the Holy Spirit throughout the epistles.... but you believe that somehow the Holy Spirit forgot to inspire the apostles to write anything about the co-Mediator/co-Redemer??? Instead the HS inspired them to word that there is only ONE redeemer and only ONE mediator??? How did the Holy Spirit get it so wrong, but you get it so right? Are you smarter than God and His holy scriptures?

---

The terms Co- Mediator and Co-Redemptrix are confusing to modern ears so the Church has moved away from the terms, but not the concept.

First, in the theological Latin tradition, "co" means "with" not equal to, but cooperating with, subordinate to, and participating in.

It means Mary cooperates with Christ, under Christ, through Christ, and entirely dependent on Christ in both His mediation and His redemption. This is the same participatory logic established in the mediation question. The prefix "co" here denotes cooperation, not competition.

I would hope that you would agree that Mary played a significant role in Christ and his life.

Co-Redemptrix refers to Mary's unique and singular participation in the redemptive work of Christ not as an equal to Christ, but as the one human being whose cooperation was most intimately united to His saving work.

We see a Biblical foundation with this in:

• Genesis 3:15 Protoevangelium
• Luke 1:38 Mary's fiat
• Luke 2:35 the sword that pierce Mary
• John 19:25-27 Standing with Jesus at the Cross

Co-Mediatrix refers to Mary's ongoing role as the channel through whom graces flow from Christ to humanity. Again not equal to Christ, not independent of Christ, but the privileged instrument God chose to dispense the graces won by Christ.

I assume that you didn't have a "Road to Damascus" where Jesus spoke to you and someone introduced you to God and Christianity. These persons (maybe your parents) had a role in bringing you to God. They were, in a way mediators, for you to God. This doesn't diminish Jesus' role in mediation, because they could only do that through Him.

We see a Biblical foundation with this in:

• John 2:1-11 The Wedding at Cana
• John 19:27 "Behold, your mother"
• Revelation 12:17 Mother of the Church

As you can see, there is MUCH more "mention of her outside of the birth of Jesus and the wedding story." Imagine what isn't mentioned in the Bible. Mary nursed our Savior for three years. She taught him to walk, talk, play, pray, etc. She was with him for the first 30 years of his life. Just because those things are mentioned, it doesn't mean that they aren't important.

Using titles for Mary like the "new Eve" doesn't reduce what Jesus did. It glorifies Him because it shows what He did for her. These titles are all about Jesus' glory, not Mary's.

I can fully appreciate how this sounds foreign to a protestant's ears, but please know we see these titles as a proclamation of how great Jesus is.

---

This idea that Mary is the channel through which grace flows is heresy.
Again, how is it possible that something so important was forgotten by the Holy Spirit when he was inspiring the apostles to write the scriptures? How do you Catholics explain this massive oopsie by God?

Grace comes to us directly from God, not through a human channel.

By the way, you are confusing the words mediation and evangelism. My parents are not mediators between me and God, they were the ones who taught me about the ONLY mediator, the man Jesus Christ.

---

Exactly. But you're talking to people who are following the same spirit that led ancient peoples to pagan mother goddess worship. Make NO mistake, it's the same spirit. So by golly, for them, Mary is going to get the praise for their salvation, one way or another, whatever it takes.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

>”Yeah we go to a megachurch but it’s not THAT bad.”
>The megachurch in question: pic.twitter.com/tCITu8itP9

— CleavetoAntiquity (@C2Antiquity) March 23, 2026

---

The Sunday morning worshiptainment session in its full glory. Meanwhile, for 1700 years all around the world the church service begins with the chant, "Blessed is the Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! Now and ever, and unto ages of ages."



"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
- 1st Corinthians 14:33

"But all things must be done properly and in an orderly way."
-1st Corinthians 14:40

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."
- Proverbs 22:28

---

I get that some of your Orthodox folk prefer Gregorian chants to any semblance of modern day worship or illustration (which of course explains why you are such a small sect).

But the truth is there has never been a single, universally fixed Christian liturgy for 1700 years. Early Christian worship varied widely by geography and circumstance, often occurring in homes, with simple patterns of Scripture reading, prayer, psalms, preaching, and Eucharist. Nowhere in the New Testament does it mandate a single liturgical script or opening formula.

Moreover, age alone does not confer theological superiority. To dismiss modern services as "worshiptainment" merely by citing a few examples is a straw man that ignores the seriousness, Scripture-centered preaching, prayer, and genuine devotion present in many non-liturgical traditions. In my experience, a highly formal service can become spiritually routine just as a simpler service can be deeply reverent and formative.

If Orthodox liturgy is what floats your boat, then that is perfectly fine, but it certainly shouldn't require the denigration of other traditions to validate itself.

---

There is some merit to the criticism of some Protestant churches' style of worship... but condemning Protestants for their style of worship, when your own liturgy credits Mary for salvation, is the very essence of pointing out the speck in someone's eye while having a log in your own eye.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

>”Yeah we go to a megachurch but it’s not THAT bad.”
>The megachurch in question: pic.twitter.com/tCITu8itP9

— CleavetoAntiquity (@C2Antiquity) March 23, 2026

---

The Sunday morning worshiptainment session in its full glory. Meanwhile, for 1700 years all around the world the church service begins with the chant, "Blessed is the Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! Now and ever, and unto ages of ages."



"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
- 1st Corinthians 14:33

"But all things must be done properly and in an orderly way."
-1st Corinthians 14:40

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."
- Proverbs 22:28

---

I get that some of your Orthodox folk prefer Gregorian chants to any semblance of modern day worship or illustration (which of course explains why you are such a small sect).

But the truth is there has never been a single, universally fixed Christian liturgy for 1700 years. Early Christian worship varied widely by geography and circumstance, often occurring in homes, with simple patterns of Scripture reading, prayer, psalms, preaching, and Eucharist. Nowhere in the New Testament does it mandate a single liturgical script or opening formula.

Moreover, age alone does not confer theological superiority. To dismiss modern services as "worshiptainment" merely by citing a few examples is a straw man that ignores the seriousness, Scripture-centered preaching, prayer, and genuine devotion present in many non-liturgical traditions. In my experience, a highly formal service can become spiritually routine just as a simpler service can be deeply reverent and formative.

If Orthodox liturgy is what floats your boat, then that is perfectly fine, but it certainly shouldn't require the denigration of other traditions to validate itself.

---

There is some merit to the criticism of some Protestant churches' style of worship... but condemning Protestants for their style of worship, when your own liturgy credits Mary for salvation, is the very essence of pointing out the speck in someone's eye while having a log in your own eye.

---

I do not disagree. That was actually why I referenced his use of a compilation of a few examples. He would like to paint all protestants as like the few examples include in the compilation.

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

>”Yeah we go to a megachurch but it’s not THAT bad.”
>The megachurch in question: pic.twitter.com/tCITu8itP9

— CleavetoAntiquity (@C2Antiquity) March 23, 2026

---

The Sunday morning worshiptainment session in its full glory. Meanwhile, for 1700 years all around the world the church service begins with the chant, "Blessed is the Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! Now and ever, and unto ages of ages."



"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
- 1st Corinthians 14:33

"But all things must be done properly and in an orderly way."
-1st Corinthians 14:40

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."
- Proverbs 22:28

---

I get that some of your Orthodox folk prefer Gregorian chants to any semblance of modern day worship or illustration (which of course explains why you are such a small sect).

But the truth is there has never been a single, universally fixed Christian liturgy for 1700 years. Early Christian worship varied widely by geography and circumstance, often occurring in homes, with simple patterns of Scripture reading, prayer, psalms, preaching, and Eucharist. Nowhere in the New Testament does it mandate a single liturgical script or opening formula.

Moreover, age alone does not confer theological superiority. To dismiss modern services as "worshiptainment" merely by citing a few examples is a straw man that ignores the seriousness, Scripture-centered preaching, prayer, and genuine devotion present in many non-liturgical traditions. In my experience, a highly formal service can become spiritually routine just as a simpler service can be deeply reverent and formative.

If Orthodox liturgy is what floats your boat, then that is perfectly fine, but it certainly shouldn't require the denigration of other traditions to validate itself.

---

There is some merit to the criticism of some Protestant churches' style of worship... but condemning Protestants for their style of worship, when your own liturgy credits Mary for salvation, is the very essence of pointing out the speck in someone's eye while having a log in your own eye.

---

I do not disagree. That was actually why I referenced his use of a compilation of a few examples. He would like to paint all protestants as like the few examples include in the compilation.

---

And the crucial point the RC's and Orthodox miss, which you've already effectively pointed out, is that questionable worship services, beliefs, practices, liturgy, etc. are not inherently isolated to Protestantism due to sola scriptura, personal interpretation, etc but are bound to exist anywhere fallible human beings are present. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not immune, and to suggest otherwise is to deny a basic tenet of Christianity, that only God and his word are infallible, and that humans are always corruptible. Protestants are able to follow their own conscience and not attend a church that they don't agree with. However, a RC and Orthodox can't and won't, because they've forfeited their own ability to think for themselves and have given that over to other fallible human beings who think for them, and who have told them that if they don't submit to their authorities/interpretation/decisions, then they are separated from their Church, and therefore from God. This is exactly what cults do.

Notice how they can't/won't answer whether Waco1947's view on homosexual relationships can be discerned by a Christian to be wrong based on Scripture alone, without the need of a council or magisterial teaching office's ruling. They are either saying that without a magisterium's ruling they can't, which makes them look completely stupid and ridiculous; or in their heart they KNOW that they can, but they won't say so because it destroys their whole argument.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

>”Yeah we go to a megachurch but it’s not THAT bad.”
>The megachurch in question: pic.twitter.com/tCITu8itP9

— CleavetoAntiquity (@C2Antiquity) March 23, 2026

---

The Sunday morning worshiptainment session in its full glory. Meanwhile, for 1700 years all around the world the church service begins with the chant, "Blessed is the Kingdom, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! Now and ever, and unto ages of ages."



"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."
- 1st Corinthians 14:33

"But all things must be done properly and in an orderly way."
-1st Corinthians 14:40

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."
- Proverbs 22:28

---

I get that some of your Orthodox folk prefer Gregorian chants to any semblance of modern day worship or illustration (which of course explains why you are such a small sect).

But the truth is there has never been a single, universally fixed Christian liturgy for 1700 years. Early Christian worship varied widely by geography and circumstance, often occurring in homes, with simple patterns of Scripture reading, prayer, psalms, preaching, and Eucharist. Nowhere in the New Testament does it mandate a single liturgical script or opening formula.

Moreover, age alone does not confer theological superiority. To dismiss modern services as "worshiptainment" merely by citing a few examples is a straw man that ignores the seriousness, Scripture-centered preaching, prayer, and genuine devotion present in many non-liturgical traditions. In my experience, a highly formal service can become spiritually routine just as a simpler service can be deeply reverent and formative.

If Orthodox liturgy is what floats your boat, then that is perfectly fine, but it certainly shouldn't require the denigration of other traditions to validate itself.

---

There is some merit to the criticism of some Protestant churches' style of worship... but condemning Protestants for their style of worship, when your own liturgy credits Mary for salvation, is the very essence of pointing out the speck in someone's eye while having a log in your own eye.

---

I do not disagree. That was actually why I referenced his use of a compilation of a few examples. He would like to paint all protestants as like the few examples include in the compilation.

---

And the crucial point the RC's and Orthodox miss, which you've already effectively pointed out, is that questionable worship services, beliefs, practices, liturgy, etc. are not inherently isolated to Protestantism due to sola scriptura, personal interpretation, etc but are bound to exist anywhere fallible human beings are present. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not immune, and to suggest otherwise is to deny a basic tenet of Christianity, that only God and his word are infallible, and that humans are always corruptible. Protestants are able to follow their own conscience and not attend a church that they don't agree with. However, a RC and Orthodox can't and won't, because they've forfeited their own ability to think for themselves and have given that over to other fallible human beings who think for them, and who have told them that if they don't submit to their authorities/interpretation/decisions, then they are separated from their Church, and therefore from God. This is exactly what cults do.

Notice how they can't/won't answer whether Waco1947's view on homosexual relationships can be discerned by a Christian to be wrong based on Scripture alone, without the need of a council or magisterial teaching office's ruling. They are either saying that without a magisterium's ruling they can't, which makes them look completely stupid and ridiculous; or in their heart they KNOW that they can, but they won't say so because it destroys their whole argument.

---

Good points. It certainly helps explain why the many RC's and few Orthodox I know don't seem to read the bible outside of mass/church.

Mothra said:

---

If Orthodox liturgy is what floats your boat

---

Seven words that perfectly summarize the mindset that has caused so much destruction in American Christendom.

The spirit of Isaiah 14. "For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'"

What floats my boat, or anyone else's boat is completely, entirely irrelevant.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

If Orthodox liturgy is what floats your boat

---

Seven words that perfectly summarize the mindset that has caused so much destruction in American Christendom.

The spirit of Isaiah 14. "For you have said in your heart: 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'"

What floats my boat, or anyone else's boat is completely, entirely irrelevant.

---

Isaiah 14 - good description of the papacy.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Response: Respectfully, none of these statements are "interpretations of scripture." Not a single verse is cited in support of your church fathers' beliefs. Thus, if anything, this only further confirms and corroborates my position: Genesis 3 does not refer to Mary, nor do any verses referencing Genesis 3 claim it is referencing Mary. As I argued above, the only logical interpretation of these verses support that Genesis 3 is referring to Eve.

---

Are you familiar with the term, Protoevangelium? That's what biblical scholars call Genesis 3:15.

It's called the "first Gospel." Spoke by God who declares enmity between the serpent (Satan) and the woman, prophesying that her offspring (Christ).

Justin Martyr (AD 160) links Mary to Eve and stated -

"And by [Mary] has [Jesus] been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him." (Dialogue with Trypho, 100)

But, if you can't see it, no worries.

---

Just to be clear, I was referring to canon when I said "Scripture." I am not referring to writings that didn't make their way into the Bible because they lack historical accuracy and/or apostolic authority. In other words, I wasn't referring to the "Gospel of James."

---

Genesis 3:15 is known as the Protoevangelium. I wasn't referring to the Gospel of James. That verse lays out God's plan and is often called the "first Gospel."