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."

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

That's a sweeping and false accusation and common protestant trope of Catholics.

I know plenty of protestants that know nothing in the bible.

For the last five years, the number one religious podcast is Bible in a Year Podcast (with Fr. Mike Schmitz). When it dropped, it was the number one podcast in the world.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Yes, God is the Primary cause of Grace. All Grace flow through Him, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't use other from which His grace flows.

Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae stated

"The office of a mediator is to join together and unite those between whom he mediates: for extremes are united in the mean."
Jesus Christ alone, the one divine Person incarnate, whose theandric priestly act causes reconciliation and access to the Father, is the principal and perfect Mediator by nature and by merit (Aquinas, ST III, q.26; CCC 15441547).

But he follows that up with

"Nothing hinders certain others from being called mediators, in some respect, between God and man, forasmuch as they cooperate in uniting men to God."

He draws a distinction between Principal and Instrumental Causes
Principal cause the primary, independent, self-sufficient source of an effect (God/Christ alone)
Instrumental cause a secondary, dependent agent through which the principal cause works

Just as a paintbrush is the real cause of a painting only because the artist is working through it.

Others "mediate" only by real participation in and from Christ's one mediation graced, instrumental, and non-rivalrous. Non-rivalrous is the key word. Human mediation does not compete with Christ's mediation any more than a surgeon's scalpel competes with the surgeon's skill.

When one is baptized, graces flow through the baptizer and the water to the newly baptized. If they didn't, what would be the point of baptizing? God chooses instruments for His grace to flow.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

1 Timothy 2:5 is the famous protestant "caught you" verse. But the four verses before that say

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
In verse seven he says,

"For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle."

An apostle is "a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders." St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God's love and grace to the world.

Your parents brought you the message of Christ, just as Paul brought the message to others. This is God's Graces and Jesus ultimate mediation flowing through them.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Oldbear83 said:

---

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?

---

Coke Bear?

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Neither of us support the papacy. We wholly reject it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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?

---

Coke Bear?

---

Apologies. Where does Scripture make clear that the Church is the new Eve?

I'm not understanding your point here.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Actually, Isaiah 22:20-22 lays out the foundation for the papacy in Matthew 16:18-19

Isaiah 22:20-22 -

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Matthew 16:18-
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

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.

---

You might wanna do some research before posting. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not use Gregorian chant. Gregorian chant is a distinct tradition of the Western (Roman Catholic) Church.

Orthodoxy may seem like a "small sect" in megachurch dominated US...but it's actually the second-largest Christian body in the world, with an estimated 220 to 260 million adherents. It is hardly a minor sect. It's massive in comparison to whatever denomination you belong to.

Orthodox liturgy didn't appear overnight, nor was it invented by a committee. It evolved organically from Jewish temple/synagogue worship and early Christian practice. It also doesn't adhere to a single script. The EO Church uses several liturgies. There's a universal liturgical consensus that the historical Church maintained for over a millennium. The canon of the Bible developed directly from Liturgy.
If you rejects the liturgical tradition of the historical Church, you logically undermine the very authority of the Bible they claim to stand on. You cannot separate the New Testament from the Liturgy, because the Liturgy is the womb from which the New Testament canon emerged. The Church did not create a Liturgy based on a Bible, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit through her liturgical worship, recognized and bound together the Bible.

Protestant churches are designed to evoke an emotional response to make the audience feel close to God.
Orthodoxy is designed to transfigure us.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

Answered several times. but OK give it another try.

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man.

"The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

Genesis 2:18-23

This is the passage where we learn about Eve, who was clearly made FROM Adam to be his mate.

Therefore Eve proceeded from Adam, and was made to be His wife.

So when Scripture later speaks of the 'New Adam', it matters that there is no reference to a new 'Eve', and if one should exist, that would not be Mary, who neither proceeded from Christ nor was made to be His mate.

There is clear reference in Scripture to the Bride of Christ, which is The Church.

Matthew 25:10
Mark 2:19-20
Luke 5:35
John 3:29
Revelation 19:7
Revelation 21:2
Revelation 21:9
Revelation 22:17


This is why it is clear and serious error to pretend Mary is the 'New Eve'.

---

For Coke Bear, who apparently did not see this one when I originally posted it.

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.

---

LOL. Ever the drama queen.

As much as you'd like to think it, Orthodoxy doesn't have the market cornered on Christendom. As I said above, the truth is there has never been a single, universally fixed Christian liturgy for 1700 years. So your idea that your wrote, Byzantine chants are somehow the only way a person can worship God or feel the Holy Spirit's presence is just utter hogwash, unsupported by scripture.

Doc Holliday 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.

---

You might wanna do some research before posting. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not use Gregorian chant. Gregorian chant is a distinct tradition of the Western (Roman Catholic) Church.

Orthodoxy may seem like a "small sect" in megachurch dominated US...but it's actually the second-largest Christian body in the world, with an estimated 220 to 260 million adherents. It is hardly a minor sect. It's massive in comparison to whatever denomination you belong to.

Orthodox liturgy didn't appear overnight, nor was it invented by a committee. It evolved organically from Jewish temple/synagogue worship and early Christian practice. It also doesn't adhere to a single script. The EO Church uses several liturgies. There's a universal liturgical consensus that the historical Church maintained for over a millennium. The canon of the Bible developed directly from Liturgy.
If you rejects the liturgical tradition of the historical Church, you logically undermine the very authority of the Bible they claim to stand on. You cannot separate the New Testament from the Liturgy, because the Liturgy is the womb from which the New Testament canon emerged. The Church did not create a Liturgy based on a Bible, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit through her liturgical worship, recognized and bound together the Bible.

Protestant churches are designed to evoke an emotional response to make the audience feel close to God.
Orthodoxy is designed to transfigure us.

---

I was being facetious regarding Gregorian chants. It was a joke. I know a good Byzantine chant when I hear one.

Your premise is flawed as usual. More later.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday 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.

---

You might wanna do some research before posting. Eastern Orthodox Christians do not use Gregorian chant. Gregorian chant is a distinct tradition of the Western (Roman Catholic) Church.

Orthodoxy may seem like a "small sect" in megachurch dominated US...but it's actually the second-largest Christian body in the world, with an estimated 220 to 260 million adherents. It is hardly a minor sect. It's massive in comparison to whatever denomination you belong to.

Orthodox liturgy didn't appear overnight, nor was it invented by a committee. It evolved organically from Jewish temple/synagogue worship and early Christian practice. It also doesn't adhere to a single script. The EO Church uses several liturgies. There's a universal liturgical consensus that the historical Church maintained for over a millennium. The canon of the Bible developed directly from Liturgy.
If you rejects the liturgical tradition of the historical Church, you logically undermine the very authority of the Bible they claim to stand on. You cannot separate the New Testament from the Liturgy, because the Liturgy is the womb from which the New Testament canon emerged. The Church did not create a Liturgy based on a Bible, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit through her liturgical worship, recognized and bound together the Bible.

Protestant churches are designed to evoke an emotional response to make the audience feel close to God.
Orthodoxy is designed to transfigure us.

---

I was being facetious regarding Gregorian chants. It was a joke. I know a good Byzantine chant when I hear one.

Your premise is flawed as usual. More later.

---

There's always been a liturgy.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

Answered several times. but OK give it another try.

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man.

"The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

Genesis 2:18-23

This is the passage where we learn about Eve, who was clearly made FROM Adam to be his mate.

Therefore Eve proceeded from Adam, and was made to be His wife.

So when Scripture later speaks of the 'New Adam', it matters that there is no reference to a new 'Eve', and if one should exist, that would not be Mary, who neither proceeded from Christ nor was made to be His mate.

There is clear reference in Scripture to the Bride of Christ, which is The Church.

Matthew 25:10
Mark 2:19-20
Luke 5:35
John 3:29
Revelation 19:7
Revelation 21:2
Revelation 21:9
Revelation 22:17


This is why it is clear and serious error to pretend Mary is the 'New Eve'.

---

For Coke Bear, who apparently did not see this one when I originally posted it.

---

I saw your post. I thought that I responded properly to it. If not, mea culpa.

I'll try to summarize my thoughts again ...

Calling Mary the new Eve is not about a sexual or marital relationship. I'm not trying to say that she is the Bride of Christ. Everyone knows that they bride of Christ is his Church.

The link between Mary and Eve is a typological one.

• Both were virgins
• Both were approached by angels
• Both said, "yes"

Where Eve said "yes" to the devil and brought death, Mary said "yes" to God and brought Life itself.

Just as Eve came from Adam, now Jesus came from Mary.

God reversed the damage done by our first parents.

St. Irenaeus (AD 180) put it beautifully: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience."

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"why is it wrong to call Mary the 'new Eve?'"

Answered several times. but OK give it another try.

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

"But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man.

"The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

Genesis 2:18-23

This is the passage where we learn about Eve, who was clearly made FROM Adam to be his mate.

Therefore Eve proceeded from Adam, and was made to be His wife.

So when Scripture later speaks of the 'New Adam', it matters that there is no reference to a new 'Eve', and if one should exist, that would not be Mary, who neither proceeded from Christ nor was made to be His mate.

There is clear reference in Scripture to the Bride of Christ, which is The Church.

Matthew 25:10
Mark 2:19-20
Luke 5:35
John 3:29
Revelation 19:7
Revelation 21:2
Revelation 21:9
Revelation 22:17


This is why it is clear and serious error to pretend Mary is the 'New Eve'.

---

For Coke Bear, who apparently did not see this one when I originally posted it.

---

I saw your post. I thought that I responded properly to it. If not, mea culpa.

I'll try to summarize my thoughts again ...

Calling Mary the new Eve is not about a sexual or marital relationship. I'm not trying to say that she is the Bride of Christ. Everyone knows that they bride of Christ is his Church.

The link between Mary and Eve is a typological one.

• Both were virgins
• Both were approached by angels
• Both said, "yes"

Where Eve said "yes" to the devil and brought death, Mary said "yes" to God and brought Life itself.

Just as Eve came from Adam, now Jesus came from Mary.

God reversed the damage done by our first parents.

St. Irenaeus (AD 180) put it beautifully: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience."

---

Sorry but perhaps accidentally, you are missing the point repeatedly.

You referred to Mary as the 'New Eve'. There is absolutely no Scripture to support that, which is the first problem.

But I have shown you how Eve was clearly made to be Adam's mate. Mary cannot fill that role, no matter how much someone argues for it.

Further, there is Scripture showing that The Church is the Bride of Christ. So if the 'New Eve' concept is to be applied, it must be the Church, Christ's Bride, fulfilling that role.

There is one here we both know, who will argue a disproven claim long after it's clear he is wrong. I am in no way disrespecting Mary's role in bringing Jesus into this world for His mission, but she cannot be called the New Eve; the concept is invalid on its face. But please do not copy that man's stubborn anger; as it only worsens the unfortunate division between brother believers in the same Lord.

I hope you can accept this explanation.

Thank you for reading.

Oldbear83 said:

---

It perhaps accidentally, you are missing the point repeatedly.

You referred to Mary as the 'New Eve'. There is absolutely no Scripture to support that, which is the first problem.

But I have shown you how Eve was clearly made to be Adam's mate. Mary cannot fill that role, no matter how much someone argues for it.

Further, there is Scripture showing that The Church is the Bride of Christ. So if the 'New Eve' concept is to be applied, it must be the Church, Christ's Bride, fulfilling that role.

There is one here we both know, who will argue a disproven claim long after it's clear he is wrong. I am in no way disrespecting Mary's role in bringing Jesus into this world for His mission, but she cannot be called the New Eve; the concept is invalid on its face. But please do not copy that man's stubborn anger; as it only worsens the unfortunate division between brother believers in the same Lord.

I hope you can accept this explanation.

Thank you for reading.

---

I believe that I see your point. You're stated that Mary can't be the new Eve because she is not the Bride of Christ like Eve was Adam's mate.

I fully understand that, if that is your point.

Where we're are talking past one another is that I'm (nor the Church fathers) were ever stating that.

I also understand your point about calling the Church a new Eve because she (the Church is the Bride.) Some Church fathers have mentioned this as well.

What I am arguing is typological.

As you know Typology is

- when God uses real people, events, and things in the Old Testament to foreshadow and point forward to even greater realities fulfilled in Jesus Christ and His Church.

Typologically, Mary, ALSO is a new Eve, based on the understanding of Genesis 3:15, John linking Mary (woman) at Cana, the foot of the Cross, and Revelation, PLUS the Church fathers linking her in the same manner. They were both virgins, approached by angels, and said "yes" to their angel.

I'd call that a pretty strong foreshadowing that God did there.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

It perhaps accidentally, you are missing the point repeatedly.

You referred to Mary as the 'New Eve'. There is absolutely no Scripture to support that, which is the first problem.

But I have shown you how Eve was clearly made to be Adam's mate. Mary cannot fill that role, no matter how much someone argues for it.

Further, there is Scripture showing that The Church is the Bride of Christ. So if the 'New Eve' concept is to be applied, it must be the Church, Christ's Bride, fulfilling that role.

There is one here we both know, who will argue a disproven claim long after it's clear he is wrong. I am in no way disrespecting Mary's role in bringing Jesus into this world for His mission, but she cannot be called the New Eve; the concept is invalid on its face. But please do not copy that man's stubborn anger; as it only worsens the unfortunate division between brother believers in the same Lord.

I hope you can accept this explanation.

Thank you for reading.

---

I believe that I see your point. You're stated that Mary can't be the new Eve because she is not the Bride of Christ like Eve was Adam's mate.

I fully understand that, if that is your point.

Where we're are talking past one another is that I'm (nor the Church fathers) were ever stating that.

I also understand your point about calling the Church a new Eve because she (the Church is the Bride.) Some Church fathers have mentioned this as well.

What I am arguing is typological.

As you know Typology is

- when God uses real people, events, and things in the Old Testament to foreshadow and point forward to even greater realities fulfilled in Jesus Christ and His Church.

Typologically, Mary, ALSO is a new Eve, based on the understanding of Genesis 3:15, John linking Mary (woman) at Cana, the foot of the Cross, and Revelation, PLUS the Church fathers linking her in the same manner. They were both virgins, approached by angels, and said "yes" to their angel.

I'd call that a pretty strong foreshadowing that God did there.

---

Not that any logical sense is going to matter with you, but your errors need to be addressed.

Your entire theology is built on non sequiturs, wrong exegesis, eisegesis, and misconception of concepts like typology. Mary did not say "yes", because she wasn't being asked; the serpent in the garden of Eden is never called or described as an "angel"; Mary isn't the only person in the New Testament to be called "woman" (so was Mary Magdalene and the woman at the well - it was a polite way to address an adult female to whom you have no personal attachment to).

And Roman Catholicism gets typology all wrong. It's using typology to support new beliefs that is taught NOWHERE in the New Testament. This is precisely what cults do. It's a dangerous, dangerous way to develop theology, much less theology that you make a required belief for salvation, as Roman Catholicism does with mariology.

Let me give an example of how typology can be misused: if I want to promote the belief that Jesus and Satan are the same person, I could use the bronze serpent in the book of Numbers and the fact that both Jesus and Satan are described as "lightning" in the heavens as "typologies" to "prove" this belief. After all, Satan was the serpent in the garden of Eden, right? And Satan "fell like lightning" from heaven, just like Jesus is described as coming to earth as "lightning", right? You can do this for almost any new and false teaching you want to create, if you're creative enough. See how bad that is?