But let us go back to the story that in told in Genesis 3. The serpent tempts the women with this promise: “For God knoweth that in what day soever you shall eat thereof,your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And the woman saw that the tree was go to eat and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold; and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat and gave it to her husband who did eat. And they eyes of both of them were opened, and when they perceived themselves to be naked, .....” And when God questioned them, and Adam blamed Eve and Ever the Serpent, he cursed them all, for the servant, and he told the servant that it would be the woman’s seed who would crush his head. To the woman he promises she shall suffer many things and be under her husband;s dominion. He in turn, shall lose his place in the garden, and return to dust. And Adam called the name of his wife, Eeve,because she was the mother of all the living.
Adam now has the woman under his dominion, but with Mary it is no longer so, for “I know not man.” She is not under the curse.
This is how you challenge what I just took pains to go over in detail?
What is this? How does it relate? Provide basis instead of simple assertion. Semi divine... show us the way (of your thinking). Though we shall be with Him and reconciled, shall we not remain always as created beings? If being in His light & presence, and conformed more towards His image is "semi-divine", then ok. Otherwise...explain what it is you mean.
But this has very little to do with any of our own present or future status of divinity, semi- or otherwise with the Lord, and EVERYTHING to do with Mary's "semi-divinity" doesn't it? The trouble with that sort of thing, is all sorts of nonsense enters into the mix following, leading one right back to praying TO Mary imploring her own intercession and more. Which sort of thing is not spoken towards approvingly in either the OT or NT texts -- and in fact can be seen to be prohibited when such ideas or practice arise. How much does all this, said to be limited to "veneration" and praying towards someone or some thing in heaven other than the heavenly Father simply replace more basic direct, positive instruction such as Christ telling us to pray to the Father (Creator) in his name, many wonder. The answers and justifications for the practice continually convince myself and many others of the superfluity of the practice. One needn't keep staring at Mary in adoration, to be reminded of Christ's own humanity, though that is one of the many excuses or justifications offered defending the entirely biblically unsupported practice of going far beyond the recognition of her, to praying to her rather than to our Creator.
As to waxing poetical, By what right do your say this?
Where else did he get the information? Precise citation and documentation, please, if such ideas came to him from elsewhere. Or was it...his own private revelation? or just merely his own thoughts on the matter, which I have every "right" to consider this latter to be the case, even if others have been very carefully trained and instructed to never fully confront what it is they are being told to believe -- with investigation if pursued only rewarded for finding agreement and support of RCC doctrines, (whatever they are) and anything contrary put down in dozens of ways.
I also have the right to stand up and say that such as what you bring of Irenaeus, is seemingly being regarded as holy writ, even by you as you seek to establish further basis and justification of Marian doctrine. I JUST SHOWED in previous reply such to be true, even to how "tradition" is utilized to directly countermand or significantly alter that which is holy writ, and not tradition. What I see time and again, are cases of mistaken identity, taking many forms, with in the instance I provided, Eve being substituted for Adam as the one by which sin entered the world (according to rhetoric in far-flung corners of the RCC) when by scripture, it was not by "one woman" at all, but by "one man", Adam, that sin is said to have entered the world. Even the scripture itself had been altered by the RCC in Genesis 3:15 in support of Marionism, putting the serpents head not under "the seed of the woman's heel" spoken of as being a "him" (Christ?) but under her own heel more directly in the Douay versions, with the more modern approved versions having settled upon using the word "they" shall bruise the serpents head. Now THAT, is the RCC's own private interpretation of scripture going so far as to tamper with the very scripture itself, in support of it's own interpretation.
But that's the trouble with Marionism, it keeps taking different forms, and unless or until all the multitudinous errors both large and small (oh, and many of great subtlty!) perpetrated in the ever-vigorous effort to expand and/or retain prior expansions of Marionism is challenged, dragged out into the light and examined, the flaws inherent to the process will remain accepted, leading a great many away from the truth. We are interested in the real truths of the matter, aren't we?
And by what right do you say that Paul was doing more than using an image, for
WHAT sort of twisted question is THAT? "using more than one image"? The last part, which too are your own words, not mine: "Jesus as the one who repaired what Adam had torn", makes more sense in light of the scripture I brought. But if you must ask why, try reading Paul again. Perhaps it will sink in...he went over it, time and time again.
Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand about the above, but I have suspicions as to why, and keep encountering confirmation of some of the worst of those suspicions.
What I was establishing, was that it was by the sin of one man, Adam (not the sin of one woman, Eve) that the Hebrew writ (and Paul, himself a Hebrew well acquainted with the Law) tells us that is so, and that is by the obedience of one man, Christ, that God's grace is extended towards us. Obedience of Mary, or much anyone else (in this narrow context) is simply not touched upon. If we do look towards others obedience, we see time & again the recurrence of them hearing the word of God, and believing. Yet it necessary we believe in only one of them, with all others subordinate to the larger holy purpose;
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Let us not confuse others whom come to us, even the Church itself, with being the One "whom He hath sent", for that too is an error of misidentification committed by many.
Adam now has the woman under his dominion, but with Mary it is no longer so, for “I know not man.” She is not under the curse.
The above sentences leaves one near speachless for it's audacity. She is not "under the curse",you say? ...which it can be assumed is the curse of being born under the curse of sin, which is common to all flesh (unto this day)...because...she was a virgin? That simply doesn't fly, from the same folks who BAPTIZE BABIES!!!
Mary by her own words of acceptance and gratitude, confessed Christ, even the son she would give birth to, as being her Savior. If it be true that she alone, of all humans who have ever lived, this one Daughter of Israel be born not under the curse of Adam, then why would she need a Savior? Why would she speak of "God my Savior"? But here we bump up against yet more hyper-Marionism, this idea now set in stone as it were, with it going far beyond revering her as fully human mother of the Incarnation of Christ...
But I see the cult (of Mary) hidden in plain sight right in the middle of the RCC, has done it's work well, inducing each under it's thrall to twist scripture fully away from origins of context (the Judeo part of the Judeo-Christian construct) at each opportunity to elevate this one person [Mary] above all others, far beyond being merely spoken of and honored more than all other women.
Putting that aside...can you agree with Paul that it was by one man that sin entered the world? Or must the error of attributing the crime to Eve continue, so as to be theological counterpoint to Mary's own salvic "powers" so widely attributed to her from within the RCC?