The verse definitely doesn’t disallow the possibility that the Church’s claims re. Mary are valid, does it?!
If it cannot be defended it is defeated.
Again, the Douay Rheims is the only translation rendering Gen 3:15 in this manner.
RB:
The verse definitely doesn’t disallow the possibility that the Church’s claims re. Mary are valid, does it?!
ealgeone:
If it cannot be defended it is defeated.
RP Reply:
Now you are twisting TRUTH. And that is a very RED flag.
For the argument is about a verse and a word, upon which the doctrine of Mary’s supremacy argument itself doesn’t depend, although you would love for it to depend alone upon a single word in a sole verse of scripture. Your side of the argument CANNOT depend on Genesis 3:15, because the verse doesn’t defeat the doctrine and supports the doctrine even if it doesn’t itself define it.
This is typical case of Protestant pastor lawyer-speak where the speaker is slick and fools most, but with an illogical argument.
Which brings to mind:
What reply do you have to post 137 where your ineffective defence of the Protestant claim that “all truth and doctrine can be found only in the Holy Scriptures” was soundly defeated?