No. This is not settled, other than in your own imagination perhaps.
But as for changing anything, I was pointing out where you were mistaken, and had been from the onset in the way you misrepresented the words of others as displaying "ignorance".
Start there. Correct that error of having accused others of being guilty of one thing, when they were doing yet another and that other justifiably so, as explained.
That would be a refreshing change-- if you were to own up not only to your own words, but their usages and intents.
Then--deal with the fact that this "new Eve" concept can not be derived from, extrapolated from the writings of Paul, being in fact an addition to the Gospel as Paul wrote of the matter, with such additions "or different gospel" explicitly prohibited by himself also. Need I trot out that particular prohibition yet again?
Much less can it (concept as Mary as new Eve) be alleged to be quotable from Paul, as Bergoglio basically did when he alluded to Paul having written of Mary as "new Eve".
I will leave it up to others to make excuses for his misstatement.
Also ---show me the word "new" in Paul's discussion of Christ as the last Adam -- or admit that cannot be done either, for that precise word is not used by Paul.
That is not of the same level of difference as attempting to find the precise word Nazarene in the OT, but as technicality of the sort in which you frequently depend upon in supporting your own arguments as being "right" and everyone else wrong, can qualify as much the same.
Carefully chosen semantics...used here by yourself as others have long done so, yourself in this instance while exploiting a difficulty found in Matthew, to leverage opening for insertion of cunning argumentation to provide covering and excuse for the allegedly justifiable extrapolation which was long ago engaged in to reach the place where Mary is to be regarded as "new Eve" whom "loosened the knot" as Ireneus imaginatively wrote, is what I am seeing here...
It is just more continuance of the errors began long ago...protecting those from closer examination six ways from Sunday, lest the beginnings of the long drawn out over the centuries progression of Marionism can be more clearly seen as to how that has become intertwined (even replacement for?) that which was once spoken of as being the sect of the Nazarene.
But which you say is the same process of extrapolation used by Matthew for that writer to include mention of past prophets being said to say (not necessarily write) that the Messaiah shall be called a Nazarene.
You said it is the same. Show the process the writer of Matthew used, then let us examine the process of extrapolation that is used to term Mary "new Eve".
If further assistance is required, make the effort to be rational and actually discuss some point or another rather than feed me just more of your own personal opinions concerning myself.
All of that latter sort of thing is just so much NOISE.
“No. This is not settled, other than in your own imagination perhaps.”
Nope. It was settled many posts ago. Everything I said was true.