Dear Jim --

Locking a thread hardly constitutes an answer to the things I shared with you in the Marian thread.

I made my point. Now it is your turn.

I told you that Jesus is the Last Adam. I have scripture for that (1 Corin. 15:45).

Do you disagree that He is the Last Adam? How? And why?

Since Jesus is the Last Adam, and God has seen fit to exalt Him as a man over all Creation, then show me who His Eve is. If there is Adam, there must be Eve. That is the pattern established in the Garden. If you don't believe in this pattern, tell me why not.

Tell me why Adam and Ever were not destined to be King and Queen over the earth when they were the son and daughter of the Great King of the Universe.

Tell me why God wouldn't restore another Adam with His Eve to take the place of the original.

Come on, Jim, locking a thread is not an answer to these questions!

Brother Ed

I already told you the criteria for my locking a thread, if you don't agree with it then it would be best for you to leave.

This is the reason I am not answering some of your questions:

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

I will however hit this question here. I simply am not going to whrer you are trying to direct this discussion which is pure folly:

There is no question that the "Last Adam" is Christ Jesus, that is not the issue. What the issue is, is your erroneous correlation of Mary being a sort of "Eve".

This would mean that your last "Adam" would be guilty of incest.

Adam and Eve, in the context of the renewed covenant of God, are positions of leadership and authority over mankind. Your assumption of nuptial uni*n between the two has no basis, since they are Mother and Child.

Of course, there is the interesting fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary has been described as the Spouse of God or the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, Who is God.

Nonetheless, this is not a novel idea and I cannot take credit for it. As early as the second century, the Early Fathers were referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New Eve in their writings. Apparently they had the same take on it that I do.

They were just a lot schmarter than me.

Brother Ed

The above is the problem "Blessed Virgin" she was with the birth of JESUS, but afterward she had several children by her husband Joseph.


Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Revelation 20:11-15 does not reference a queen, but a King on that throne.
No apostle, No epistle, or biblical doctrine lifts up mary! It is an error. We are not to praise her, pray to her, or put her up on a pedestal! All that is to go to the LORD over all.....King JESUS!

Mary was a bless woman to give birth to the savour, but she is not Mary the queen of heaven "A novel idea indeed, just not Biblical" The above scripture kinda blows your novel idea out of the waters of truth!


Jim Norman

When common sense is overridden by perceived context of scripture, I will gladly err on the side of common sense.

The difference between our argument is such as there can be no common ground upon which we can agree:

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

and furthermore:

1 Cor. 11:14
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

When the Holy Spirit presses upon a person that "this is not so", should that man quench the Spirit(1 Thess 5:19)?

If we cannot agree upon the basic fundamentals such as context, how do you expect me to agree upon anything else so radical as what you people proclaim?

Why cannot you understand that the Glory that comes to Jesus Christ came only by the Father?

Do you think He still could have been the Christ had he come of a male? No, common sense tells us that men cannot have babies, can they? OK then, would we still be able to worship Him as the Christ had he not been born of a woman, any woman? No, common sense tells us that had He come, or appeared out of thin air, then He could not have fulfilled the prophecy as foretold in Isaiah 7:14, and furthermore would not have been human in our eyes to the people who seek after signs. they never would have accepted Him as flesh.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Apparently it was not important at this time to mention Mary's name was it? But it sure was important to name Jesus (Immanuel).

So, another question to you:

Concerning John the Baptist,


John himself was no less of a person than Mary, and Elizabeth was important enough here to mention so why do you not worship/pray to these two either?

Luke 1:13
But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
1:14
And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
1:15
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
1:16
And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
1:17
And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Again, I find it very difficult to see your random selectiveness in whom you give praise very alarming.

The Old Testament gives heed to many prophecies concerning Jesus, which He fulfilled. Why is the name of Mary not included in any of these? Why did the Lord not find it important to do so?

I wil lalso reiterate what my brother in Christ has said:

Jim

I would like to defend Jim's or any other moderator's decision to lock a thread. This site has a distinct purpose and can manage its forums as it pleases.

My personal feeling is expressed in in Titus 3:10

I do not say that is the reason threads are being locked, however, they could use that basis if they so desired.

MNW

Brother Martin, that is exactly why they are being locked. I believe the truth has been represented properly and truthfully with all glory being given to Christ. It has been rejected and twisted for that matter, and I am washing my hands as we need to get back to what is important now, the honor and glory of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

For now, I will leave some of the topics open if they can have some sort of rationality of thought in them by our catholic friends.