Why the Early Church Thought Mary Was the New Eve

[@zach415]

I find it very profound that a student of Saint John wrote this about Mary. Because Saint John was the Apostle who received Mary as his mother when Jesus died

[@robertdolcetti450]

Very wholesome. He might have known Mary personally! No wonder he had such a high opinion of her.

[@tonyl3762]

Correction: a student (Irenaeus) of a student (Polycarp) of St John wrote that about Mary.

[@timboslice980]

Good point the direct lineage adds a lot of credit. Imagine it was the opposite case, guys like Ortlund would be complaining that there’s no direct teaching from John’s line of succession. The fact that it does come from his line and no other apostle, is 100% a W for the concept.

[@mikekayanderson408]

John did not write this!@@robertdolcetti450

[@mikekayanderson408]

This is not what John taught in any of his epistles or His Gospel. @@timboslice980

[@HumanDignity10]

One thing I’ve thought about… when Eve eats the fruit, she does it on her own without any discussion with Adam. At the wedding at Cana, Mary engages Jesus in a dialogue and then tells the servants “Do whatever He tells you.” Mary does not act alone as Eve did at the fall and Mary directs people to be obedient to Jesus whereas Eve influenced Adam to be disobedient to God when she handed him the fruit.

[@erinoneill-ze8ke]

Eve's sin was in stepping out from the authority and her place in the family. Superceding her husband. That is why Eve's curse is applicable to all wives. The curse of Eve is to constantly try and control their husbands, outside the designed family order. Adams curse is men being effeminate and not taking on responsibility. Women now rule over men in much of secular society. Youths oppress my people, women rule over them. My people, your guides lead you astray; they turn you from the path.

[@kyrptonite1825]

“Fruit of Her Womb” “Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil”

[@stananders2333]

Why not? Thats what you are doing in this very comments section( the 40+ long one)

[@kyrptonite1825]

God is not the Author of Confusion. So let me ask you this: The Bible can be interpreted many different ways. One passage, one verse, can be interpreted to mean 100 different things. Catholics believe in a Teaching Authority given us by God, an Infallible Interpreter for an Infallible Book. We still have freedom of interpretation, and the Magisterium doesn’t necessarily have every little point down, but we at least have a general Teaching Authority for the Bible. But you don’t, and so you can interpret 1 verse 100 different ways. And it’s not that you just disagree on minor points but agree on major points. In the Letters of Peter, it is said that there are things hard to understand in Scripture, that misinterpretation can lead people to danger, to hell. And Protestants disagree on important topics such as once saved always saved, Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism, if divorce is allowed and when, etc. These are all important points Protestants disagree on. You rightly say, “God is not the Author of confusion.” So why wouldn’t God give us a Teaching Authority then, and not give us a Teaching Authority for Scripture to avoid not being one, like Christ prayed for, and so that Christians don’t all disagree and actually know what the Deposit of Faith Teaches? How can you truly know the Truth, if so many disagree?

[@kyrptonite1825]

Eve is the Helper of Adam

[@Sicarius089]

I've never considered that part in Genesis when Adam changes the name of Woman to Eve (Mother), so immediately when you read it, I thought of the crucifixion and Jesus saying "behold your Mother" my mind was blown by that little detail, that as Christ is on the verge of bringing about a new world in a spiritual sense he's fulfilling the new Adam role by giving his Mother to all.

[@kyrptonite1825]

So true!

[@danielcristancho3524]

'' I thought of the crucifixion and Jesus saying "behold your Mother" my mind was blown by that little detail, that as Christ is on the verge of bringing about a new world in a spiritual sense he's fulfilling the new Adam role by giving his Mother to all.'' It's called Eisegesis and it's pretty much wishful thinking. Mary is not the mother of all. That's never taught anywhere in the NT. If she were mother of all, Paul or Peter would have devoted pen and ink to it.

[@Sicarius089]

@@danielcristancho3524 it's cute that you think everything had to be explicitly stated in the bible 🤣despite the apostles and thier successors having written in great detail on this in the Ante-Nicene Fathers writings.

[@danielcristancho3524]

@@Sicarius089 ''it's cute that you think everything had to be explicitly stated in the bible'' Not explicitly. Just clearly. Give me doctrines where I don't have to twist my brain into a pretzel to force it out of a text in scripture and I'll embrace it. ''despite the apostles and thier successors having written in great detail on this in the Ante-Nicene Fathers writings.'' The actual Apostles never wrote in the Ante Nicene writings. Only their supposed predecessors. Sorry, they did not have scriptural authority. Whatever the Apostles warranted as critical to salvation is found in the bible.

[@theHermitofEngedi]

God is good!

[@TheShard1771]

I've learned a lot of Mariology, but the Wedding at Cana being on the 6th Day in John's Gospel was new to me! Incredible stuff!

[@P.H.888]

Yet John 2 v 1 says The 3rd Day!

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

@@P.H.888It means the third day when counting from the previous day.

[@mikejames303]

​nope, it's the sixth day from the beginning of the gospel.

[@danielcristancho3524]

''I've learned a lot of Mariology, '' So have I. It's Mary worship.

[@rosiegirl2485]

As a Catholic..I have trusted the Church with this teaching..but wow!!! I have never heard it laid out so nicely! Thank you Joe!

[@brucedavenport7016]

You should never ever "trust the church with teaching unless you can verify the teaching independently. Your eternal life is YOUR responsibility!

[@MeanBeanComedy]

​​@@brucedavenport7016 Christ established the Church He did not establish anything "independent" of said unified Church..

[@brucedavenport7016]

@@MeanBeanComedy When someone states they trust "the Church", they are saying they trust the people and the theology those people are preaching. Nobody should ever do that. Every single person should diligently verify, independent of the people and theology they are drawn to, everything that is said.

[@bluecomb5376]

May Mary, the Mother of God, lead many to Her Son. I pray those who are not Catholic may open their hearts and minds to these revelations.

[@bluecomb5376]

Where's the anger and hatred?@@po18guy

[@geoffjs]

Mary led me and many others to her son, for which I’m eternally blessed and grateful

[@richardkremers]

mary is NOT the agent leading to Christ, Christians follow Christ directly. the 4 doctrines of mariology stem from an ancient pagan mother-son god relationship, and poorly and incorrectly led arguments based on twisted and contextually incorrect interpretations of scripture.

[@tony1685]

@@geoffjs Mary leads nothing, she's dead.

[@tony1685]

God is Eternal and from Everlasting, Mary isn't. get it right. Mary was a sinner and is now dead. quit with the Mariology and worship of a simple human, please.

[@SaintlySaavy]

This was incredible! God Bless our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thank you Joe!

[@kyrptonite1825]

Luke 11:27-28 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” So a random woman went up to an Adult Jesus, and said Blessed is your Mother, basically? Huh. Protestant normally think this means we shouldn’t call Mary blessed, but that is incorrect, otherwise there would be a Biblical contradiction. As Elizabeth calls Mary “blessed among women” earlier, and this is treated as good. Jesus doesn’t just look at the statements people make, but looks into their Hearts, so Jesus was looking into the woman’s heart and her understanding. Jesus often speaks in ways that seem like riddles, that Amy seem to be saying something, but in reality, Jesus is correcting her thought pattern about a real truth. He is saying that the reason Mary isn’t Blessed isn’t just because Mary is the Mother of Jesus, but it’s because Mary Hears the Word of God and keeps it. This Brings us back to one of Mary’s, if not the most important, words, Her Fiat: “Let it be done to me, according to Your Word” This act of faith not only stands in contrary to Eve’s sin, but this is what made Mary the Mother of Jesus in the first place, Her Fiat. This is what makes Mary ultimately Blessed, not a Physical Connection, although that is Blessed, but Mary Hearing God’s Word and Keeping it. But it’s pretty obvious from this woman, that even people in Jesus’s time understood how Blessed Mary was.

[@joecastillo8798]

@@kyrptonite1825 Understand that God blesses a person: Body and Soul. Not just Spirit. Moreover, the Blessed Mother, according to the Greek manuscript, as Kecharitomene or "Forever and at all times full of grace". Such nonce word was used only once in the entire Scripture; it was to describe the immense state of Holiness of the future Mother of God.

[@steveimhoff5646]

Wow… I’ve never heard the comparison of Genesis days of creation to actions of Jesus and Mary. This is incredible.

[@pajamaninja2157]

yeah that part was really cool. when he showed Adam changing Eve's name i was like "wait a minute 🤯"

[@masterchief8179]

Indeed! The Fathers always compared the order of creation and the “new order” as mirroring it, not as an aleatory replacement for it, which came forth by the Incarnate God: that’s the order of redemption as “new creation”. That’s the reason we are called “new creatures” in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17-19) while God is reconciling the world - all created order in the biblical sense of κόσμον, “kosmon” in verse 19 of the 5th chapter in 2 Co (= the “cosmos”), usually translated as “the world” for the mere lack of a better expression - to himself in Christ. I’d say we must get Genesis in mind here also, otherwise the interpretation will be crippled (like in the common exegesis of so-called “biblical Christians”). The “old creation” was made through Christ and for Christ, the Son of God, but sin entered the world so that the Son himself came to rescue us from death. The comparing of the old creation (Colossians 1:15-20) with the new creation (Colossians 1:21-23) comes in a lot of places in St Paul, and that’s Paul mirroring Isaiah 65 and Isaiah 66 in his teachings. Isaiah’s “new heavens and new earth” apart from the narrative of the book of Genesis won’t make much soteriological sense. As it is much known, the redemptive work of Christ is understood to mean not only to overcome (which is loosely thought of in the Protestant mindset) but more precisely to justly REVERSE (see the structural definition of the Genesis 3, 15) the transgression of Adam and Eve - being Christ the Head of the “new humanity” so as Adam was the head of the “old humanity”. If that logical structure of the divine intellect is missed in the dynamics of salvation, so is the operation of the ‘Logos’, the divine Word, who was made flesh. That’s why Protestants don’t understand the core realities of the mystery of Incarnation - and that’s why we see in them the sort of “Gnostic tendencies” that make them usually 1) dismiss (or even despise) the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, 2) endorse the spiritualist tendency that views “matter” or “flesh” as intrinsically evil, something to get away from or to get rid of, and, at last, 3) overemphasize personal experience (enlightenment) through a supposed direct illumination of the Holy Spirit, or “personal relationship”, instead (actually in obstinate opposition) of the mediatory role of the Church and the sacraments in light of the mystery of the church (as the mystical body of Christ, she is the prolonging, the continuation of the mystery of Incarnation through time and space). May God ALWAYS preserve us from the everlasting heresy of Gnosticism, so in-built in Protestantism. St Iraeneus, pray for us! Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ!

[@Hokum48]

I have heard if it is new it is not true!

[@pajamaninja2157]

@@Hokum48 well what you say there is new to me. does that mean it isn't true?

[@Hokum48]

@@pajamaninja2157 very funny..... No new revelation here!

[@OzCrusader]

Thank you so much Joe. While defending our Catholic faith against insults from people who think they know Catholicism as evil, devotion to and veneration of Mary is often raised. I use many of your analogies and typologies (listed in this video) in our discussions. Your treatment has helped me “fill in the blanks”, boosting my confidence by knowing I’m on the right track. From Canberra Australia, may God continue blessing you.

[@Tpr41]

I’m one of those people who have all of my life been anti catholic and raised all the usual criticisms of the catholic faith, including ‘worshipping Mary’. Over the last 3 or 4 months I’ve been unexpectedly and annoyingly drawn to the catholic religion and am now learning what I can from actual Catholics who know their faith rather than non practicing Catholics and other Protestants. I’m feeling like a disobedient child who has been disrespectful to his mother. Having been Protestant and anti catholic all of my life this is strange and frightening. Yet here I am listening to Shameless Popery, Pints, Trent and others…and questioning everything I thought I knew and praying for discernment. From Blue Mtns, Sydney.

[@Anon.5216]

​@@Tpr41 Thank u for ur humility. Soon, hopefully, u will be at home in the true Church.

[@OzCrusader]

@@Tpr41 Congratulations for finding your way home. I pray you settle in quickly and enjoy sharing your new-found faith with others. I am a 64 year old cradle Catholic, still learning more each day about our rich Catholic history, theology, culture. What do you think first drew you to the Catholic Church? Keep going to Mass, joining RCIA groups, chat with as many knowledgeable Catholics as possible, read your Bible, JB or RSVCE, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), pray, pray and pray!

[@jendoe9436]

@@Tpr41 Praying your journey continues to be enlightening and fruitful 😇 Word of friendly caution, no matter how deep you study Catholicism there will always be something new to learn 😅 Grew up and still am a practicing Catholic, and I highly doubt I’ll know everything there is to know about Catholicism by the time I pass away. It’s a vibrant, growing, and enriching faith that can be hard to articulate sometimes. Hopefully you find more good people and resources to help answer any questions and concerns you have.

[@mikejames303]

​@@Tpr41Greetings from America, and welcome home. I recently came back after 15 years of atheism, entering a confessional for the first time since I was 13. Although many protestants reject the concept of confessing to another man, they fail to recognize this sacrament was instituted by Christ. And how ahead of His time He was, He invented therapy 1900 years before Freud. We aren't being forgiven by a man, but by Jesus. And how assuring those words of the priest that we are forgiven by Jesus. This also holds us accountable, having to say your sins out loud to another person helps with recognizing how you've offended God, because Although the priest doesn't judge you, having to say your sins to another person really keeps you humble and aware of how you've fallen short. I hope you can experience this beautiful sacrament one day. May God bless you and Our Lady continue to guide you to the truth. There

[@God7is7my7Judge]

Joe! You are my absolute favorite apologist! Mary is the biggest reason I and my wife are in RCIA right now. Prise God and Hail Mary! Thank you for your ministry, brother!

[@danielcristancho3524]

''Mary is the biggest reason I and my wife are in RCIA right now. '' This is sad. So not even one mention of your Savior Jesus Christ? He's not the reason you're in church?

[@simonslater9024]

Watch the warning or illumination of conscience by Christine Watkins. Then Following Padre Pio.

[@tonyl3762]

THIS is how the earliest Christians, those taught and ordained by the Apostles and their first successors, interpreted Scripture! Why do Protestants not accept the interpretations of those who learned from those who learned from the Apostles?? How can modern Protestant interpretations be more correct and authoritative than those of the earliest Church leaders and martyrs after the Apostles??

[@Justas399]

No one in the 1st century taught that Mary was some kind of Eve.

[@harrygarris6921]

Well I think the reason why they did it is because they saw the faculty of reason as having a higher interpretative authority than Christian tradition. But before you criticize Protestants too much realize that there are plenty of people even within the historic catholic church who did this as well and inspired the reformers. Augustine and Aquinas are both viewed as great saints by Catholics today as I understand but they took this same approach, preferring to use their own reason and the philosophical methods of Neoplatonism to illuminate scripture for them more so than received interpretative tradition. Luther and Calvin just took it one step further.

[@tonyl3762]

@@Justas399 Where do you think Justin Martyr and Irenaeus got the idea? You think they came up with the same idea all on their own independently from Scripture?

[@Justas399]

@@tonyl3762 They got these ideas from their own vain speculations and were probably influenced by paganism which had goddess of their own. They did not get their ideas from Scripture.

[@tonyl3762]

@@Justas399 LOL. Isn't it clear you merely speculate what you _want_ to believe rather than trying to examine the historical/documented evidence fairly? Justin and Irenaeus DIED as martyrs at the hands of pagans, and yet you accuse them of being "influenced by paganism"?! As their own writings attest to, they clearly received these teachings from the very first apostolic successors WHO LIVED IN THE 1ST CENTURY, like Polycarp, the disciple and successor of the Apostle John. None of your wild, self-interested speculations comport with the actual evidence.

[@ToddJambon]

Dude! You are a beast. What a fantastic episode. Surely the Holy Spirit is working through you.

[@TriciaPerry-mz7tc]

Adam NEVER called Eve Mother NEVER. I Serve the LORD JESUS and the HOLY GHOST will not teach anyone to PRAY TO MARY. THIS IS ALL DEMONIC and false.

[@ToddJambon]

@TriciaPerry-mz7tc listen again. He never makes the claim that Adam called Eve mother. Can you time stamp that.

[@mikejames303]

Its amazing to me how protestants read scripture as if it was written in modern times, as if it is able to be understood as a stand alone book, without understanding the context of the time it was written and how the authors meant for it to be read. Thank God Jesus gave us a Church so we're able to understand how scripture was traditionally interpreted. Ave Maria.

[@mattcaruso2520]

When you think scripture is about you, that is called pride. So you see the connection. This was the fallacy of the reformation. Everyone interprets is on thier own. What a mess. Pray for them

[@larrybedouin2921]

The sufficiency of the scriptures. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, *which are able to make thee wise unto salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished unto all good works* {2 Timothy 3:15-17} Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: *for thy testimonies are my meditation* {Psalm 119:98-99} *Thy word* is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. {Psalm 119:105} The entrance of thy words giveth light; *it giveth understanding unto the simple* {Psalm 119:130} The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, *making wise the simple* {Psalm 19:7}

[@P.H.888]

@@mattcaruso2520ironic, the romans take the high place all the time, the pope, calling him a mere man by The Name and Title Unique to The Eternal Creator! Taking from the poor dripping in gold purple and scarlet. A false priesthood with laity!? (1 Tim 4 v 1-3). Twisting The Scriptures Into a religion of works . Jeremiah 31 v 31~34 Acts 2 …. The Day of Pentecost! Still being experienced by people to I testify that I have received this Holy Baptism from Above! The Lord Jesus Christ said what His Kingdom would be Not physical, therefore not located in rome or the vatican or anywhere else.

[@kyrptonite1825]

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.

[@larrybedouin2921]

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, *which are able to make thee wise unto salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished unto all good works* {2 Timothy 3:15-17} Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: *for thy testimonies are my meditation* {Psalm 119:98-99} *Thy word* is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. {Psalm 119:105} The entrance of thy words giveth light; *it giveth understanding unto the simple* {Psalm 119:130} The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, *making wise the simple* {Psalm 19:7}

[@jdub3999]

I love sharing these videos with my Protestant friend, your content helps us have dialogue in a charitable way.

[@Hokum48]

I cant bear to watch the whole video....Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved!

[@nanagaga2001]

I always learn so much from your videos, but especially this one. As a Catholic I'm familiar with her title as the New Eve and thought I understood it. You gave me so much more to appreciate, thank you.

[@mikekayanderson408]

All lies

[@andrielbournen842]

​@@mikekayanderson408 AVE MARIA GRATIA PLENA

[@billymays7958]

​@@mikekayanderson408 you didn't watch the video lol.

[@mikejames303]

​@@mikekayanderson408you've been reading the Bible wrong if you don't recognize that as a Christian Mary is your mother. May Our Lady guide you to the truth. Ave Maria.

[@kyrptonite1825]

Mary is also the Queen of Heaven and Earth. The Queen, is below the King (Christ), not equal or above the Monarch, but below, but Above everyone else. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davdic Covenant, the Ruler of the Davidic Line. We see the Church is the New Israel, and is very similar to Israel in many ways: 12 tribes, 12 Apostles Eliakim, Palace Administrator, rules over all Israel under the King, given the Keys of David, and Authority to open and shut, and the Pope Jesus as King, David and others as king High Priest, Priest, and Levite Pope, Bishops and Priests, or Bishops, Priests, and Deacons Etc. Mary is one of these. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, but in the Old Testament the Queen of Israel, was the mother of the king, not the wife, because kings were polygamous in the ancient Middle East. The Bible makes mention of the “Queen-Mother”, multiple times. Bathsheba is originally treated not super reverently as the wife of David, but as the mother of Solomon, she is treated with a different dignity. The Queen also interceded for the people, to the King, which we see when Bathsheba tries to intercede for someone, and he says Solomon won’t not give you anything or something akin to that. The Book of Revelation mentions the Woman with a Crown of 12 Stars in Heaven. Who gives Birth to the Messiah. Now, this is a prophecy which has multiple meanings, as a lot of Biblical prophecies and symbols do. It symbolizes the Church, Israel, and Mary. The Birth Pangs can symbolize just Israel and the Church, or it could symbolize Mary’s Seven Sorrows and not literal Birth Pangs; “A Sword shall Strike Your Heart.” Every other character in this passage is a person, the dragon, satan, the Lamb, Christ, so it makes sense that the Woman be a real Person too. Right before this, the Ark of the New Covenant in heaven is shown. Now, the Bible wasn’t originally Written with chapters seperating it, so it could be that the Ark is the Woman. And other places in the New Testament indicate Mary is this Ark, so it makes sense that the Woman is also Mary from this. Finally, Mary is the Perfect Disciple of Christ. We see that She often kept things in Her Heart. Mary symbolizes the Church, as a Person. For example, Israel and the Church are described as Virginal, as the Bride of Christ (Mary is considered Bride to Christ in a Spiritual Way as well as Mother), as Feminine, as a Woman, as Holy Mother Church, etc. All things that can be used to describe Mary.

[@maremare1655]

Great teaching here. I can't wait for the one. Hail Mary!

[@sodetsurikomigoshi2454]

AWESOMMMME!!!! The part about the name change for Eve and Mary to "Mother" and Jesus being the new fruit, from the new tree, is gold.

[@danielcristancho3524]

The part about the name change for Eve and Mary to "Mother" and Jesus being the new fruit, from the new tree, is gold.'' Yes, it is good storytelling, but is it true? No. The bible makes no such comparisons.

[@StringofPearls55]

​@@danielcristancho3524 When reading the Old Testament, do you see baptism when they cross the Red Sea, the Jordan? Do you see baptism in the the story of Noah's Ark? Do you only see Jesus as the 'New Adam' because Paul says so?

[@danielcristancho3524]

@@StringofPearls55 ''When reading the Old Testament, do you see baptism when they cross the Red Sea, the Jordan? Do you see baptism in the the story of Noah's Ark? '' Yes, because that's what the bible teaches. ''Do you only see Jesus as the 'New Adam' because Paul says so?''' I believe the bible uses the phrase 'Second Adam' so yes, I believe Christ is the second Adam. I know of no text that calls Christ the 'New Adam'.

[@StringofPearls55]

@@danielcristancho3524 Perfect. So you can see crossing the Jordan as a type of baptism, even though it's not explicitly written. So it is with Mary as the new Eve, or second Eve if you prefer.

[@danielcristancho3524]

@@StringofPearls55 Mary as the new Eve? Don't be absurd. If the bible bothers to tell us that Christ, Almighty God is the second Adam, certainly it would have told us Mary, a human being, would be the second/new Eve. Paul or Peter would have devoted ink to it. They don't .

[@wallamboklahong9125]

God's holy name is Blessed, enlightening His owned children fore ever more. Thank You, Bro. Joe. God bless those who believed in Faith n those who listen to this podcast. From India N-East.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

My friends: “what have you been studying lately?” Me: “Oh just continuing through my read through of the Bible… and having my mind blown by the parallels between John and Genesis.” I’m already ADD in my Bible study habits. Now I need to interrupt regularly scheduled stuff to gush over Jesus changed Mary’s name from Woman to Mother?!?! 🤯

[@mariatr492]

Same here! That connection blew my mind, just a beautiful thing to now be able to see

[@kyrptonite1825]

“A Sword Shall Pierce Your Heart” “Mary Pondered all these things in Her Heart”

[@Hokum48]

The most important parallel between John and Genesis is "in the beginning"! Geneses 1:1 John 1:1

[@HillbillyBlack]

The new Ark, new Eve ​​⁠Wouldn’t the bride of Christ be a more appropriate eve?? Having mary as the new eve is a little incestual. Mary wasn’t the NT focus unless you shoe in “The Gospel of James”. Was it not Adam who is credited for the fall rather than eve? Did Paul not say For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ??? Even replacing eve argumentatively seems out of character with scripture. Its about correcting Adam, not eve. Mary as the new Ark, thats obvious in logic, but the original ark wasn’t a focal point but a carrier. The cloud of God was above the Ark. all bowed to the cloud presence of God, not the ark. The original Ark carried scripture, Gods truth, not God himself. Today wouldn’t the new ark be the pillar and foundation of the Truth? Does it not seem odd that the current established 4 Marion dogmas are listed in The Protoevangelium of James and Pseudo-Matthew which is rejected by the Roman Catholic church?

[@vinciblegaming6817]

@@HillbillyBlack The Old Ark carried the symbols of Christ as a prefiguration and foreshadow of Jesus. Luke, in his story of the virgin birth, uses allusions to Mary as a fulfillment of the ark that carries the Messiah. The Ark led people into battle and was treated with care and reverence because God having used it made it Holy… not like God is holy, but still dangerous to sinful man and deserving of special care. Mary as the new Eve - only two pairs in all of scripture of a singular relationship to each other in that one physically and materially comes from the other. Everyone else in all creation comes from two physical progenitors, but Eve and Jesus are physically and materially formed by only one physical progenitor - Adam and Mary, respectively. Woman is taken out of Man and the New Man is taken out of the New Woman. And just as the Woman invites Man to sin, New Woman invites New Man to begin his ministry with a miracle. And just as Man renames Woman to Mother, New Adam renames New Woman to Mother. Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit for that is who produces Jesus in her womb. She is the mother of the bride as Jesus makes her Mother of His Beloved Disciple. And John calls himself the beloved as a direct reference to Song of Songs where the Bride is the Beloved.

[@inasorensen4452]

I just subscribed !Coming from a Protestant back ground ,this is very interesting .Thank you!

[@TheMoreYouSew]

Thanks for this. As an...."inquisitive" Protestant, I appreciate it. I watched your video on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and really enjoyed that. Would you be willing to do a similar one on the sinlessness/assumption of Mary? Thank you!!

[@jdub3999]

Great comment, even as a Catholic I struggle explaining/understanding/defending those two dogmas. I believe Luke1:26-38 contain enough (full of grace, favor with God), just not sure how to pull it all together.

[@crusaderACR]

That'll be next week probably. Mary's sinlessness is indeed hinted at the "full of grace" thing. The Angel calling her "Blessed", and she identifying as such, is also a pretty big deal for a 1st century Jew. But that's kind of messy to explain. The clearest and most solid proofs are all in the Old Testament. From typology in the Ark, to the prophecies in Isaiah. Look for the biblical descriptions of the Third Temple. Try to work that one out on your own. Is that a feasible building to construct? What is, then, the Temple? Hint: Jews traditionally held Adam/Man=Priest, Eve/Woman=Temple

[@kyrptonite1825]

Yeah “full of grace”, grace is the perfect passive participle in Greek, which indicates a perfect grace in the past, present, and future. “All Generations will call me Blessed.”

[@GarthDomokos]

thanks for posting. Martin Luther did a disservice for so many, not including removing biblical texts. In Luke's gospel The angel spoke to Mary, she say's something profound at the end "Behold, I am the handmaid of the lord, May it be done according to your word" There are different words used in different bibles, but we'll use this one. If Someone asked you "what is the handmaid of the Lord", could you answer that question? Probably not. However if you have a bible that has books not removed from it, you can. In the book of Judith, (great book to read), Judith gives an answer to Holofernes in chapter 11, verse 17 "Your handmaid is a devout woman, serving the God of heaven night and day". Mary's holiness, has to be profoundly deep, deeper than even Judith's response. In fact, if you read the story of Judith, it was precisely because of her being a "handmaid of the lord" that Judith found favor. How much more than Judith is Mary? We cannot mentally fathom Mary's holiness, but just reading the text in Judith, there's no way, shape, or form that Mary could have been in sin, not even close. That's my take on it, and it gives me goosebumps just meditating on that fact.

[@susand3668]

Dear@@benjaminfalzon4622. please notice that both Matthew and Mark were Jewish. They were not Greek speakers originally. In the Aramaic language, as in Hebrew, the word for brother and the word for sister were used to denote a close family relationship. So, Abram and Lot were brothers and Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus was at the foot of the cross. So speaking of the brothers and sisters of Jesus is not saying that Mary is their mother. Until, from the cross, Jesus names Mary the mother of all disciples whom He loves. I am your sister, my dear brother. Please keep seeking the Truth, Who id Jesus, and pray for me as I pray for you.

[@UrielAngeli147]

Absolutely, absolutely fascinating. One of the most convincing intellectual proofs of the Scriptures, to me, is how it all hangs together - even in ways the authors themselves seem to miss sometimes. Like, when God walked in the garden in the cool of the day, and Man hid from Him due to sin; and then, at last, God the Sinless Man walked again in the garden in the cool of the day, hidden from Man who was seeking Him. It would be a greater miracle than any recorded in the scriptures if dozens of books written by at minimum dozens to hundreds of authors over more than a millennium somehow manage to come to a climax in a real, provable historical event that perfectly completes the story. It would be as if Chaucer wrote the very first King Arthur story, the myth was continued by three or four dozen separate authors including Shakespeare over the course of a millennium, and then somehow during WWII King Arthur actually showed up and led the Allies to victory. Utterly inconceivable.

[@stallelio376]

I am a Protestant right now, but im really enjoying these videos. Another thing about Mary’s motherhood id like to point out is that if we are comparing Adam and Eve physical properties over us, and mirroring them to Christ and Marys spiritual properties over us, it’d only make sense to mirror Eves physical motherhood with Marys spiritual motherhood. Just something id like to drop down

[@johnangelino437]

Thank you, Sir! Please keep these all coming!

[@SheelaBara-bv9zx]

Wow ! Simply Amazing !

[@josh39684]

I love St Irenaeus. He confirmed for me that catholicism was original Christianity

[@closetocanada5604]

Thank you for the work that you do and The knowledge you spread.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

Cyril of Jerusalem also speaks of Mary as the New Eve: "Through Eve yet virgin came death; through a virgin, or rather from a virgin, must the Life appear: that as the serpent beguiled the one, so to the other Gabriel might bring good tidings." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Letter, 12, 15

[@kyrptonite1825]

Mary must be another of God. The term “Mother of God” or “Theotokos”, came into usage after a Christological heresy. They would say Jesus is two persons, and so Mary is the Mother of Jesus, not God. However, that is incorrect. Jesus is One Person, Who is Fully God, and Fully Man, Two Natures in One Person, the Hypostatic Union. You give Birth to a Person, not a Nature. For example, when a Woman ab-rts a b-by, she does that to a person. So, Mary gave Birth to the Person of Christ Who is Both Fully God and Fully Man. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of Christ, and therefore, the Mother of God. Saying Mary is only the Mother of the Human Side of Jesus, would be to split Jesus into two persons, which is heresy. Or you could say you give birth to a nature, not a person, which is just clearly logically wrong. Or you could say at some point later on Christ became God, which is also heresy. That is why, you must say, Mary is the Mother of God.

[@kyrptonite1825]

Mary is not the creator of God, God Created Mary, Mary gave Birth to the Divine Person Who took on a Human Nature, Christ. Since Nary gave Birth to Jesus Christ, She gave Birth to God (didn’t create God, the Word Became Flesh), Mary is the Mother of God.

[@danielcristancho3524]

Cyril of Jerusalem also speaks of Mary as the New Eve:'' True, but the bible doesn't. This is all fantasy.

[@TheBTG]

This is quickly becoming my favorite channel. Rock on.

[@teresabastone7599]

One word “Amazing” on every count….the sheer symmetry of Our Creator to make Himself known to His children is simply breathtaking, brings me to tears. Joe your clear and concise analysis and communication of scripture is, as always, truly inspired. Beautifully done. God Bless you and your family. 🙏🏼

[@bibleman8010]

“Why do you Catholics believe Mary was without Sin when the Bible says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” in Romans 3:23? I asked her, “Do you know the Bible well?” “ “Let me ask you - what was in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament?” “Three things,” “The Ten Commandments, the Manna from Heaven and the Shepherds Staff from Aaron, the brother of Moses.” I replied, “Wow, you do know the Bible - good for you! And Yes, you are correct, that in the Ark of the Covenant were three things - the Ten Commandments - some scholars call it with Word of God since God did write it with his finger into the rock tablets. ?” “Then the “Manna from Heaven is also called the “Bread from Heaven,” “And the Shepherds staff - from Aaron who was the High Priest of the Levites - symbolized the High Priesthood - “So, who is the Word of God, the Bread from Heaven and the High Priest” “Why Jesus!” “Yes, Jesus was indeed in that Ark of the Covenant - because He was there before Abraham as we learned in John’s Gospel, and all things were created through Him and for Him as we learned in Colossians 1:16. Now, let’s go to 2 Samuel 6:1-7, where Uzzah was carrying the Ark with David dancing up ahead as they brought the Ark to Jerusalem. But the oxen stumbled, and Uzzah put his hand on it to steady it - and what happened to Uzzah?” “He died,” but Why did he die” ”He died because nothing unclean could touch that Ark. Leviticus tells us that and so Uzzah had sin on his soul and touched the Ark and died.” “ “Let’s go about 600 to 800 years forward to a young girl named Mary who is told she is going to carry that same “Word of God” that same “Bread from Heaven” and that same, “High Priest” - Jesus! How in the world could she have sin on her soul? Would she have died just as Uzzah did? “I never thought of that” The Ark became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Exodus 40:34-35] Now notice how God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then ind welled Mary. At that time Mary's womb became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Luke 1:35] Then The Ark contained the Ten Commandments [the words of God in stone], a pot of manna, and Aaron's rod who was the high priest that had a bulb on the end of it which when they pulled it out the bulb bloomed which represents Jesus's resurrection [Deuteronomy 10:3-5; Hebrews 9:4] Now look what the womb of Mary contained : Jesus who is the Word of God made flesh , the true bread from heaven , Jesus is the high priest who resurrected to life. So you can clearly see why the Church teaches typo logically that Mary is the New Ark and it gets worse for you the very same ARK had passed King David and when he saw this he danced and leapt for joy! just as with Mary when Elizabeth saw her and at the voice of Mary the baby in Elizabeth's womb Leapt for Joy! then David also said David asked, "How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?" [2 Samuel 6:9] and then notice what Elizabeth asks, "Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" [Luke 1:43] then The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom in the Jude-an countryside for 3 months [2 Samuel 6:11] Mary traveled to the Jude-an countryside and stood with her cousin Elizabeth for 3 months!! Luke 1:56 Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home. !!!😎😎

[@Jesus3ITrustinThee]

May it be said of you, "Well done Good and Faithful servant." Nice explanation and obedience to 1 Peter 3:15-16 "Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, 16 but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear". It helps to know also that every time the Church declared a truth about Mary, it was to put a stake in any debate of the time that Jesus was FULLY GOD and FULLY HUMAN. You'll find that at the heart of problems people have with Mary, is they do not 100% believe that JESUS was BOTH FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN. This is what this is really about. o Mary was designed for the purpose of God’s plan of salvation by which he will be born through, preserving her from death by his presence, and predesinted for all time. Gen. 3:15; Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Micah 5:2-4; Isaiah 49:1; Daniel 11:37; 1 Kings 18:44-45; 19:3; Galatians 4: o The flesh of Jesus comes from the flesh of Mary. Jesus was without sin in every way (Heb 4:15). Jesus took on the flesh of Mary from where his flesh comes. Mary was preserved from original sin, not only because the Bible tells us that she was Virgin, and that Virgin also means "unblemished, in which Rev. 14:4-5 reiterates that Virgin means "unblemished", but Hebrews 9:11 tells us Mary was unblemished. "But when Christ came as High priest of the good things that have come to be, PASSING THROUGH THE GREATER AND MORE PERFECT TABERNACLE NOT MADE BY HUMAN HANDS, THAT IS TO SAY, IS NOT A PART OF THIS CREATION”)." - Hebrews 9:11. AS does Psalm 45: 9 Kings’ daughters are among Your noble women; At Your right hand stands *THE QUEEN IN GOLD FROM OPHIR* . 10 Listen, daughter, look and incline your ear: Forget your people and your father’s house; 11 Then the King will crave your beauty. Because He is your Lord, bow down to Him. 12 The daughter of Tyre will come with a gift; The wealthy among the people will seek your favor. 13 THE *KING’S DAUGHTER IS ALL GLORIOUS WITHIN* ; Her clothing is interwoven with gold. 14 She will be brought to the King in colorful garments; THE VIRGINS, HER COMPANIONS WHO FOLLOW HER, WILL BE BROUGHT TO YOU. 15 They will be brought with joy and rejoicing; They will enter into the King’s palace. 16 In place of your fathers will be your sons; You shall make them princes in all the earth. 17 *I WILL MAKE YOUR NAME KNOWN AMONG ALL GENERATIONS THEREFORE THE PEOPLES WILL PRAISE YOU FOREVER AND EVER* . Compare with: Luke 1:40-41, 46-50 she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and *Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit* . 46 And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. 48 For He has had regard for the humble state of His bond-servant; FOR BEHOLD, FROM NOW ON ALL GENERATIONS WILL CALL ME BLESSED. 49 FOR THE MIGHTY ONE HAS DONE GREAT THINGS FOR ME; AND HOLY IS HIS NAME.

[@Everykneebows]

She is to be praised not bowed to. If she was a virgin wouldn’t her mother have to be and her mother and so on. She had to be separated when she had her period. They considered the cycle to be unclean, this is sin according to Jewish law. We are told she did not know Joseph until after Jesus. Know means to have sexual relations. Jesus had many brothers and sisters. How is she a virgin only hundreds of years after her death? Never mentioned in the bible

[@gilberturesti338]

Enjoy reading your explanation 👍🏼thanks

[@gannonleonard]

​@@Everykneebowsthese are very sound questions and to an English audience the translations we have today clearly show some inconsistencies between sacred Scripture and sacred tradition. Compared with translations and understandings of the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic speakers in the days of Christ. But I assure you that there are sound answers to these questions my friend. And if you happened to watch Joe's entire video here, I truly hope you did, then please visit his video where he discusses "Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin".

[@craigsherman4480]

@@EverykneebowsWhat is the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter?

[@lukeohanlon2960]

Thanks Joe! 🎉

[@asevelel]

How could you leave us hanging with such a cliffhanger, Joe? Great video as usual. I really like how clearly and beautifully you explain big and important topics in such a short amount of time.

[@batmaninc2793]

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

[@batmaninc2793]

"To be deep into history is to cease being Protestant." -St. John Henry Newman (Protestant convert-turned Catholic, Cardinal, and Saint)

[@geoffjs]

Protestantism doesn’t realise that it is missing the riches of Marian devotion, all centred on her son

[@TriciaPerry-mz7tc]

@@geoffjsthere is no such thing as Marian devotion

[@Joe-gi3nj]

Such a great analysis. It opened my eyes to such a deeper understanding. Thank you for this, Joe. And Thank God for your spirit

[@JamesClark-le7hu]

I actually just got done reading Irenaeus' shorter work, "On the Apostolic Preaching" and it was delightful. Here, Irenaeus brings up this point of Eve being recapitulated in Mary, just as Adam is recapitulated in Christ. I don't, in principle, have much of a problem continuing the typology on to Mary and Eve. But this continuation of typology does not lead me to all of the Modern Catholic dogmas of Mary. A few comments and questions, in good faith. 1. The quote from Justin Martyr does not say that Mary was sinless. It says specifically that Eve "was a virgin and undefiled" and then refers the "Virgin Mary." You admit that there are points of similarities and differences between the two. I don't see Justin making the point that they are both sinless. This could very well be a point where they are unlike, not where they are like. I think, respectfully, that might be reading into Justin's writing the modern notion of Mary's sinlessness. 2. I don't see it being very significant that Eve is called Mother prior to actually birthing kids. Adam and she had already received the command to be fruitful and multiply prior to the fall of Man. Genuine question: If they had never sinned, would they have had children? It seems to me that the answer would be yes. God told them to have children before the fall which seems to imply that they would have and should have, granted they never sinned. So "Woman" being preemptively called Mother is rather insignificant because, as first woman, she is inherently and unavoidably going to be the Mother of all. 3. I am okay with allegorizing Scripture to a certain extent. We see Paul does in Galatians with Sarah and Hagar. The practice is not inherently bad but I do think we need to be careful because we can pretty much find anything we want if we allegorize Scripture like this. John 1-2 being a sort of recapitulation of Genesis 1-2 is just a bit of stretch for me. 4. In general, I am more than okay with acknowledging the truth that the early writers made this connection between Eve and Mary. But I would like to pushback on the notion this connection was as big of a deal as the current practice of the Catholic Church makes it. At least in "On the Apostolic Preaching" this is not anywhere close to central. It is mentioned, but not emphasized. Irenaeus saying Mary is a "cause" of our salvation isn't that big of a deal to me. In some sense, Noah plays a role in bringing about (or causes) our salvation by obeying God and saving the human race. In some sense, Abraham plays a role (or causes) in our salvation by obeying God and moving his family, trusting in God's promise. In some sense, Joseph plays a role, Moses plays a role, David plays a role, John the Baptist plays a role, Mary plays a role. These people who obeyed God throughout history all participate in the grand plan of Redemption orchestrated by God. For someone to be a real cause, they must be necessary to the story. Let's entertain alternative histories for moment. If Moses didn't obey, would God have never delivered Israel and never sent the messiah? If Abraham didn't obey, would God have never started Israel? If Mary didn't obey, would God have never sent the Messiah? OR would God choose another? You see, for a person to truly be a efficacious cause of our salvation, he or she would have to be THE ONLY person that could have done something. I just sincerely believe that if Mary said no, God would have found another. That is not to downplay Mary's obedience, but it does serve to help us accurately focus our attention on the only One whom actually efficaciously causes our salvation, the glorious Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Lets go back to our thought experiment with God now; if God did not become manifest in the flesh and live perfectly as a man and die vicariously for mankind, would another have? Absolutely not. We can appreciate Mary's role in the grand plan of Redemption without venerating icons of her, without affirming the immaculate conception, without praying to her, without affirming her bodily assumption, without viewing her as Queen of Heaven, co-redemtrix, and Co-mediatrix. I understand that those dogmas and titles are not the central focus of this video but this video surely does play a role in establishing why Catholic Theology has such robust dogmas about and such intense devotion to Mary. I just don't see the line of reasoning from early writings like you quoted, to modern Catholic dogmas. God bless. And btw, camera and set look good!

[@westdc]

Well said.

[@kevinmc62]

Yeah! Tough for non Catholics to get it. Once one submits to the authority of the Catholic Church then scales and obstacles begin to fall. If one is raised up with it then it comes naturally. I’m a convert. Mary went from biggest obstacle to my beautiful Mother. My wife is cradle Catholic and never was an issue. Don’t worry if you never understand and accept these teachings. Hopefully you agree though that she is beautiful and will be called blessed forever. There’s our common ground.

[@MrsYasha1984]

Jo, I'm late listening to this because I reduced my content intake during lent. But know this, you had me in tears at the end. This one and the follow up vid are just so amazingly beautiful. Thank you so much for your work!

[@Highproclass]

Praying that many Protestants would repent of their lack of knowledge and adoration for Mary. From my experience (I am not exaggerating) Protestants have waaaaay more affections for MacArthur or Sproul or Spurgeon than Mary. Paintings and buildings named after their favorite puritans or contemporary pastors - and yet with the blessed mother Mary NOT a single painting or building named after her. The Spurgeon library is COVERED with portraits of Spurgeon…and yet Mary…no honor or respect. Besides Easter Day and Christmas…if that.

[@mikejames303]

That's just the tip of the iceberg. You won't believe how many protestants I've encountered on here that go out of their way to not only minimize the importance of Our Lady, but outright disrespect her. As if Jesus would want his followers throwing slander at His mother. I hope it's just because anti-catholicism is so deeply ingrained and that they don't actually intend to insult and blaspheme the mother of the Lord. It saddens me that so many protestants, especially in America, will never know the love of their mother.

[@geoffjs]

Part of the larger problem associated with the heresies of sola Scriptura and personal interpretation. Makes for very shallow and superficial focus on the bible, which Jn 21:25 says does not contain anything. Also explains why Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus ie prior to the bible, complements scripture

[@Highproclass]

@@benjaminfalzon4622 your response brother - it’s all in your response. May the Lord keep you and sustain you and may Christ our Lord bless your heart, mind, and soul that you be infused and filled with faith, hope, and charity. I have personally decided to agree with the men who were disciple’d by the Apostles - I choose to align the same men who confronted the heresies of the church - and won. I choose to stand with the church who identified Holy Writ through the agency of the Holy Spirit - I choose that over Mark Driscoll & Matt Chandler. I’ve had my say.

[@mikejames303]

@@benjaminfalzon4622 obviously you're very happy to be protestant. Your hate of the Church built by the apostles shows just how content you are. Do you even know why Mary is called the Queen of Heaven? I mean you were a Catholic, surely you'd know why she has that title if you were once a practicing Catholic.

[@ChrisBurton-mf3gk]

Wonderful podcast as always!

[@jowardseph]

Another banger.

[@ConnieRossini]

Excellent, Joe! I love typology. The part about the 6 days in John's Gospel was new to me. It struck me that in the Annunciation account, Luke begins similarly by saying, "In the sixth month ..."

[@AstonMonks]

Do protestants miss it or just openly defy it?

[@georgefuentes4112]

Both

[@RenegadeCatholic]

As a former Protestant: Step 1 - Start with theological presuppositions Step 2 - Read scripture through the lens of those presuppositions Step 3 - When a passage doesn't explicitly support one of your presuppositions, eisegete your presupposition into the passage. Step 4 - When a passage explicitly contradicts your presupposition, engage in a series of mental gymnastics to twist said scripture to mean something it clearly doesn't say. Step 5 - When all else fails, pull a James White and just start throwing darts with buzz words like "Francis", "Sola Ecclesia", "Traditions". Step 6 - When step 5 doesn't work against a learned Catholic, retreat to the Protestant Alamo....aka.....Marian Dogmas.

[@zeedub8560]

@@RenegadeCatholic As another former Protestant (well, not officially yet, but in spirit), can confirm. I also got a good chuckle from "Protestant Alamo." It's so true.

[@geoffjs]

@daxypooI agree some Protestants miss it but the hostility that I’ve encountered about Our Lady from many makes me tend to your comment about demonic spirits. It’s ironic because a greater appreciation of Marian devotion would lead to the scales falling from their eyes and being lead closer to Jesus

[@zeedub8560]

@@geoffjs Often it seems to be hostility to women in general. I've seen them say that Jesus "literally" told Mary to shut up at Cana because she was "out of line.".

[@joewilley8818]

Thanks Joe, you have really helped me break down a lot of walls I have put up for my life-long Protestant-self against Catholicism. And because of that, I'm currently seeking entry into RCIA classes. I have a question in relation to Mother Mary's perpetual virginity. What is your personal view of who the author of the Epistle of James is? As Jesus' two apostles, James (son of Zebedee) of Jesus' inner circle and James (son of Alpheus) or "James the Less" seem to get ruled out, (because of martyrdom?) the most commonly accepted idea is that the authorship of the epistle is attributed to James the Just, the brother of Jesus (if my reading is correct). Do you believe Jesus' siblings (like James) mentioned in Mark 6:3, for example, were his step-siblings from another previous marriage of Joseph's; or that his siblings where just cousins? Or do you believe James the Just was just some other Early Christian. Thanks. And thank you so much for helping me to understand the Church's Marian doctrines. And if anyone else wants to weigh in, I would welcome that.

[@crusaderACR]

You could read St. Jerome's short essay "Against Helvidius" defending Mary's perpetual virginity. Regarding James, many in the Early Church held that the son of Alphaeus is the same one as James the Brother of the Lord. See here in Gal 1:19 "I saw none of the other Apostles-only James, the Lord's brother." Which implies James the Lord's brother was one of the Twelve. Matt 27:56 and Mark 15:40 mention a so called Mary, mother of James (and others) In John 19:25 the same woman is described as Mary the wife of Clopas Hegesippus, an (very!) Early Church historian, claimed that Alphaeus and Clopas were the same man and, in fact, Joseph's brother. Jews at the time often had a Jewish name and a gentile name (e.g. Mark the evangelist's birth name was John). There's way more to this, but there's no reason to rule out that James the Lord's brother was the paternal cousin of Jesus. At the very LEAST it's clear from historical evidence that Jesus had a Christian cousin named James. All I'm saying is that this could be that brother. Especially with the Biblical passages suggesting he was one of the Twelve, leaving up James son of Alphaeus as the one option (the other died early, as you said). Yet, all this besides, it's perfectly sound if you hold that Joseph had a previous marriage.

[@crusaderACR]

Btw I'm not sure if I'm misreading this, but you seemed to imply that the one who died early was the son of Alphaeus? That's incorrect. Acts explicitly says "He had James, the brother of John, killed with the sword" (Acts 12:2)

[@joewilley8818]

@alonsoACR Thank you! I will read that.

[@joewilley8818]

@@crusaderACR and thank you for that thoughtful reply with the scripture backing. Very helpful. Thank you.

[@gannonleonard]

There are also approved visionaries of the Church that hold the claim that Jospeh was never married and himself was a virgin and younger man, still older than Mary however. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich has visions of Mary's early life and of Joseph's as well. "The Life of the Blessed Vigin Mary" is the name of a book with her visions. As with all private revelation there is no doctrinal authority behind them. Meaning, we don't have to believe them if we don't want to nor do we have to even know about it. In this understanding the "brothers of Jesus" would be cousins and not any form of sibling.

[@aussierob7177]

Already in the beginning, God elected Mary and his Son in the scheme of salvation. This will send Protestants crazy !

[@mikekayanderson408]

I am a Protestant and I believe in election so I do know that The Son of God was to be the saviour before her creation of the world- the Bible says so plainly. Also Gid knew exactly who would bear Jesus - no argument there - but she was just an ordinary Jewish girl who was not sinless but who was Godly believer and awaiting the coming of Messiah, like lot of Jews through the ages. The Roman Catholic church has made her into something the Bible does not and will use every trick in the world to try and prove their case even lies!

[@geoffjs]

@@mikekayanderson408not everything is in the bible Jn 21:25, so the Catholic Church uses a and logical approach that provides balance and objective. Sacred Tradition, per 1 Cor 11 1-2, largely oral, was handed down from the time of Jesus in parallel with the development and codifying of the bible in 382 and it complements the bible. In any event, the bible wasn’t mass printed until the 1500’s and most people would have been literate, explaining why Sacred Tradition would have been very important. Without Sacred Tradition, one can’t rely on the heresy of sola Scriptura, which, in any case is not biblical Finally, personal interpretation is obviously not workable, given the scandal of 000’s of Protestant sects when Jesus desired unity Jn 17:21. The magisterium provides the CC with the unity of authority which Protestantism obviously lacks.

[@aussierob7177]

Christ did say his Church would suffer great persecutions and trials on earth. Thank you for doing what Christ said.@@mikekayanderson408

[@bigfootapologetics]

Thanks, Joe! These are the best! The way you assemble early Church writings has made apologetics much easier for many of us.

[@jowardseph]

Also btw. I love your ending. The music tied in perfect

[@christinedietrich5440]

I thank you Joe, I listened to this with tears of thankfulness for your voice that explains the beauty of our believes ❤

[@MikePasqqsaPekiM]

Fantastic episode. Thank you very much for putting all of that together!

[@CarrieAnnStrong]

This was the one thing holding me back form joining the Catholic Church and this doesn’t just totally makes sense but has impacted me profoundly. Thank you!

[@o.o.2255]

Praise God, Brother Joe! The key to the true faith, is understanding the entirety of the bible, not just the New Testament as our marcionic protestant brothers believe. I know, because I too was an anti-Catholic, Nondenominational Charismatic LutherBaptiCostal. John 14:6 could ONLY be true if all the protestant religions believed together on the “essentials” 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@sharonfelton20]

Well done! Thank you< Mr. Heschmeyer. I have learned so much from you. May God bless you and keep you.

[@masterchief8179]

Indeed! The Fathers always compared the order of creation and the “new order” as mirroring it, not as an aleatory replacement for it, which came forth by the Incarnate God: that’s the order of redemption as “new creation”. And that’s the reason we are called “new creatures” in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17-19) while God is reconciling the “world” - all created order in the biblical sense of κόσμον, “kosmon” in verse 19 of the 5th chapter in 2 Co (= the “cosmos”), usually translated as “the world” for the mere lack of a better expression - to himself in Christ. I’d say we must get Genesis in mind here also, otherwise the interpretation will be crippled, as the soteriological exegesis by “biblical Christians” usually is. The “old creation” was made through Christ and for Christ, the Son of God, but sin entered the world so that the Son himself came to rescue us from death. The comparing of the old creation (Colossians 1:15-20) with the new creation (Colossians 1:21-23) comes in a lot of places in St Paul, and that’s Paul mirroring Isaiah 65 and Isaiah 66 in his teachings. “New heavens and new earth” cannot be understood apart from the narrative of Genesis. As it is much known, the redemptive work of Christ is understood to mean not only to overcome (which is loosely thought of in the Protestant mindset, usually) but more precisely to justly REVERSE (see the structural definition of the Genesis 3, 15) the transgression of Adam and Eve - being Christ the Head of the “new humanity” so as Adam was the head of the “old humanity”. If that logical structure of the divine intellect is missed in the dynamics of salvation, so is the operation of the ‘Logos’, the divine Word, who was made flesh. That’s why Protestants don’t understand the core realities and logical concepts following the mystery of Incarnation - and that’s why we see in them the sort of “Gnostic tendencies” that make them most probably 1) to dismiss (or even despise) the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, 2) to endorse the spiritualist tendency that views “matter” or “flesh” as intrinsically evil to get rid of and to get away from, 3) and, at last, to overemphasize personal experience (enlightenment) through a supposed direct illumination of the Holy Spirit, or “personal relationship”, instead of the mediatory role of the sacraments and the Church. May God ALWAYS preserve us from the everlasting heresy of Gnosticism, so in-built in Protestantism! St Iraeneus, pray for us! Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ!

[@PhantomRed13]

Awesome video as always. You deserve way more subscribers. God bless you🙏

[@davidmcarthur251]

Greetings, Mr. Popery is a very smart teacher. May God richly bless him and his podcast.AMEN

[@ekatrinya]

Beautiful teaching, thank you so much for sharing with us 💙

[@donationnomae4332]

Amen. THANKS FOR EXPLAINING HIS COMPARISON. HELPFUL & PRAYERFUL

[@MW-eg4gu]

Most of us U.S. Americans who call ourselves "Christians" are about 80 percent some kind of Protestant. (I myself am Catholic.) And we Americans have had engained in us a disdain for monarchy. Of these 80 percent (and many American Catholics too), heaven is some kind of democracy or republic. Yes, they agree Jesus is king, but the American in them draws the line on any Heaven as a kingdom, despite the Our Father. Or, the Our Father prayer, again, brings up the "thy kingdom come" but somehow they, again, wave aside the idea that there is a Queen of Heaven. I saw a religious show on TV, back in the 80s I think it was, in which a fairly well-known Protestant Bible expert debated Father Mitch Pacqua. And about Mary the Protestant emphatically said at the conclusion of his argument, "THERE'S NO QUEEN IN HEAVEN!" The live audience, nearly all Tennessee Protestants gave no objection to this. Their Protestant ancestry, mostly Ulster Scots, would have agreed about no queen. Their ancestry having a great disdain for monarchy, brought the anti-monarchy attitude to the new U.S. nation. As Catholics we know Heaven is family, not a lot of saintly individuals, free-floating atom types, as we Americans tend to be, eternally in a kind of republic, all of us equal, there being no degrees of sainthood, and certainly no kingdom. But, again, the bit about Jesus is King, and "Thy kingdom come" ... But they wave it aside. Protestants are full of the heresy of Americanism (1899, Pope Leo encyclical).

[@iggyantioch]

Exactly 💯 It's not a Republic or a democracy. We'll put.

[@TriciaPerry-mz7tc]

Well I am seriously praying to get back as God made me. This is not me and I ran. But the HOLY GHOST is helping me

[@gannonleonard]

Thank you for another wonderful video that taught me something new about how we can biblically find Mary. I remember some of these references from religion classes years ago, but obviously had forgotten them. God bless and look forward to the next one!

[@V_Gert]

Awesome video! This has shown me alot of typology I had never seen before.

[@INRIVivatChristusRex]

Excellent presentation. Thanks Joe!

[@sezcerjan4431]

Fascinating! deep and really beautiful! I had no idea about these connections with Mary! Thank you for this 🤓

[@HillbillyBlack]

The new Ark, new Eve ​​⁠Wouldn’t the bride of Christ be a more appropriate eve?? Having mary as the new eve is a little incestual. Mary wasn’t the NT focus unless you shoe in “The Gospel of James”. Was it not Adam who is credited for the fall rather than eve? Did Paul not say For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ??? Even replacing eve argumentatively seems out of character with scripture. Its about correcting Adam, not eve. Mary as the new Ark, thats obvious in logic, but the original ark wasn’t a focal point but a carrier. The cloud of God was above the Ark. all bowed to the cloud presence of God, not the ark. The original Ark carried scripture, Gods truth, not God himself. Today wouldn’t the new ark be the pillar and foundation of the Truth? Does it not seem odd that the current established 4 Marion dogmas are listed in The Protoevangelium of James and Pseudo-Matthew which is rejected by the Roman Catholic church?

[@EJ-gx9hl]

My mind is blown regarding the beginning of the gospel of John and his barking back to genesis

[@someonesomewhere6316]

You're a blessing, Joe, and thank you always 🙏

[@michaelong2625]

thank you Lord jesus for this man joe!! God bless you joe!!!

[@MW-eg4gu]

Joe, great job, your videos! You are pretty much the lead commentator among the other good Catholic videos!

[@mariamccracken3814]

I am not going to lie, my mind was blown when I saw the similarities in Genesis and the book of John. Lifelong Catholic and had no idea. Thank you for such fabulous content.

[@Joe-qs2bq]

May God bless you and your work. ❤

[@LEGASItv]

I'm shamelessly watching Joe's videos and podcast ❤

[@dreamweaver3406]

You’ve explained things very well thank you

[@raymalbrough9631]

I sure wish we could get this teaching in a booklet form like a Catholic Answers book.

[@Ruudes1483]

Behold Your Mother by Tim Staples.

[@raymalbrough9631]

Thanks I will get the book@@Ruudes1483

[@pattyserrano9339]

Thnks for all this content Joe!

[@eplongmichael8880]

Thanks so much for this fascinating teaching.

[@flamingdragon36]

“let my heart, Lord, desire and long to gaze on Your Sanctuary9 to see Your Power and Authority, to gaze in the Treasury of the Sanctuary and feast most richly; do not allow my soul, any more, Lord, to go down to the earth below, like Cain or Esau, but lift my soul to Her Most Holy Heart to become an heir too by receiving, like Jacob, heavenly blessings;” 10 - come, let your thoughts be on heavenly things now so that you will be able to comprehend what Wisdom is hiding from you; for this you need self-abasement and repentance; the mystery that had been hidden for generations is now being revealed to you; your hope of salvation is at your hand’s reach; have you not noticed how, in these end of times, the Queen of Peace is passing over the earth, escorted by My Angels? have you not noticed how Her Immaculate Heart is proclaiming My Word to you all and preparing My Reign? have you not noticed how your Blessed Mother’s Heart is training Her children and forming them Heart to heart so that everyone is ready for My Reign? have you not noticed how, from Her Treasury, She is perfecting you in Her Heart for Me? I have given the Queen of Heaven and earth all the jewels of Wisdom in Her Heart, and from this treasury She gives abundantly Her graces to take you out of the power of darkness and make you great saints and apostles, and great warriors to join Her in this great battle of your times; with Her Maternal love, the Queen of Heaven seeks all ways to obtain your freedom so that you gain heaven; She instructs you and reminds you that you, too, are Her child, belonging by grace to the imperial household of the Saints in heaven and that She reserved for you, too, a throne among the Saints; - there is nothing I cannot do for the Delight-of-My-Heart11 because from the beginning there was nothing in Her that would see things differently from the way My Father, I, and the Holy Spirit would see them; Our12 Will was in perfect union with Her will; Her desires were Our desires; for I am the Heart of Her Heart, the Soul of Her Soul, the Spirit of Her Spirit; have you not heard of Our Oneness in Heart, Soul and Spirit? - My state on earth, as God-Man, was divine, yet I was obedient, living under the authority of My Mother and My Adoptive Father; I emptied Myself to assume the condition of a slave by accepting death, and you, generation, have not yet understood that the True Vine cast His roots in the Vineyard13 of My Father, and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit; the City of God, 14 the Promised Land, is your Mother too, in whom you owe honour; ah, generation, how could your heart have taken such a deceptive path to abstain from Her intercession? have you not read: “the Lord God will give Him the throne of His ancestor David?” 15 the Queen of heaven and earth is My Throne too; She is Throne of your King, who was made flesh from David’s line …. the Lord your God, “would rule over the House of Jacob forever and ever and His Reign will have no end;” 16 the Jacobs of today are Her children, the apostles of the end of times, and the great Saints that through My Mother’s Heart are raised and formed, to be one heart with Us forever and ever, for My Reign in their heart will have no end; be one; This is from True Life in God (tlig.org)

[@emily12345haha]

You are a blessing!

[@Biblejuice83]

Just bought the eucharist is really Jesus. Love it. You cite alot of protestant authors throughout, do you find much fruit from them as a catholic?

[@johns1834]

I love the Catholic Church, it makes you feel 'brand new'. What the world needs is more people who acknowledge their sin and stop making excuses as to what is so plainly spoken of in the Bible is somehow NOT applicable to them. Mormons claim they will be Gods someday, even though the 1st commandment says; 'Thou shall have no other Gods before me'. Episcopalians promote and celebrate homosexuality, even though 1 Corinthians 6:9 says; 'homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, and many people rely on 'faith alone' even though James 2: 24 clearly says; 'we are NOT saved by faith alone'. The Church needs more people who actually believe the word of God and not just pretend to.

[@jacobjones9849]

Not a rebuttal, but a question: Is it not possible that Adam renames Woman to Eve because of the very important prophecy that was given by God to Adam and Woman regarding his plan to redeem all creation? In Gen 1:15-19 through "the seed of Woman" and God foretells the pains of childbirth and this suffering will be key to the salvation of the world through the birth of Jesus Christ. That has always been my reading- I have never thought Adams naming of Eve as odd or strange. Am I missing something there? Thanks for this video. I loved the biblical evidence provided

[@jamiea.c.seerattan365]

All I can say about this video is.....🤯mind blowing

[@nobertkingwai-7083]

Great Sir I enjoy your presentation.

[@merlizaserna]

Thanks for this video. It's TRUE! This I learned as a former catechist of the Church in my Book the Catholic Faith by Reverend Bishop Louis Laravoire Morriw, S.T.D., when I served GOD in the Catholic Church for 33 years with different tasked. Please allow me to share this When I became her devotee as I had evoked her, I could sense her PERFECT PURITY...and HER PERFECT DESIRE FOR A HOLYLIFE. When I am in Islam, I discovered the chapter in the HolyQuran: Surah Maryam which speaks about the Blessed Virgin Mary. Then, I recalled my life when I was a devotee of the Blessed Virgin Mary, these are my discoveries: Eve is Eve, who was tempted. Blessed Virgin is the Blessed Virgin Mary who does have NO DESIRE for lust. Her only desire is for THE GLORY OF GOD but the devil had created confusions to devotees of Mary, by using some former devotees, dead and alive... I also experienced how the devil confused the Catholics even I. When I realized all these, though I am already in Islam, still I visited my friends and told.them to continue praying the Rosary. The GREAT DIFFERENCE between Mary and Eve is that: Mary is called to crushed the serpents' head; serpent is so afraid of Mary's HOLINESS. ( So, I suffered much for long years in the Catholics when I was a devotee of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as in Islam now. Still, I am protected by the Blessed Virgin Mary). while eve was tempted by the devil... In Catholic teachings; Adam, Eve and the serpent were cursed by GOD in the OLD Testament. Mary, Jesus, and Joseph were GOD'S INSTRUMENT to CUT the cursed generations of Adam, Eve, and a serpent. These are the GREAT GAP and DIFFERENCE between them. The secret about Jesus Christ's origin was also revealed to ME.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@janekkouril]

I did not miss anything about Mary, she was blessed beyond our understandig. Ppl God doesnt need us, he can do everything what he wants, but he loves us and wĥen he gave us a quest to do, its our blessing. As such Mary was the most blessed woman, couse ahe could carry our God.

[@AlbornozVEVO]

something i would point out is the hierarchy of creation: God made Adam from the Earth, and then Eve from Adam, and then Jesus was born from an immaculate daughter of Eve ("blessed are you among *all* women"). in each step God acts from his greatest work at that moment as the starting point. and just from this, and the fact that Jesus is eternally begotten and that his human and divine natures cannot be separated, the four marian dogmas logically follow.

[@shepherddog1199]

Hey Joe, only issue I've come across is how this doesn't create a Nimrodian image- a relative accused us Catholics of saying Jesus pulled a Nimrod. I dont believe this myself.

[@carmeister_]

Dang this was really epic!!!!

[@derrick7442]

Is it next week yet?

[@billpletikapich5640]

Outstanding Job. A+

[@paisano777]

This is very cool

[@joaobarbosa1261]

This was a very interesting exposition.. but I have a honest question: wouldn’t this parallel be more obvious if new Adam and new Eve were also husband and wife, and not mother and son? Why is there this change? Isn’t it relevant?

[@papuciowy1465]

Are there any specific works on typology You would recommend?

[@anthonynuzzo9512]

As always great show my friend. I absolutely love your topics. Keep up the good work. The information presented here is not a surprise to Protestants of various denominations that have now abandoned Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura. Sadly we are in the minority. Nevertheless, I have a question. I agree with ShamelessPopery that Irenaeus held these views concerning Mary. My question is this, focusing on the lineage from the Apostle John-to-Polycarp-to Irenaeus: If the view of Mary held by Irenaeus was derived from teachings that were passed from the apostle John to Polycarp then from Polycarp to Irenaeus, why don't they appear in John's Gospel? I had to wrestle with this question when I was a Catholic. If Mary is the cause of salvation as Irenaeus wrote, ""...so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race...." Something so central to Christianity, why does it not appear at all in John's Gospel? In fact, none of the apostles' teachings transmitted in the New Testament contain any teaching about Mary that is consonant with or otherwise indicative of the Marian Dogmas Rome yokes to the consciences of the faithful under the pain of the anathema. I have another question: given that Rome’s default method of exegesis is typology when the inspired narrative is devoid of any content reasonably approximating its Magisterial Adjudications, where in scripture did any of the authors writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit identify Mary as the new Eve? The problem with typology independent of the inspired narrative is that it is often used by anyone to read into the scripture whatever they wish. Muslim’s use typology to read Muhamad into the scripture. Mormon’s use typology to read Joseph Smith into scripture. Rome uses typology to read into scripture its Marian Dogmas.

[@aaronsmith5904]

One thing is, St John didn't write everything he knew in the gospels. Also, we don't have an inspired commentary on what the Gospel of John means. Also in some topics, The view of Mary that is espoused by the Church Fathers is in scripture maybe implicitly. It doesn't appear in John's Gospel (Mary is the cause of salvation), but it does appear implicitly in Luke's gospel. Also Mary is the cause of salvation doesn't mean that Mary on her own initiated her salvation and the whole world. This was the plan of God from eternity, to give the grace to Mary to say yes to the call of God. In the dogmatic definition of the immaculate conception, "In view of the merits of Jesus Christ her son...". In thomistic theology, God is the first cause of all actions. when humans make choices they are secondary causes. "Behold you will conceive and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus" Mary is the cause of salvation at least only in this way 1) Jesus with his human nature is the cause of our salvation 2) Mary provided Jesus with his human nature (at the very least Mary gave him flesh and blood (of course God gave Mary flesh and blood to give to Jesus)) 3) Mary is the cause of Jesus 4) Mary is the cause of our salvation: Jesus Christ Insofar as Mary was an instrument that God used to incarnate Jesus, she is the cause of salvation. A secondary cause of course. But still in a way a cause.

[@aaronsmith5904]

Mary being the cause of salvation is NOT central to Christianity, it just happens to logically follow from the incarnation, and Mary saying "Let it be unto me according to thy word". If Mary said no, I don't want this to happen, Mary would not be the cause of salvation. But she did, by God's love, mercy and grace. Just on a personal note, I think Mary's perpetual virginity is pretty clear in the new testament, beyond Mary's weird response to the angel, Joseph not being in relations with his wife until after Jesus was born, Jesus giving Mary to John as a male to protect her. Is that nearly all of the brothers of Jesus are clearly not his half brothers (since they have a different mother), or it is ambiguous whether or not they are the half-brothers of Jesus. Then when you add Mary as the ark of the New covenant, (which is another thing that is so clear in Luke's gospel that I do think that St. Luke wanted us to notice it, and it was asserted by Him and hence the Holy Spirit.) Since the old ark could not be touched, then the new ark could not be touched (a euphemism for not being touched). I think the immaculate conception has decent evidence due to the bible's use of the angel's greeting kecharitōmene which appears in other parts of the bible. Also the new ark of the covenant helps with it, since the old ark had incorruptible wood, and so Mary didn't suffer corruption of sin. The Assumption is a bit harder, but revelation 12 and the incorruptibility of Mary by the new ark of the covenant typology. Also it somewhat follows, would Jesus let his immaculate Mother suffer corruption? (if you concede Mary's immaculate conception). The first of the Marian Dogma's is I think the most clear and even explicit in scripture. 1) Mary is the Mother of Jesus 2) Jesus is God 3) Hence, Mary is the Mother of God. For an eastern term, you can get explicit in scripture. Theotokos means literally God-bearer. "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and he shall be called Emmanuel (God with us)" (in Isaiah) The virgin is Mary, I am sure we can agree. Then it means "Mary shall conceive and bear a son..." what is that son to be Called "God with us" Emmanuel You could just say He is God, the name just adds extra information about Jesus, that he is God that is with us. So "Mary shall bear God" is a snippet of what the scripture means. And what do you call someone that bears God, the God-bearer.

[@aaronsmith5904]

Do you want the scriptures to say "Mary is the new Eve" or is it suffice to say that Mary and Eve have so many similarities as well as polar opposites (such as Eve saying yes to a serpent, while Mary is saying yes to an angel). You do raise a good question though, when is typology legitimate and when it is faulty. I am not sure completely, so I will just give you my thoughts as to when it is or isn't. but I am interested to learn more. In thomistic theology, only the literal sense of scripture can be used to prove theological doctrines (meaning what the author actually asserts in the scriptures.) The other senses including typological sense cannot be used as a proof. so you are right, typology can't prove doctrines, but I don't think there is anything wrong with making typological connections, especially when it doesn't contradict scripture. This might be the difference between legitimate typology and illegitimate, if it contradicts the word of God. let me know if that is a good distinction I make or not. I am happy to learn from you. For example when Joseph Smith or Muhammad are read into scripture, their teachings contradict the word of God and so aren't legitimate, even to consider. On the other hand, do you think there is anything wrong with saying Jesus is the New David, Jesus is the new Joshua? If you don't, then there is nothing wrong with Marian typology, if it doesn't contradict scripture. Jesus is the New Moses (this one is in St Paul). There is just many clear passages, such as a Muslim asking us to show us where Jesus says "I am God, worship me" while yes we do have those statements apart from each other, we don't have it in the exact form that they would want it. In the same way, I can't show where St John says Mary is the new Eve, but can you accept That Eve's and Mary's stories have many interesting parallels. And I would love to hear your thoughts, but I think using typology isn't a bad thing, since St. Paul says Jesus is the new Adam, so he makes a typological connection. That is infallible, and I get that most typology isn't infallible but it doesn't make it wrong or evil automatically.

[@anthonynuzzo9512]

@mith5904 Thank you so much my friend for your thoughtful reply. I do not require the text of the New Testament to explicitly declare, “Mary is the new Eve”. This sort of objection would be akin to the Islamicist Deedat argument, i.e. scripture must explicitly contain a narrative wherein Christ says I am God. I would never argue along such lines the pretense is patently evident, to wit: the manifest absence of explicit language serving as a cudgel to silence the opposing argument. If I presented in that manner, I do apologize my friend. That was not my intention. Nevertheless, I am suspicious of typology as an interpretive device independent of the inspired narrative. Why? Because, as I alluded to in my initial comments, it often serves as a pretense to eisegesis. Happy to see you are quoting Aquinas insofar as I am committed to Reformed Scholasticism Thomas’s ideas are a great influence in my theology as are the ideas of the second-generation magisterial reformer John Calvin for example. There are of course others, especially amongst the Puritans that hold Thomas in high regard nevertheless not to the extent of abandoning the overarching controlling principle: Sola & Tota Scriptura. Anyways, ST I, q.1, a.10, reply to objection 1, to wit: “Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.” Agreed! However, Thomas here does not address what I think is the underlying motivation concerning why certain of the fathers embraced not only this mode of interpretation in general but, as it applies to the Mary in particular, instead resorted to typological association. Your comment, “…but I don't think there is anything wrong with making typological connections, especially when it doesn't contradict scripture.” is precisely the point I am making here. Why make the association at all? Scripture does not require it. From the perspective of Biblical Soteriology, salvation is not dependent upon it. Christ is sufficient. What need of I of saints or Mary? I submit no need whatsoever I have the great God and Savior Jesus Christ! But I think I know the reason. Look to the origin of the view, its development over time and the place it occupies in Catholic Theology. I believe a tradition developed independent of the inspired narrative of scripture concerning Mary. Beginning with the new Eve, then the God Bearer though the church prefers the use of the words Mother of God. It was initially Christological in orientation but developed into a title exalting Mary. Then the Perpetual Virginity, largely dependent upon biblical to a lesser degree and extra-biblical sources I think to a greater degree, then the immaculate conception and the Assumption. The object is clear, the exaltation of Mary which includes the appropriation to her of offices and prerogatives biblically applicable only to our Lord and our God Jesus Christ. The apostles preached Christ alone.. Acts 4:8-12, “Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” The standard Catholic response I generally encounter is that, agreed! but it doesn’t exclude the possibility of Marian intercession, the intercession of the saints nor her office as the mediatrix of all graces. Ambiguity is always the preferred device. I think the text is unmistakable insofar as it declares with exclusivity, “…there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved…” c.f John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me.” My response is always the same. Scripture does not teach that Mary is the mediator of all graces nor does it teach that I must call upon the name of Mary to be saved. C.f. Romans 10:9, “….that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved…” Any reference to Mary is absent from the scripture in a Soteriological context. Additionally, if all scripture is inspired by God and “…profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Then why would I need Mary at all. I think the scripture is unequivocable concerning its teaching the exclusivity, centrality and sufficiency of Christ. I need no other. To paraphrase Aquinas: Non Nisi Te, Domine, Nothing but you Lord. The question then becomes, if the typological association is harmless, and it doesn’t signify the beginning of an extra-biblical tradition of Marian exaltation, how then did Marian exaltation become so ennobled in Catholic Theology. Case in point: take Ligouri for instance: The Glories of Mary, Chapter 5, The Necessity of Mary’s Intercession for our Salvation: (a few excerpts) 1) “It is an Article of Faith that it is not only allowable but useful to invoke the Saints, and especially the Queen of Saints, that they may obtain grace for us. This doctrine was defined by General Councils against heretics who said that such a teaching was injurious to Jesus Christ, our only Mediator.” Compare with 1 Timothy 2:5, “ For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…” 2) “But, on the other hand, it is impious to maintain that God is not pleased to grant graces at the intercession of His Saints --- and particularly of Mary His Mother, whom Jesus desires so much to see loved and honored by all.” Compare with Luke 11:27-28, “While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” 3) “Who will pretend that the honor bestowed on a mother does not redound to the honor of her son?” Compare with John 5:23, “…that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.” Nothing in scripture teaches that to honor Mary is to honor Christ. But note the distinctive parallel. 4) “So St. Bernard says, "Let us not imagine that we obscure the glory of the Son by the great praise we lavish on the Mother; for the more she is honored, the greater is the glory of her Son. There can be no doubt that whatever we say in praise of the Mother gives equal praise to the Son." No biblical teaching is presented. Why? Because there isn’t any such biblical teaching except the honor due to the Son of the living God, John 5:23. 5) “By the merits of Jesus, Mary was made the mediatrix of our salvation; not a mediatrix of justice, of course, but of grace and intercession --- as St. Bonaventure expressly calls her: "Mary, the most faithful mediatrix of our salvation." None of the apostles taught this in scripture. Not one! The culmination of which are: 6) “Only those who have no faith will deny that it is very useful and commendable to have recourse to the intercession of Mary. But what we intend to prove here is that Mary's intercession is not only useful but necessary for salvation: not absolutely, but morally, necessary…. This necessity goes back to the very will of God Himself, Who had decreed that all the graces He gives human beings should pass through Mary's hands. This is the opinion of St. Bernard --- an opinion which we may now safely call the general opinion of Theologians and Doctors.” a. We are told that this is the opinion of Bernard assuming its Bernard of Clairvaux though I could be wrong. b. We are told that Mary’s intersession is not only useful but necessary for salvation. c. He qualifies this necessity as, “not absolutely but morally, necessary…” d. He further qualifies this necessity as derived from a decree of God that all graces given pass through Mary’s hands. This is why it is so dangerous to make the typological association. These proposition signify the crux of the problem and illustrate what is foundational, in part, to my protestations! Your comment, “Jesus is the New Moses (this one is in St Paul).” I qualified my criticism of typology by explaining, “…where in scripture did any of the authors writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit identify Mary as the new Eve? The problem with typology independent of the inspired narrative….” My criticism of typology is directed toward typological association occurring outside of the inspired narrative. If the Holy Spirt makes the typological association, I have no criticism. When it is made by men then the criticism remains. Your comment, “In the same way, I can't show where St John says Mary is the new Eve, but can you accept That Eve's and Mary's stories have many interesting parallels.” Okay, if you wish for your own study to illustrate interesting parallels fine. That is not what Rome is doing. Case in point, consider the foregoing propositions either made by or otherwise approved of Saint Ligouri in his book approved of by the Holy See. Just a few quick thoughts my friend.... God bless you my friend!

[@geoffjs]

@@anthonynuzzo9512a long reply of yours to which I will reply briefly. Not everything is in the bible Jn 21:25 eg neither are words such as Trinity, Bible & Purgatory which is why the CC uses Sacred Tradition that St Paul talks about 2 Thes 2:15. Sacred Tradition existed from the time of Jesus, runs parallel with scripture and thereby complements the Bible. Together with the unifying authority of the magisterium the CC has a balanced and objective methodology of interpreting scripture. Jesus willed unity, Jn 17:21, not the confusion of Protestantism with 000’s of sect’s resulting from the heresy of personal interpretation. Sola Scriptura is both contradictory and unbiblical rendering a too narrow view. The teachings of the CC are based on the bible, either implicitly or explicitly in conjunction with Sacred Tradition & the magisterium

[@TicketToRide-dj4vk]

The early Church did NOT believe that Mary was the "new Eve" because they believed the Apostle who taught there was NO NEED for a "new Eve". *The Apostle taught that DEATH entered the world by ONE MAN/Adam* (Romans 5:12), *and that SATAN/Death were crushed/destroyed by ONE MAN/Jesus dying on the wooden cross -- see Hebrews 2:14* (Genesis 3:15). *The Apostle taught that the Fall & Redemption of Mankine was ONLY between TWO MEN* (1Corinth 15:21-22) -- *ONLY between TWO ADAMS* (1Corinth 15:45,47) -- *based ONLY on the disobedience and perfect obedience of these TWO SONS OF GOD* (Romans 5:12-21, Luke 1:35/3:38) *Since DEATH did not enter in by a Woman/Eve, there is NO NEED for a "new Eve".*

[@billdavis5483]

This is so important that Jesus is the new Adam and Mary the new Eve. I thought I was the only one who called Jesus the anti-Adam. I must have listened to this before. That is really nice. Anti Adam and Anti Eve. Adam 2.0 Eve 2.0.

[@qrplife]

Mind. Blown.

[@larrybedouin2921]

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, *Blessed is the womb that bare thee and the paps which thou hast sucked* But he [Jesus] said, "Yea *rather* blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” {Luke 11 27-28}

[@Triniforchrist]

Marry was the first to hear it and received it, she literally had the divine God the word in her womb, the second person of the trinity

[@larrybedouin2921]

@@Triniforchrist And? There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

[@Jesus3ITrustinThee]

@@larrybedouin2921 Amen. We model him and are called to obey him. He obeys his mother as well. Luke 5:51, as do we in the communion of his body, the church. CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND HANDED HIMSELF OVER FOR HER 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word - Ephesians 5:25b-26

[@larrybedouin2921]

@@Jesus3ITrustinThee Yes, Jesus honored his father and his mother. He was without sin and became sin for us. Not his mother who is resting in the hope of the resurrection, at Christ second coming with all of his holy angels, at the last day.

[@Jesus3ITrustinThee]

@@larrybedouin2921 Is that along with the thief who Jesus said Amen I say to you today you will be with me in paradise? or the poor man who was carried away to the bosom of Abraham, or was Paul kidding when he said that he'd rather leave the body and go home to the Lord. I don't think you have support for a holding place, when the throne room of God has many Elders and creatures around it, and the tombs were opened after his resurrection such that many who were dead entered Jerusalem and appeared to many (Mt. 27:53).

[@florianstock7943]

Beautiful exegesis! 😊

[@adilgill1]

Beautiful. Thanks

[@TyroneBeiron]

No serpent mentioned in John's Gospel? In fact, Jesus mentions the Mosiac serpent hung on a pole and 'lifted up' for the healing of the sinful (John 3:14-15).

[@Brennandh7777]

I love listening to Heschmeyer, but I could make a drinking game on how many times he says "unpack"...

[@Brennandh7777]

@@po18guy Lol!

[@Hakufuichi]

Mary, in relation to the Holy Trinity, is daughter, spouse, and mother.

[@Pablo-gl9dj]

Sounds like terrible errors cropped up early on. The apostle Paul talked about errors.