The Bible will lead to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism, or at a stretch to the pre Chalcedon churches such as the Armenian or Ethiopian churches. Obviously, there is not enough in the scripture to differentiate between nuances of Christian practice and theology between the latter. It will not lead to Protestantism, because Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are not scriptural principles.
The numerous well-educated converts to Catholicism such as Marcus Grodi, Scott Hahn, Stephen Ray, Tim Staples will argue scripture with you and never refer to any tradition. Now, it is true that the Divine Liturgy is what ultimately converts, but that is because all conversions come by the will of the Father, to who the Liturgy speaks.
If 15 is read your way then there is only enmity between Mary and satan, as OPPOSED to all other people (or at least believers). Do you think satan has enmity toward you? I know for sure he has enmity toward me. I also toward him. The woman's "seed" refers to man generally, and Christ specifically. There is no Biblical evidence that satan went after Mary especially, over and above the way he went after any other believer. I would expect to see such evidence if there is only enmity between satan and Mary.
The woman's "seed" refers to man generally, and Christ specifically indeed. But it is Christ alone who crushes the serpent, so that particular reference is to Him alone. But since Christ is referred by way of the woman, "your offspring", we have to conclude that while the entire passage speaks to the women generally, it also speaks specifically of Eve (of course) and of Mary. It is not coincidental that Christ refers to His mother "woman" throughout the scripture.
If offspring ONLY means Christ, then that strains Christ's pre-existence
The "offspring", like we agreed, refers to man in general, and Christ in partucular, but the crushing of the serpent refers to Christ alone, hence that reference is to Mary alone as His mother.
There is no way in the universe a straight reading of this scripture leads anyone to think of Mary for a moment. The idea was manufactured later in order to glorify Mary.
The reading of the passage alone, without the witness of the Gospels, would indeed not indicate Mary, -- this is why the Jews do not see her there (neither they see Christ). But since the gospel tells of Him Who crushed the serpent, we gain the meaning not plainly seen. This is rather typical of how a Christian reads the Old Testament in general. It is not a Catholic mariological lense, it is Christian and therefore Catholic lense.
The notion that the symmetry in question was a mariological invention is not accurate. Veneration of Mary was developed as one outcome of combating the christological heresies of Nestorius, but the symmetry is noticed by the earliest of the Church fathers:
Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.' " Luke 1:38 And by her has He 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, Ch 100, St. Justin Martyr, AD 100-165)
Precisely and exactly said! FK, this is called "typology". The OT is filled with it. the mysterious priest Melchizedek is a type of Christ. A prime example of typology is what we call the "Hospitality of Abraham" from the story in Genesis 18 where Abraham and Sarah provide hospitality to three angels. This is a type of the Holy Trinity. Indeed, the icon of the Holy Trinity is this (this one is the greatest, by Rublev):
The Bible only leads to an Apostolic faith when read through an Apostolic lens. I have only been talking about an unbiased reading of scripture with no lens. Which of our faiths takes the plain meaning approach more often? It's not even close. The unbiased reader will come much closer to some form of Protestantism. The Solas are clearly scriptural, as our side has painstakingly detailed, but they are a clear threat to the power of men. It is no wonder at all that they need to be erased through the lens.
But since Christ is referred by way of the woman, "your offspring", we have to conclude that while the entire passage speaks to the women generally, it also speaks specifically of Eve (of course) and of Mary.
That would only be possible if "offspring" CANNOT be taken as generically perpetual. The word "seed" (Zera) includes the concept of posterity, so there is no need to include Mary. It is perfectly legitimate to say that Jesus was part of Eve's "seed" as used in the passage. To build Mary in here is purely an act of choice, the text does not logically require it at all. And of course it is a forced choice because it does not flow with the text of the passage.
It is not coincidental that Christ refers to His mother "woman" throughout the scripture.
Yes it is coincidental. :) That was a common, and polite, form of address. This is from what appears to be a Catholic site: CATHTRUTH
The title "woman" contains nothing disrespectful. In trying to penetrate the meaning of the term we must not take for a criterion our own social code but must place ourselves in the circumstances and social customs in which it was used. Now, in the Syro-Chaldaic language, which Jesus spoke, this was the customary and honorable form of address to any woman. The same usage of the term "woman" prevailed among the Greeks; as Aeschylus tells us, even queens were addressed in that way. Augustus is said to have used this title in addressing Cleopatra. In Spain the word "mujer," "woman," is still used as an affectionate form of address. That Jesus did not consider it in any way offensive is evident from the fact that He used it again on the Cross, when He was entrusting His mother to the care and kind offices of St. John: "Woman, behold thy son." Christ also used it in addressing the weeping Magdalene at the tomb: "Woman, why weepest thou?" Surely our Lord would use only the kindest form of address to a woman who was weeping through great love of Him. (emphasis added)
---------------
But since the gospel tells of Him Who crushed the serpent, we gain the meaning not plainly seen. This is rather typical of how a Christian reads the Old Testament in general. It is not a Catholic mariological lense, it is Christian and therefore Catholic lense.
For the reasons already stated, I would agree with you as to Jesus, but not as to Mary.
The notion that the symmetry in question was a mariological invention is not accurate. Veneration of Mary was developed as one outcome of combating the christological heresies of Nestorius, but the symmetry is noticed by the earliest of the Church fathers:
But the noticed symmetry appears to be very invented. In your quote from St. Justin Martyr, the main comparison is made between a woman who heard God's word and disobeyed, and a woman who heard God's word and did not. I find this unremarkable. There are tons of examples of women who knew God's word and obeyed or disobeyed. The only comparison the Bible actually makes is between Adam and Christ. Eve to Mary is invented.
I wouldn't have thought that Mary being the new Eve and co-redemptrix was necessarily tied to her veneration since the Orthodox clearly venerate Mary.