Is Mary the second Eve?

Hi there, Ed
the whole issue of Mary being sinless clearly interracts with the central theme of the Bible, how are we saved. The NT talks about repenting, confessing, believing, the need for faith etc. You then say Mary didnt need any of these to be saved. This is the issue.
Take care, Colin

 

Greek Orthodox:
"
But the Orthodox position on the Mother of God differs in two significant ways from contemporary Roman Catholic teaching. In 1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary which maintains that Mary was sinless from her birth and that the guilt of original sin (a la Augustine and another doctrine rejected by the Orthodox), ....."

We're out on a limb on this one. Still its a nice concept. It appeals to me somehow.

 

Interesting article:

http://www.praiseofglory.com/vonbimmaculate.htm

 

If we have original sin that means we kind of belong to the Devil. This means non-"saved" people are Satanic (in that they are theorectically heading hell wards). If Mary was not sinless this would mean Yeshua would have come partically from Satan. It would make no sense.

Logically (at least part logically), since Yeshua is part Mary, Mary would need to be sinless BEFORE the conception of Yeshua. In effect, are Protestants saying God came from a vessel of Satan?

It is possible for good to come from a by-product of evil but I can't see how God Himself can.

On another note - who was Mary's midwife? Was it Joseph or did she have to look after herself. What a difficult situation.

[ January 04, 2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

"If we have original sin that means we kind of belong to the Devil."

Satan is calld the god of this age for a reason. He blinds the eyes of unbelievers. We are also under the dominion of sin in this age while unsaved.

"This means non-"saved" people are Satanic (in that they are theorectically heading hell wards)."

That's being a litle melodramatic, but ok.

"If Mary was not sinless this would mean Yeshua would have come partically from Satan. It would make no sense."

No. If Mary is only Satanic in that she is hekll bound, then it only means that Jesus was born to someone who was hell-bound. That doesn't come anywhere near coming "practically from satan" or even "partially from Satan".

And it makes perfect sense from teh standpoint of the incarnation.

"Logically (at least part logically), since Yeshua is part Mary, Mary would need to be sinless BEFORE the conception of Yeshua."

Jesus humanity is from Mary. But that doesn't mean that Mary had to be sinless. The very fact that she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit to effect conception is sufficient to explain how Jesus could remain free from stain.

"In effect, are Protestants saying God came from a vessel of Satan?"

Nothing so dramatic. We are saying that Jesus was born toa sinner, among sinners. That's all. Your presentation I can see is merely an attempt to use loaded terms in order to elicvit an emotional raction rather than a logical, reasoned one.

"It is possible for good to come from a by-product of evil but I can't see how God Himself can."

Then your God is too small.

"On another note - who was Mary's midwife? Was it Joseph or did she have to look after herself."

We aren't told she had a midwife. But we arne't told she handled it herself either. It is not a relevant detail, apparantly.

 

Those whom the Bible calls 'righteous' BEFORE the Cross...

JOSEPH
(Mat 1:19) Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

John the Baptist
(Mark 6:20) for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him.

SIMEON
(Luke 2:25) Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; this man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit rested on him.

And of course, of Jesus it was said,
(Luke 23:47) The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man."

Is it not possible then (and surely the early Church fathers believed this)that Mary also was righteous before God?

Why DID God pick Mary? Was it because she was a 'notorious sinner', or perhaps because she was righteous and pure before God?

(Luke 1:28) And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

 

Hi Latreia,
Thanks for the spelling correction - I did mean (as you guessed) "partially from Satan".

I think the main problem (for non-catholics and catholics alike) is not so much with the theology but with the pope at about 1850 making it "officially" part of the religion, as well as one or two other new "official" beliefs. I'm not sure why he did this, I'll have to read up on it.

 

Net,

Many authorities on the topic of history see the deinition of the Immaculate Conception as a forerunner to the definition of Papal Infaalibility. That is, the IC was something of a dry run, for PI. If the Papcy could succeed in passing the IC, even though tradition and scripture could not affirm it, then PI could also.

That's one of the reasons that Vatican 1 is seen as sort of completing the work of Trent.

 

Hi,
I can see the concept of the Church being the bride of christ and thus one would think this "bride" would kind of be perfect from time to time. In a sense Mary was a "bride" of God's too and thus (logically) must have been perfect from time to time. So yes, papel infalability and perfect Mary would seem, superficially, to be interelated topics. I'll come back to this topic in about a years time when I've looked at it in further detail.

Net.

 

Net,

That's not the cnot the historical connection. It is aboutthe ability of the papcy to push through a dogma that has no scriptural basis or tradition behind it. If it could be done in Trent, it could be done in V1.

And there is nothing logical about what you said. Scripture does not call mary to be the bride of God. You have to read things in.