ealgeone wrote:
“and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
The part following, which was NOT quoted by ealgeone reads as follows:
The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent.
Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.
We can agree on that much. The rest we cannot.
My question regarding Sola Scriptura is quite simple: which Bible?
In the English Language alone, more than 50 versions exist. Hmmm. I read the Latin Vulgate version because regarding matters of antiquity, it just makes sense to read the oldest (and ONLY Bible) of the first millennium.
I only posted the one sentence from the Catholic Encyclopedia online in response to your post to illustrate that antiquity doesn't always mean accuracy as that was the one part of the text that was pertinent to the discussion. I was trying to avoid discussing the errors of the RCC teachings on the immaculate conception.
So we all have an understanding of the full paragraph in question I've produced it here.
The astute will note Roman Catholicism's own encyclopedia which bills itself as "the most comprehensive resource on Catholic teaching, history, and information ever gathered in all of human history." notes there is no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma [Immaculate Conception...brackets mine] can be brought forward from Scripture.
I have bolded in black what heterosupremacist left out. And for good reason from the Roman Catholic perspective. Red text is the part I first posted. Blue text is what heterosupremacist posted. Sentence breaks are mine and are added to illustrate what was posted by who and when.
Proof from Scripture
Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ).
The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent's head, is Christ ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
I was trying to limit the discussion to the topic at hand. If you want to continue to have a discussion on the immaculate conception we can...because there's a lot more in the article that isn't friendly to the RCC position on this issue.
The above presents quite the problem for both sides. If a person in authority is in error than that means they are a usurper and must be disowned or even put to death. Also if apostolic succession is true then we should see constant correction in the like of Paul occurring today.
With the above said remember one of Paul's biggest concerns with the growing Church. It was the Jews who were still arguing whether or not circumcision, eating meat, working on the Sabbath, etc. were sinful or if certain laws needed to be kept to keep or earn one's salvation.