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.
"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."
The idea that Panagia is the "New Eve" is both very patristic and very Orthodox, FK. I don't see that that concept in any way flows from our veneration of her; indeed it might be just the opposite at least to some extent. "Co-redemptrix", however, is neither. That's just heresy.
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.
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.
= = =
INDEED. QUITE ACCURATE, imho.
Sola Fide is directly contradicted by James 2, where a long passage is dedicated to this; nowhere in Paul is Sola Fide taught, even though there are some passages that indicate the lack of salvific quality of circumcision, works for reward, or works for social recognition. Given the emphasis the scripture puts on love, the greatest virtue, an independent mind will arrive at some form of works cooperating with grace theology, and not with Sola Fide. The very fact that the Portestants need to "painstakingly detail" their invention points to it not naturally arising from the scripture.
Sola Scriptura is not even remotely scriptural. Christ left no scripture of His own, his instruction to the Apostles was to teach and baptize, as if they were Him. The Christian scripture lacks for most part the prophetic tone; much of it is written for private consumption. The quotes form the scripture that you would cite in support of this superstition are where we have no argument: that the scripture is inspired, useful to teach and to settle disputes, takes precedence over unwritten word, etc. There is no scipture that would say that the scripture alone is sufficient for the discovery of all the truth necessary for salvation. There is no scripture that would support the perspicuity of the scripture, but there are passages warning against just such assumption.