The Baldie Vs Mariology

[Tyrel]

Yes and no. The Church as a whole is the new Eve and the bride of the new Adam. Mary is the Mother and perfect image of the Church.

Couldn't have said it better.

[robrecht]

Couldn't have said it better.

Me neither; this is the traditional symbolism and it is beautiful.

[Paprika]

I suppose I feel apprehensive about the question because it seems to be going in a direction which may be missing the point (like over analogizing an analogy), but perhaps not... St. Paul doesn't talk about Jesus being the new or second Adam 'in the garden,' so perhaps it's just because it sounds foreign to my ears to talk that way about Jesus being the new Adam or Mary being the new Eve.

So, as I think about it now, if we characterize the Garden as the dwelling-place of peace between man and God, where man and God live together in harmony, and if Jesus is the second Adam 'in the garden' then my answer would be that Mary is the second Eve 'in the garden.' However, surely you caught that already from my previous posts, so I wonder if maybe you mean to introduce a point by adding the qualifier 'in the garden.' If so, please do.

You attempted to make a point based on the Johannine narrative, that Mary, mother of Jesus is the representative woman. My point is that you are reading the Johannine narrative allusions incorrectly.

The Gospel begins with "In the beginning was the Word...all things were made through [the Word]", introducing the creation and new creation themes that John will be crafting. Fast forward to John 19. On the sixth day, Pilate, referring to Jesus, says "Behold the Man". On the seventh day Jesus rests in the tomb. The next day, the eighth day, the first day of the new week, Jesus is raised- new creation. And on that day, in the garden, Mary takes Jesus as the gardener.

[robrecht]

You attempted to make a point based on the Johannine narrative, that Mary, mother of Jesus is the representative woman. My point is that you are reading the Johannine narrative allusions incorrectly.

The Gospel begins with "In the beginning was the Word...all things were made through [the Word]", introducing the creation and new creation themes that John will be crafting. Fast forward to John 19. On the sixth day, Pilate, referring to Jesus, says "Behold the Man". On the seventh day Jesus rests in the tomb. The next day, the eighth day, the first day of the new week, Jesus is raised- new creation. And on that day, in the garden, Mary takes Jesus as the gardener.

Nice. I never noticed that before.

[Tyrel]

You attempted to make a point based on the Johannine narrative, that Mary, mother of Jesus is the representative woman. My point is that you are reading the Johannine narrative allusions incorrectly.

The Gospel begins with "In the beginning was the Word...all things were made through [the Word]", introducing the creation and new creation themes that John will be crafting. Fast forward to John 19. On the sixth day, Pilate, referring to Jesus, says "Behold the Man". On the seventh day Jesus rests in the tomb. The next day, the eighth day, the first day of the new week, Jesus is raised- new creation. And on that day, in the garden, Mary takes Jesus as the gardener.

Maybe there is something to be said for this point (I'm not sure), but it seems to me that I should raise two points in response. First, I would like to reiterate the point that this form of conditional argumentation is too speculative. To say that if the narrative of John's Gospel were taking a narrative cue from Genesis, then John would be representing Mary Magdalene as the new Eve, is to affirm something which seems tenuous. Why can't I offer, as a parody, the argument that if the narrative of John's Gospel were taking a narrative cue from Genesis, then John would be presenting Judas as the tempter of Mary (either one, or maybe even the tempter of the other Apostles) instead of merely a trouble-maker for Jesus. The Scriptures are a little too rich to lend themselves to that kind of simple over-analogizing (in my experience).

Second, I have to point out that I could be wrong about Mary being clearly the prototypical 'Woman' in the narrative, without being wrong about her being characterized as the mother of all those who have been born again. If the beloved disciple stands in the narrative place of all true Christian disciples, then Jesus' enjoining him to take Mary home as his mother seems to signify Jesus' enjoining all of us to do the same. If Mary is our 'Mother' in that way, then that alone, it seems to me, could license a parallel between Mary and Eve.

[Paprika]

Nice. I never noticed that before.

The above leads us to this question: if Jesus is the new Adam in the garden, who is the woman with him? What symbolism is conferred by the narrative onto the woman?

[Paprika]

Maybe there is something to be said for this point (I'm not sure), but it seems to me that To say that if the narrative of John's Gospel were taking a narrative cue from Genesis, then John would be representing Mary Magdalene as the new Eve, is to affirm something which seems tenuous.

I'm not saying that.

If the beloved disciple stands in the narrative place of all true Christian disciples, then Jesus' enjoining him to take Mary home as his mother seems to signify Jesus' enjoining all of us to do the same. If Mary is our 'Mother' in that way, then that alone, it seems to me, could license a parallel between Mary and Eve.

Well, yes, if the conditional is true. Which it isn't

[Tyrel]

The above leads us to this question: if Jesus is the new Adam in the garden, who is the woman with him? What symbolism is conferred by the narrative onto the woman?

None; or perhaps, if there is something there, then it would be interesting to flesh out, but I would be inclined to say that it wouldn't controvert the (what seems to me) clearer point that Mary is the mother of Christians in the family of God, into which we are adopted through Christ.

Well, yes, if the conditional is true. Which it isn't

Well, I suppose it's my purpose to show, to the best of my ability, that it is. However, at least I have you conceding the conditional (that's some progress I suppose).

[RBerman]

Second, I have to point out that I could be wrong about Mary being clearly the prototypical 'Woman' in the narrative, without being wrong about her being characterized as the mother of all those who have been born again. If the beloved disciple stands in the narrative place of all true Christian disciples, then Jesus' enjoining him to take Mary home as his mother seems to signify Jesus' enjoining all of us to do the same. If Mary is our 'Mother' in that way, then that alone, it seems to me, could license a parallel between Mary and Eve.

That's true of any text as rich in signifiers as the Bible: You can draw so many lines between the morass of dots. Augustine had a grand olde tyme connecting the details of the Parable of the Good Samaritan into a salvation narrative that bore little resemblance to the actual point Jesus was making about "Who is my neighbor?" The question (unless you're a hardline postmodern) ought to be: Which dots the author intended you to connect in what way?

[Paprika]

Tyrel: you don't understand the shape of my argument at all. It's not "if the narrative of John's Gospel were taking a narrative cue from Genesis, then John would be representing Mary Magdalene as the new Eve", as if every part of the creation narrative has to have a correlate in the Gospel. Rather, it is "since the narrative of John's Gospel is taking a narrative cue from the creation story in Genesis, what then is implied by the scene in the garden with Jesus, the new Adam, with Mary Magdalene?"

[Tyrel]

That's true of any text as rich in signifiers as the Bible: You can draw so many lines between the morass of dots. Augustine had a grand olde tyme connecting the details of the Parable of the Good Samaritan into a salvation narrative that bore little resemblance to the actual point Jesus was making about "Who is my neighbor?" The question (unless you're a hardline postmodern) ought to be: Which dots the author intended you to connect in what way?

If the authors be considered in turn, human and divine, then one must ask the question from both perspectives I suppose. This can be a speculative project, but I think that systematic theology is how we answer the question of what the divine author meant, and it seems to me a clearly established point of systematic theology that Mary is immaculately conceived - this is, of course, because I am a Catholic who believes that the dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy, between the fullness of the faith and the truth with admixture of error, is revealed to us publicly in the ministry of the Catholic Church. That's not something I would expect a die-hard protestant (or Mormon, or Muslim, or anyone else) to accept over night, but it is where I would begin if I were trying to argue forcefully for the doctrine. You said it well near the beginning of this thread, it's all really about starting points.

However, without launching into a heavy systematic defense of Catholicism, I think we can make some progress simply reviewing the Scriptures and exposing what the Church has always taught about them, ever since she received them. I can imagine you would take issue with that (even the wording of it, if you're a good protestant), but then, ecumenical discussion has to sort of take one step at a time. The first step always has to be making 'sense' of each other's positions. Until that can be done, the stage isn't even set for responsible disagreement.

[Tyrel]

Tyrel: you don't understand the shape of my argument at all. It's not "if the narrative of John's Gospel were taking a narrative cue from Genesis, then John would be representing Mary Magdalene as the new Eve", as if every part of the creation narrative has to have a correlate in the Gospel. Rather, it is "since the narrative of John's Gospel is taking a narrative cue from the creation story in Genesis, what then is implied by the scene in the garden with Jesus, the new Adam, with Mary Magdalene?"

Right, and I don't know. I previously said:

None; or perhaps, if there is something there, then it would be interesting to flesh out, but I would be inclined to say that it wouldn't controvert the (what seems to me) clearer point that Mary is the mother of Christians in the family of God, into which we are adopted through Christ.

[foudroyant]

Nice dodge. Did you enjoy immolating that strawman? Try again, kemosabe.

Your passage does nothing of the sort. Yes, prayer to Baal would be worship. However, prayer is not always worship. In fact, you yourself pointed this out earlier in the thread when you protested my citations of Gen. 12:13, et al. (KJV). It would help your credibility if you were at least consistent.

This, again, fails to address dulia. Though, if you like, you can explain 1 Chr. 29:20:



Does prostration before the king mean they are worshiping him as God?

And then there's Matthew 18:26:

Was the slave worshiping the man as God?

Prayer is always worship. Show where they were praying to David. You can't.
Show where prayer is taking place in Matthew 18:26. You can't.

Here's how "prayer" is properly defined:
1. NIDNTT: It is significant that, wherever the NT speaks of requests made to God, it emphasizes that such requests are heard (cf. Matt. 6:8; 7:7-11; 18:19; 21:22; Jn. 14:13f.; 15:7, 16; 16:23f., 26; 1 Jn. 3:22; 5:14f.; Jas. 1:5). It is as if the NT witnesses wished particularly to encourage men to pray, by assuring the suppliant that his requests are heard by God. The NT is aware that this certainty keeps all prayer alive; let such certainty become weakened or diminished through doubt, and prayer dies...In prayer we are never to forget whom we are addressing: the living God, the almighty One with whom nothing is impossible, and from whom therefore all things may be expected (2:857, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).

Prayer is always heard by God because He is omniscient and He can always act on such prayers because He is omnipotent. Those who pray to Mary, although they deny it, ascribe omniscience and omnipotence to her.

2. NIDOTTE: Prayer is, indeed a serious matter. It is regarded in the Bible as the most fundamental of all expressions of religion. It concerns the deepest feelings and most central motivation of the persons who are offering their prayer to their God, and it concerns the covenant relationship, with its blessings and sanctions, as the inevitable fabric of the living communion between the people and their God. To pray is an act of faith in the almighty and gracious God, who responds to the prayers of his people (4:1062, Prayer, P.A. Verhoef).

Again, God is always fully capable to act on all prayers because He is the Almighty.

3. Here's The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible on prayer: In worship, narrowly conceived, men and women recognize that God himself is of highest worth. They give to him their highest respect... Because others are creatures of God, they are due respect, but not the highest respect that only God deserves. Our ultimate affection is focused on God himself (4:950, G.R. Lewis).

So much for your ridiculous assertion that prayer doesn't always have to mean worship.

[RBerman]

If the authors be considered in turn, human and divine, then one must ask the question from both perspectives I suppose. This can be a speculative project, but I think that systematic theology is how we answer the question of what the divine author meant, and it seems to me a clearly established point of systematic theology that Mary is immaculately conceived - this is, of course, because I am a Catholic who believes that the dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy, between the fullness of the faith and the truth with admixture of error, is revealed to us publicly in the ministry of the Catholic Church. That's not something I would expect a die-hard protestant (or Mormon, or Muslim, or anyone else) to accept over night, but it is where I would begin if I were trying to argue forcefully for the doctrine. You said it well near the beginning of this thread, it's all really about starting points.

However, without launching into a heavy systematic defense of Catholicism, I think we can make some progress simply reviewing the Scriptures and exposing what the Church has always taught about them, ever since she received them. I can imagine you would take issue with that (even the wording of it, if you're a good protestant), but then, ecumenical discussion has to sort of take one step at a time. The first step always has to be making 'sense' of each other's positions. Until that can be done, the stage isn't even set for responsible disagreement.

As you say, we have very different assumptions about the interplay between Church tradition and Scripture. One more observation on the main topic: I am satisfied that there's little ground to see a strong typological link between Mary and Eve, though there's a weak link between all women and Eve, as seen in 1 Timothy 2:13. But even if Mary was in some sense a "New Eve," it would have to be proven, not just assumed, what aspects of Eve were still relevant to Mary. Mary was not created from a rib of Jesus. Mary did not tempt Jesus to sin. Mary did not have sexual intercourse with Jesus -- indeed, a good Catholic will claim that Mary never had sexual intercourse with anyone, even her husband. And so on.

[robrecht]

As you say, we have very different assumptions about the interplay between Church tradition and Scripture. One more observation on the main topic: I am satisfied that there's little ground to see a strong typological link between Mary and Eve, though there's a weak link between all women and Eve, as seen in 1 Timothy 2:13. But even if Mary was in some sense a "New Eve," it would have to be proven, not just assumed, what aspects of Eve were still relevant to Mary. Mary was not created from a rib of Jesus. Mary did not tempt Jesus to sin. Mary did not have sexual intercourse with Jesus -- indeed, a good Catholic will claim that Mary never had sexual intercourse with anyone, even her husband. And so on.

I don't have a dog in this fight but will say there's no such thing as proving or disproving typology. Not all metaphors appeal to all people and metaphors are not allegories where every element is symbolic. For those who appreciate the metaphor, it is meaningful not because Mary sinned like Eve, but because she was obedient as the new Eve, not because she was created out of Adam's body, but because she gave birth to Jesus, not because she slept with Adam, but because she symbolizes eschatological chastity, not because Mary tempted Jesus, but because she stood by him in his trials when everyone else abandoned him. You do not think that the new Adam should also have sinned in order to confirm the typology. He is a new Adam, not the old Adam.