Maybe you can post some scripture to explain yourself more clearly. I have read your use of the Adam/type model, not only in this exchange, but in others: and I cannot follow your reasoning. That is, I have no idea what you are implying, or why. And some seem to be pointless, for example:
"Along the way, more symbols are added to give depth to our understanding but the natural man is always first. (1 Corinthians 15:46)"
I have no idea how that could possibly relate to the matter at hand, which was a comparison of the "mothers" mentioned in Gal 4:25-26 and Rev 12:1-2,4-5,17.
Paul first mentioned Adam in chapter 15 in this context:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22)
That statement was in reference to the resurrections and Christ's eventual defeat of death (v. 23-26.) But what else was Paul trying to get across? It appears that he was simply trying to explain that there is a carnal and a spiritual body, and that the carnal body cannot inherit the kingdom of God:
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Cor 15:42-50 KJV)
In my OPINION, in all that, Paul was explaining that the two sons of God, Adam and Jesus, were not similar, but different: one was carnal, and the other was spiritual: one represented death, the other represented life. We know Adam was also considered THE son of God, because of this:
"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38 KJV)
You also made this unsubstantiated allegation:
"Does Christ have a spiritual mother? You make the same mistake the Catholic Church makes when it says Mary is the mother of God."
How is what I wrote similar the claim of the Catholic church? We only have your opinion, since you provided no scriptural support, whatsoever. If you are going to make such an accusation, you should at least have the courtesy to explain, using the scriptures, why it is similar.
This is another of your unsupported claims:
"Christ was not created in the church, it was the other way around. The church was created in Christ just as Eve was created in Adam. The church is the bride not the mother of Christ."
Prove it! While you are at it, please explain your objections to my interpretation of Revelation 12 in post #69, as it relates to the Church in Galatians 4, using scriptural references. I don't believe you can.
Anyway, I am challenging you to prove your unsupported claims.
Thanks,
Philip