How is that? That would be better. I don't understand why you leave out Adam and Eve.
Because we are not discussing man's original perfection, we are discussing Mary as a sinful human being, like the rest of mankind AFTER the Fall.
I don't know why such sarcastic anger has to be expressed (your lofty theological distinctions) about an important distinction.
It was a distinction that did nothing to to clarify the issue of Mary's status as a sinner.
But the fact that the distinction is at once real and important on the one hand and scoffed at on the other pretty much demonstrates the futility or at least the unpleasantness of addressing the other points you raise. It's as though those who prefer to do brain surgery with a 4 lb. hammer blame their failures on those who suggest more delicate instruments.
And again, the fact that you will not deal with Mary shows that you are trying to send up smoke to evade the REAL issue.
Christ was the only one born sinless and thus 'perfectly human', Mary wasn't.
Christ is the second Adam, Mary is NOT the second Eve.
When miscommunication happens, it seems the useful thing to do is to go over what was said and identify the problem. Another thing to do is to scoff at the person you're talking to. It's not useful, it's not charitable, but it's done and done a lot.
It was you who made a comment regarding warfare and understanding one's limitations.
So, save the 'poor me, I am so misunderstood' routine.
Your comments had nothing to do with the subject, which was Mary's humanity.
If, as it appears, that's the game you want to play, deal me out.
And if you want to attempt to evade the issue and put up theological smoke screens, you are going to get nailed for it.
Mary was a sinner, and your definition for a 'perfect human being' in light of the Fall, would certainly refer to Christ as the Second Adam, but not to Mary, who was born a sinner and needed a saviour like every child of Adam (which Christ wasn't.)
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! ITTM!
The idea of "argument" here is that one person just says the same thing over and over again in different ways. Sometimes he uses big letters and dark type. When he disagrees with his interlocutor it is appropriate to exercise sarcastic anger. And the very stuff of theological discussion, distinction, is called a smoke screen. Woe to anyone who disagrees!
Cut me a large slice of break, please.
The early Christians say she was the New Eve and typology of the scripture matches. So it makes perfect sense that sin entered the world through disobedience and deception of eve that it would be fitting that the humblest of God's creatures(Mary) shall crush the head of the devil.
It's perfect that the “ole boy” the devil shall be crushed by a women ,the New Eve.
It seems to me that only male chauvinists would have a problem with this