**She shall crush (the head of the serpent)?**
Her OFFSPRING, meaning Jesus Christ, will crush the head of the serpent.
Did you see it in the Passion of the Christ?
Her?
From Genesis, the only "her" spoken of in chapter 3, verse 15 was Eve, not "Mary".
That said, Mary can be considered among Eve's own offspring --- as can most everyone.
Fanciful imaginings that Mary be as new Eve to Christ's own new Adam, as Paul wrote of Christ being new Adam (but did not write of Mary as a 'new Eve') are just that ---Fanciful imaginings--- which do not fit with Hebrew religious understanding as those were.
Adam was charged with the sin---- Eve was not. Eve was Adam's wife (taken from, created from his own side, or "rib") she was not Adam's earthly mother.
Adam and Eve together were both referred to by God as "Adam" at some places in Genesis. Having Jesus be "new" Adam --- is enough, and covers both genders.
A "new" Eve confuses the issues more than completes anything. Remember, God made man in His own image, male and female created He them. A single new Adam represents the "seed of the woman" (which is a curious phrase, even for OT Scripture, for they knew then that woman did not produce "seed" as did the male of species of animals and man did and does).
Jesus is enough...there being no other name under heaven by which men (and women) can be saved.
I saw the movie. What is the "it" you are inquiring about that I "saw"?
Coincidentally, just yesterday I saw in a music video portions of speculation, and possible pure invention as for Mary's own role which had been borrowed from that film.
In many presentations of the Stations of the Cross, Mary is depicted as being present when Jesus, while carrying the cross, is depicted in the Stations (#3) as having "fell the first time" --- right about or before NT Scripture indicates Simon the Cyrene was forced to carry the cross for Jesus (Mark 15:21, which is depicted in the Stations as station #5.
That so-called Station (#5), as do most others, has direct biblical support.
The previous one, (#4) does not, with the Scripture commonly referenced, John 19: 25-27 for support of the "Station", such as at this link indicates clearly enough that Jesus' own earthly mother, Mary, was said to be present at the cross while (or even only after) He was crucified upon it, there being no contemplation that she (Mary) had witnessed the struggles Jesus endured while on that last walk, before the Crucifixion, and that she encountered Him there and spoke to Him while He was walking that painful walk.
That Station, #4 (as is one other) is pure invention.
If one desires to lean upon "Tradition" as source for those inventions in order to assert those things actually occurred as "Stations of the Cross" depict them to have --- then show us the Tradition--- where exactly were those precise things, such as --->Mary, said to have encountered and comforted(?) Jesus, while He was on the way from the place where He was finally condemned, scourged & mocked, to the place (Calvary) where He was to be Crucified.
Where does extra-biblical stuff like that come from?
Provide source/origin of that exact contention, along with earliest source for the part where a woman named Veronica was alleged to further along the way (Station #6) have wiped His face with a cloth.
My guess is that those two precise "legends" did not arise until some significant time after the event, possibly a few centuries or more after the first decades of Christian Church(?), and when mention was first made of those sort of things --- someone or another was merely projecting upon the event what they either thought *may have* occurred (yet had not themselves heard from from actual Apostolic source, as handed down by the first Apostles) or whomever first waxed poetic about those two events, if not themselves speculating & indulging themselves in expression of 'piety', may have been repeating what had been part of the rumor mongering which was also part of early church experience --- yet was not true, but instead was slight addition.
There were more than a few apocryphal writings which circulated from quite early on, yet were eventually established to be fabrications rather than true account of all which was presented within those writings, although those sort of writings would often be blend of what was written in Gospel accounts, plus "extra" information of the kind persons would invent later to either answer questions which arose, or else just be as a depository for a collection of added rumors which some possibly believed to be true, but again -- was not Apostolic, thus not actual oral tradition --- as passed down by Christ and the Apostles.
sheesh. Why must I need to explain this aspect of Christian church history?
The Scriptures which Catholics give for reference or support often simply do not serve as biblical basis for how Roman Catholicism has turned to presenting some of the particular details which *they* present as if those are Gospel truth, such as exampled in the fanciful insertion of Mary into being present on the Via Dolorosa at some point along that path, before He was Crucified, and then again in regards to Veronica wiping His brow --- those Scripture references (Matthew 25:40, John 14:9 establish no such thing as what is depicted. John 14:9 reads;
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Why would anyone list that [above] passage as support/reference for this alleged incident of a ~Veronica wipes the face of Jesus~ when it does not even mention anyone named 'Veronica'?
As for Mary having been figuratively placed along the road which Jesus trod while on the way to Crucifixion;
It would seem to make more sense for Mary to not have expected the Crucifixion, any more than the disciples were prepared for that --- even though Jesus had told them in general terms that He would be giving His own life.
Up until He was actually crucified, that sort of end for Him simply did not compute --- they heard Him, but didn't get quite "get it". Even afterwards --- it was no victory for them while He was in the grave those three days...but was instead a disaster.
Mary herself at the foot of the cross --- is that not THE place where we could best place her being as pierced through her soul as Simeon had prophesied at the Temple, soon (8 to 10 days) after His birth? (Luke 2:25-35)
Just a a few days previous (Luke 19:28-44 to being crucified, He had entered the city, and had been warmly greeted by many of the people, although the Pharisees were soon to prepare their next stand against Him...
That triumphal entry and warmth of greeting from the masses would likely have lulled the disciples into thinking He was well on the way to becoming Messiah as they had likely imagined Him to become, namely--- triumphant in earthly sense, much as King David, of old.
Mary too may have begun to "believe" somewhat along those same lines --- "it's all coming true! what was promised me to me by God is near to full fruition. My son will be...as a king?" she may have pondered.
How happy she must have been, and filled with great hopes, that yes, this was happening, her own son was going to be Savior of her own people, just as God had promised(?) --- or so she likely thought the "promises" actually meant.
The biblical evidence, is more as none of them other than Jesus Himself anticipated him being crucified, for the Jews were widely expecting a conquering Messiah, not a suffering Messiah.
For many of the Jews of that age...Jesus appeared to be possibly interesting --- but in the end just another loser, fake Messiah. They'd all seen or else heard of a few of those and later had yet more false prophets rise up claiming to be something special. Those failed too.
So Jesus smeezus, who's this Jesus? WHat a loser. Did you hear about how his pitiful disciples robbed the grave this Jesus guy had been buried in, so they could *pretend* that that loser-false prophet had risen from the dead? PA-athetic! Us real Jews are still on the look-out for the real deal, the one who will deliver Israel (or so the Jewish thinking of the day, for those whom were not touched by Him, and by the Spirit --- thus rejected Him, likely enough went).
Yet knowing full well that many of Israel would reject Himself, what were among His last words spoken as He was dying upon the cross?
But man, oh man. Just look at how much a guy has to write in dealing with Roman Catholic invention, additions, and distortions of even the most basic of things. RCC common tradition = oftentimes TUBAR = tangled up beyond all repair/recognition.
Did I see it in (Mel Gibson's) Passion of the Christ, she asks...
Did you see it in the bible? Can you understand a word of what I just wrote? It's to be taken all of a one piece, although admittedly I have touched upon an array of items. I did so for I know full well what the RC ways of thinking are, and was trying to here again get ahead of what is anticipated could be among response/reply, in hopes of saving days long tedium of back-and-forth which would likely be derailed upon yet another siding, if not fully dragged off into the bushes of yet more papist poppycock.