That "no lens" is a lens, - it is a modernist lens. For example, you consider the "power of men" to stand between you and God, but that is a modern age attitude. It did not exist in the age when knowledge was transmitted through men, rather than through books.
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.
Once again, you are telling me that a reading not including Mary is possible. Indeed it is, and so a reading without Jesus is possible. Still, Jesus had a mother, and so we see both Jesus and His mother in the passage, and so does St. Justin Martyr. You asked, where is Mary in the scripture and I responded where I see her. It is up to you to adopt the interpretation that suits you best among the many, -- this is why you are a Protestant.
That "no lens" is a lens, - it is a modernist lens. For example, you consider the "power of men" to stand between you and God, but that is a modern age attitude. It did not exist in the age when knowledge was transmitted through men, rather than through books.
= = = =
UHHHH, Hello? The assertion seems to be that folks of yore had not the mental capacity to lay aside biases, cultural gestalt etc. etc. etc. and consider anything from as much of an "objective lens" as possible. I'm sure they are impressed with the judgment of their mental abilities.
Regardless, we can manage such a task to a very significant functional degree in our era. Therefore, those wedded to avoiding a more objective lens in favor of a bias saturated, bias clothed, bias trumpeted TRADITION is . . . dismaying, sad and horrid to see.
I disagree. You know that the Bible is packed with verses about the power and truth of God being superior to the power and truth of men. Paul tells us to test everything against God's word. This is not a modern idea. It MAY be true that fewer men actually taught that idea back then, but if true that does not go against the truth of scripture, it only goes to some not teaching it correctly.
When I first started reading parts of the Bible in high school I had no lens. The sum total of my knowledge of Catholicism was that you had a Pope. The sum total of my knowledge of "Protestantism" was that they didn't. I had never attended any church. While of course I didn't understand any complex doctrine on a first reading, the approach I took then is still the same as today. Look at what the words say, use common sense, and see what the Bible says about the same subject in other places. I only later found out that only "Protestants" do this.
"If" I had any lens at all it would be that an all powerful God who would give His followers a Holy Book would make it include everything the believers needed. I did assume that, but I didn't get it from anyone else. Obviously, my own anecdote is a big reason why I think that an unbiased reading leads sooner to some form of Protestantism.