Why reject what Irenaeus said because it conflicts with what you have been taught by those whose adhere to your own tradition, which begins with the Reformation” In any case, I don’t follow you because what you say goes against what is clearly stated in Genesis 3. He first pronounces judgement against the serpent, then against the woman and then against the man. But Why do you think that sticking to the Hebrew is so important? The Jews don’t read the Scripture your way. Luther started out thinking as you did, and then turned against the Jews in rage after they declined to accept his interpretation. Fact is that private interpretation of the Bible has led to endless division among Christians, but even before this, ling before the average Christian had ever seen anything like our Bible, there were many other causes of division. Sadly the Church often chose to use force rather than leave judgement to God. I suppose we have see no end to it until he comes to render that judgement.
Because he was waxing poetic...yet his words are being employed as equal to infallible inspired holy writ. Besides, your posed question answers itself, attributing solitary motivation for the questioning "why".
"...your own tradition, which begins with the Reformation" I must stop you here sir, for "my tradition" as you refer to it, goes back to the traditions of the Jews, of whom's scriptures I speak.
But Why do you think that sticking to the Hebrew is so important? Because entrusted to them were the oracles of God. Throw that out, and who is this Christ we speak of today? Also, from Roman Catholicism came corruption of the very book chapter/text in question, namely Genesis 3:15.
In any case, I don’t follow you because what you say goes against what is clearly stated in Genesis 3
What precisely of what I am saying "goes against what is clearly stated in Genesis 3 as you assert? You never brought the scripture itself, just mention of it (but which version? one of the corrupted RC numbers? lol) and just your own and the RCC's own "private interpretation" influenced much among multiple other things, by faulty translation or some copy error mistake of translation, which appears not as mere honest mistake, but deliberate tampering with the text, yet accuse and condemn the many millions whom agree with the exegesis I am adhering to (based both upon superior adherence towards the Masoretic, and finding confirmation in the New Testament).
So you say; I'm going against what is as you say "clearly stated" in Genesis 3, while you refer to what is instead inferred based soley upon Gen 2:13 to exclusion of what else is found stipulated in that vicinity... with assertion and reliance upon one verse (not named, just alluded to by way of reasoning, taking things a further step away from the text) taking a verse out-of-context for purpose of imposing a pre-text, which just so happens to match up with some elements of "tradition" which themselves not only do not have any "clear" scriptural support for, but can be clearly seen to be in opposition of scripture.
Will you now quote from a corrupted Douay version, or the more modern corruption of inserting the word "they" for the Hebrew "him" as is in the original text? [as best as can be determined]. If so, I will be compelled to once again bring versions of Gen 3:15 to these pages, showing everyone (even those not that interested) the corruptions of that precise passage, owned singularly by the RCC. To tie it all together with other parts of the historical extra-biblical origins and furthering impetus of Marionism would take a rather sizable volume to properly address --- but I am aware of much of the basic components, including the one which you yourself have quoted from [thank you very much].
He first pronounces judgement against the serpent, then against the woman and then against the man. He said to Eve, that He [God] would multiply the sorrows of her childbirth, and for her desire to be for her husband, with that coming after the inquiry from God of Eve...but God never filed a charge against her as He did with Adam, when He outlined Adam's offense directly to Adam. The Lord spoke to Eve for reason that Adam tried to immedietly shift blame for his own sin onto his wife, resulting in God saying to Eve, "What is this that thou hast done?" with there being nothing along the lines of God accusing her, as in the case with Adam directly, God saying to Adam alone directly;
In verse 3:9 God calls not unto them both, but to Adam, Adam where art thou? with God asking after Adam (not Eve). Adam answers for himself, saying he was afraid. The Lord responds verse 11;
To properly understand chapter three, it would help to first read chapter 2.
Where was Eve then, my FRiend? She had not been created, if we are to approach things chronologically. Notice in verse 8 and 15 of that chapter, God put the man whom He had formed into the garden of Eden first, commands Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in verse 17, THEN God says "it is not good that the man should be alone" in #18.
If we set aside that chronological order, we still do not see God forbidding the woman directly, although she was aware of the admonition it becomes known in 3:2. From where could she have heard it, if not from God? Obviously it was not the serpent who told her what the law properly was, which leaves only Adam, for she had not been yet created when he himself was forbidden of the fruit of that one tree (to return again to the chronological). If it was important that God tell them both directly--- should it have not been conveyed in that manner? Yet we see that it wasn't. Nor does God address them together as a couple, for although Eve and Adam be together, naked and unashamed after God brought the woman unto Adam, who had been created & fashioned by God from one of Adam's ribs, him proclaiming her then "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone", they still remained two distinct persons. We do not see God saying a word to Eve specifically concerning going against what he said...but only the question, "what have you done?". If Eve had herself sinned, thou she be made to suffer for it later, the sin itself was not attributed to her, but to Adam it fell.
This approach we find much confirmed by Paul in his letters to the Romans (I am continually flabbergasted how much Roman Catholic interpretations go straight and hard, in diametrically opposed direction against Pauls letters to "Romans"! go figure!)
Death Through Adam, Life Through ChristRomans 5; 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Shall the Apostle Paul now stand accused of "philogy" with some admonition that he must know "there are limits to this"?
Though the acquiescence, and willing agreement of Mary herself towards God, when she responded to the Angel;
be a thing of great beauty, it is still not the one obedience that was required to undo the initial, preceeding disobedience of one man as is so often presented by Roman Catholics. To teach it as Mary's (somewhat overplayed) "obedience" be the thing, or that it qualifies her for some divinity or semi-divinity all to herself, with such expanding upon her assumed "assumption", is to force exegesis of scripture, which it itself does not support. Utilizing "tradition" in this instance, in regards to Marionism, not only promotes "tradition" (but only certain select favored snippets) to being not only equal to scripture, but promotes those same collected snippets of opinion and waxing poetic to being capable of over-riding the scriptures, with tradition being able to countermand such scripture as exampled [above].