Does the Bible teach Mary is the Co-Redemptrix?

According to the Bible, can we use the title Co-Redemptrix for Mary?

Is it correct to do this?

I say yes.

If my opponent has a preferred Bible version or translation, we can use that one.

Round 1

1 of 5

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #1

Is Mary is the Co-Redemptrix?

Well, what does Co-Redemptrix mean? Co-Redemptrix means that she played a subordinate but essential role in salvation.

Does the Bible teach this?

The Bible starts with Genesis and Ends with Revelation. In Genesis 3:15 we see:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

The footnotes for the Douay Rheims Bible say:

Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head.

We see that the woman will play a role in defeating the enemy.

In Revelation 12:17 we see more about the woman and the enemy:

And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (DRB)

Let's check out a title Mary was given:

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. (Luke 1:41-42 DRB)

Let's see what blessed among women means by looking at other verses:

Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent. (Judges 5:24 DRB)

What did she do to receive this title? Let's see:

Haber's wife took a nail of the tent, and taking also a hammer: and going in softly, and with silence, she put the nail upon the temples of his head, and striking it With the hammer, drove it through his brain fast into the ground: and so passing from deep sleep to death, he fainted away and died. (Judges 4:21)

Another example:

And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth. (Judith 13:24 DRB)

And what was done to deserve this title? Well:

And she struck twice upon his neck, and cut off his head, and took off his canopy from the pillars, and rolled away his headless body. (Judith 13:10)

These women defeated the enemy in war. Mary defeats the ultimate enemy, the devil, and plays a role in redeeming us.

GreatfulGoy

Con #2

I will make this simple, accordimg to all 4 main sects of Christianity (Prot, Cath, EO and OO) other than some Prot denominations.who’d assert Holy Spirit as an additional redemptrix, there is 1 redemptrix alone and his human name was Yeshua, he is now dubbed Jesus the Christ Messiah in most non (Messianic) Jewish and non-Aramaic circles of Christianity.

To Protestants, she is often seen simply as a vassal to bring Yeshua. Orthodox see her more than that but far less than a co-redemptrix. To Catholics, she is dubbed Queen of Heaven and this did lead to problems for many centuries as true ‘sub-sects’ began to form across various Rites in Catholicism. These sub-sect formations led to Catholic Churches at times having actual Marian devotion. To correct this once and for all. Under Pope Leo XIV, the following was released on November 4th 2025:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20251104_mater-populi-fidelis_en.html

Inside there you will see the Catholic Church officially denounces Mary as any sort of Co-Redemptrix.

So, we have all sects denying it overall and the sola scriptura Protestants deny it the hardest.

So, what is Pro’s real case?

What does Mary actually redeem us from?

Nothing without Jesus. What does Yeshua redeem us from? Everything and Mary's role was to birth and raise the redeemer. She is the key Saint.

Round 2

2 of 5

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #3

"there is 1 redemptrix alone and his human name was Yeshua, he is now dubbed Jesus the Christ Messiah"

Already off to a bad start. You don't understand either part of the word "Co-Redemptrix." Redemptrix is a female noun. Jesus cannot be a redemptrix. You also don't understand the co part. Co doesn't mean equal. Is the co-pilot the same as the pilot? No, the co-pilot plays a subordinate role. Also, the co part was added to the title "Redemptrix" to prevent confusion:

The title “Co-redemptrix” first appeared in the fifteenth century as a correction to the invocation “Redemptrix” (as an abbreviated form of the title, “Mother of the Redeemer”), which had been attributed to Mary since the tenth century. - From Section 17 of Mater Populi fidelis

"To Catholics, she is dubbed Queen of Heaven and this did lead to problems for many centuries"

I fail to see the "problems" with this. It makes perfect sense when you read the Bible. "[A]t your right hand stands the queen..." (Psalm 45:9). In 1 Kings 2 we see that the queen is the mother of the king. If Jesus is the King of Heaven, it only makes logical sense to say Mary is the Queen of Heaven.

"Inside there you will see the Catholic Church officially denounces Mary as any sort of Co-Redemptrix."

This is a very misleading statement. First up, using the word "officially" may not be accurate since the document seems to be for pastoral purposes. It even says, "The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons" (section 17). Second, saying it "denounces" isn't accurate either. It only says the title may cause confusion or might too hard to explain. It's only doing it for people who are already not going to enter the Church. Also, the title "Co-Redemptrix" causes far less confusion than plenty of other things that have come out of or happened in the Vatican. Third, it is inaccurate to say it rejects "any sort of" the use of Co-Redemptrix. The documents never says all of the theology behind the term is wrong. The document also gives plenty of alternative titles too.

"What does Mary actually redeem us from?"

The Bible does use the term "save" in a salvific sense for people other than Christ. These types of "save" are subordinate to Christ and only possible because of Christ, but that doesn't mean they aren't real.

Let's check out some examples:

I [Paul] glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them. (Romans 11:13-14)

And another:

Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife. (1Corinthians 7:16)

"She is the key Saint."

Yes, you are correct. Let's look at another one of Paul's epistles:

From now on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have longed for his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)

If Mary is the key Saint, she will certainly receive the greatest crown, other than Jesus.

GreatfulGoy

Con #4

FORFEITED

Round 3

3 of 5

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #5

With the forfeiture I extend my arguments.

GreatfulGoy

Con #6

She is not a co-pilot. In that analogy, she is a highly effective stewardess and also the Pilot's biological mother.

The old testament verses do not refer to her it is assumed. Nowehere in New Testament is it said, not even indirectly, that Mary defeats Satan, cuts off his head or anything of the srot nor that she and Eve directly clash. My oppinent assumes those Old Testament verses refer to her.

I will now quote the official Vatican statement, Google AI helped me.organise it into points and wrote this for me but I engineered this ending up being shown. Why would I alter the Holy See's own words?

Cooperation vs. co-redemption: Mary's role is one of cooperation with God's plan, and while she is seen as a key figure in salvation history, this is distinct from and subordinate to Christ's work.

Potential for confusion: The title "co-redemptrix" is discouraged because it can lead to the misconception that Mary has a parallel role with Christ, which could diminish Christ's unique mediation and cause confusion among the faithful.

Historical context: While the title has been used by some theologians and pontiffs in the past, the Church now discourages it to prevent misinterpretation and to maintain clarity about the fundamental truths of the faith.

Emphasis on Mary's role: The document seeks to affirm Mary's importance while correcting the potential imbalance that titles like "co-redemptrix" could create, reinforcing her role as the servant of the Lord.

Main source referred to: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/05/mary-not-co-redeemer-vatican-pope-leo-catholic-church#:~:text=Pope%20Leo%20has%20instructed%20Catholics%20not%20to,Mary%20and%20to%20clarify%20what%20is%20acceptable.

Round 4

4 of 5

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #7

"She is not a co-pilot. In that analogy, she is a highly effective stewardess and also the Pilot's biological mother."

I used the "co" to explain that it doesn't mean equal or a replacement.

"The old testament verses do not refer to her it is assumed. Nowehere in New Testament is it said, not even indirectly, that Mary defeats Satan, cuts off his head or anything of the srot nor that she and Eve directly clash. My oppinent assumes those Old Testament verses refer to her."

I never said these OT verses refer to Mary. I said they show what "blessed among women" means. Mary is called "blessed among women," and the OT can tell us what it means. It means to play a role in defeating the enemy. In this case, the enemy is Satan, and Mary plays a role in Jesus' defeating Satan.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. (Genesis 3:15)

We see the phrase her seed. Her seed is also used in Revelation:

And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 12:17)

Revelation 12:9 says "that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan." The dragon is identified as Satan. Satan makes war with Mary. We know Mary plays a role in defeating Satan.

"I will now quote the official Vatican statement, Google AI helped me.organise it into points and wrote this for me but I engineered this ending up being shown."

Ha, ha! I guess the document is so confusing you had to use AI too make sense of it. This debate isn't even supposed to be about what this document says or doesn't say, but whatever.

"The title "co-redemptrix" is discouraged because it can lead to the misconception that Mary has a parallel role with Christ, which could diminish Christ's unique mediation and cause confusion among the faithful."

Look at the "can" and "could." The document is only taking about potential problems. The title is only "discouraged" and is never called heretical or anything like that.

"While the title has been used by some theologians and pontiffs in the past, the Church now discourages it to prevent misinterpretation and to maintain clarity about the fundamental truths of the faith."

If it was used in the past by theologians and popes, it is definitely not heretical or unbiblical. In fact, the title was originally a correction of the title "redemptrix."

Another update came from Cardinal Fernández. The document you sited said the title was "always inappropriate," but we live in a society where "always" no longer means "always." Somehow it was mistranslated in the English version:

The translator did a softer [English] translation but then he said to us, “Look, I’m not sure about this,” and then it was changed.

He also says it can be used in private devotion but not official documents to avoid confusion behind the term:

If you, together with your group of friends, believe you understand well the true meaning of this expression, have read the document, and see that its positive aspects are also affirmed there, and you wish to express precisely that within your prayer group or among friends, you may use the title—but it will not be used officially, that is, either in liturgical texts or in official documents.

He even says the expression has "positive aspects." This shows it is still true.

GreatfulGoy

Con #8

I am being baited to 'add' or 'make new points' but there's no need.

I will just reiterate what I've said throughout.

The only well-known Sect and/or denomination within a Sect that even used to imply this, the Catholics of various Rites, declared officially that this is false in October.

This means 0 established denominations that my opponent can refer to, back the idea. Furthermore, the idea is anti-Christian. It elevated his earthly mother to a role she never achieved.

A co-redemptrix would need to redeem us from something. My opponent's sole focus is some old testament prophecies about some heel or whatever. Even if Mary is somehow the antithesis of Eve, which I grant is plausible to argue. It doesn't mean that she co-redeemed us. In no shape or form did she herself redeem us. The only way to argue this is to say that all mother's are to be genuinely held responsible for achievements of their offspring.

That doesn't seem to be my opponent's position.

I may as well address this part of the opponent's case now:

I [Paul] glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them. (Romans 11:13-14)

And another:

Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife. (1Corinthians 7:16)

Neither of these are relevant. Proving that the word save in a translation to English is used in a lesser way than Christ saving us from sin is irrelevant to the debate. Unless my opponent is claiming the extreme heresy and basically blasphemy that all husbands and wives save each other from sin how Yeshua the Christ did or even close to what he did, my opponent has no case at all.

If Mary is the key Saint, she will certainly receive the greatest crown, other than Jesus.

Firstly, a good counterargument is that in some ways the archangels are above her and this gets forgotten by Catholic somehow, that a human cannot be above archangels like St. Michael or St. Gabriel. Nonetheless, even if she's got the title 'Queen of Heaven' her role was never redeeming us of sin.

Round 5

5 of 5

SomeDebatePerson

Pro #9

I don’t think reiterating helps you at all.

“This means 0 established denominations that my opponent can refer to, back the idea. Furthermore, the idea is anti-Christian. It elevated his earthly mother to a role she never achieved.”

It is ridiculous to make the claim that this is not historical. St. Irenaeus called Mary the “cause of salvation.”

The idea is not anti-Christian because it points to Christ.

“A co-redemptrix would need to redeem us from something. My opponent's sole focus is some old testament prophecies about some heel or whatever. Even if Mary is somehow the antithesis of Eve, which I grant is plausible to argue. It doesn't mean that she co-redeemed us. In no shape or form did she herself redeem us. The only way to argue this is to say that all mother's are to be genuinely held responsible for achievements of their offspring.”

She played a role in redemption. She brought forth the redeemer in this world. No one else has ever come close to such. She doesn’t directly redeem us. That’s why she’s called co-redemptrix.

These Old Testament verses show what “blessed among women means.” They are used when referring to women who defeated the enemy in war. The devil is the ultimate enemy, and Mary plays a role in Jesus’ defeating Satan.

Mary was seen as the New Eve from the very beginning. St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian made this connection:

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).

Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight” (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

“Neither of these are relevant. Proving that the word save in a translation to English is used in a lesser way than Christ saving us from sin is irrelevant to the debate. Unless my opponent is claiming the extreme heresy and basically blasphemy that all husbands and wives save each other from sin how Yeshua the Christ did or even close to what he did, my opponent has no case at all.”

I don’t think this is about English translations. The Greek word is sózó. The NASB gives the word many different meanings depending on context: “bring...safely (1), cured (1), ensure salvation (1), get (1), get well (2), made...well (6), made well (5), preserved (1), recover (1), restore (1), save (36), saved (50), saves (1), saving (1).”

It can mean many things. Saying Mary saves us cannot be called heresy. Does faith save? “But I thought only God saved.” We are saved through faith (and works) by the grace of God.

“Firstly, a good counterargument is that in some ways the archangels are above her and this gets forgotten by Catholic somehow, that a human cannot be above archangels like St. Michael or St. Gabriel. Nonetheless, even if she's got the title 'Queen of Heaven' her role was never redeeming us of sin.”

Catholics never considered the angels to be greater than Mary. They didn’t forget anything. Mary is the Mother of God. Angels are servants and messengers of God. Angels bring God’s word, but Mary brought forth the Word (Logos) in the flesh.

In the Byzantine Catholic Liturgy Mary is called more honorable and glorious than the cherubim and seraphim. They are the highest ranking angels but do not compare to Mary:

It is truly proper to glorify you - O Theotokos, - the ever-blessed, immaculate, and the Mother of our God. - More honorable than the cherubim, - and beyond compare, more glorious than the seraphim; - who a virgin, gave birth to God the Word, - you truly the Theotokos - we magnify.

Mary is Queen of Heaven because Jesus is King of Heaven. Look in the Bible and you will find the queen is the mother of the king (1 Kings 2:18-19, 2 Chronicles 22:10). You will see the queen even makes intercessions (Nehemiah 2:6).

Con never even gave us a single Bible verse to back up his arguments. I’ll suspect this one may be used:

For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5)

Many try to use this verse to disprove the idea of co-redemptrix, but we need to look at the context in the next verse:

who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

It’s about redemption. Obviously, Mary couldn’t die on the cross. This is why she is co-redemptrix and not redemptrix.

And the verses before show about intercession of saints. The “one mediator” needs to be put into context. God uses people to do things:

I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour

Finally, back to the title:

“According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world.” - Wikipedia

Do you deny that Mary did this?

"Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum; Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen."

Vote pro!

GreatfulGoy

Con #10

Pro in Round 4:

She played a role in redemption. She brought forth the redeemer in this world. No one else has ever come close to such. She doesn’t directly redeem us. That’s why she’s called co-redemptrix.

Pro in Round 2:

Co doesn't mean equal. Is the co-pilot the same as the pilot? No, the co-pilot plays a subordinate role. Also, the co part was added to the title "Redemptrix" to prevent confusion:

Con in Round 3:

She is not a co-pilot. In that analogy, she is a highly effective stewardess and also the Pilot's biological mother.

This part got ignored by Pro entirely and dealt with what Pro has said there.

Let me put this another way. We do not say the mother of Michael Jackson is responsible for his music any more than we say that she is responsible for his alleged pedophilia, if it's true that he did the allegations.

We do not say Adolf Hitler's mother is a co-Nazi leader. Why don't we do this? Well, it is because to be co-something you must actively and categorically have led to it.

In contrast, you could say Michael Jackson's father played a role in his music career and screwing his son up psycologically for life.

But it was Joe Jackson who transformed their home life from merely unusual to nightmarish. He was a distant parent. “None of us can remember him holding us or cuddling us or telling us ‘I love you’,” Jermaine Jackson subsequently recalled. But the discovery that his offspring had musical talent turned him from merely cold and violent into a despot. He would beat them with a belt buckle or the cord of an electric kettle, or make them spend hours carrying cinder blocks from one side of their garden to the other when they incurred his wrath. The Jackson 5, as they were to become, were not allowed outside to play with other children: they rehearsed for five hours a day after school, their enthusiasm incentivised by the fact that if they got a dance step wrong their father would order them to break a branch off a tree in their garden that he then hit them with.

He seems to have reserved a particularly cruel streak of psychological bullying for Michael, the band’s youngest and most talented member. When Joe Jackson learned his teenage son was self-conscious about the size of his nose, he took to referring to him as Big Nose, an insult that haunted him into adulthood. Michael developed a nervous tic of constantly touching and covering his nose with his left hand as if sniffing it – hence producer Quincy Jones giving him the nickname Smelly. Then he began a series of surgical procedures so extreme that he was reportedly forced to wear a prosthesis to cover up the results. (A Rolling Stone story quoted witnesses to his body in an LA morgue claiming the prosthesis was missing, leaving only a hole in his face surrounded by bits of cartilage.)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jun/27/joe-jackson-one-of-the-most-monstrous-fathers-in-pop#:~:text=Even%20against%20such%20stiff%20competition,it%20hadn't%20happened%20sooner.

A co-redemptrix needs to actively be involved in the process of either what's done or what drives the redeemer/redemptrix they're 'co' to, to redeem.

Instead, Mary is never described to have redeemed us from anything at all. She also is not the leader of Yeshua/Jesus the Christ Messiah on his mission to redeem us (or the supposed mission, as even an atheist or Jew that completely disavows him as a valid Christ Mashiach candidate, can at least admit that inside the New Testament scripture, nothing implies Mary co-redeemed alongside her son.

My case is that simple. It is that flat.

Not once is it ever implied Mary redeemed us even as an assistant to the redemption. Her interactions with Yeshua/Jesus did not actively lead to the redeeming any more than the mother of Hitler can be said to have led Hitler to what he said and did.

SomeDebatePerson

#22

--> @Kohai, @Savant

Please remove fauxlaw's vote.

Fauxlaw ignored my entire argument. He claims I didn't define the term, but I did. He says it implies a "divine" role, but this is not what the title means at all. (I would be blasphemous to call Mary divine.) I provided an actual source for my definition. He seems to put his own personal beliefs into his vote too. This was a biblical debate, and he put his unbiblical Jesus alone theology into his vote. He also claims that the title somehow dishonors Jesus' role. He uses the old "Mary would be nothing without Jesus" argument when the title literally acknowledges that.

A completely biased and dishonest vote.

SomeDebatePerson

#21

--> @SatanLucy

Please vote

SomeDebatePerson

#20

--> @Savant

please vote

SomeDebatePerson

#19

--> @fauxlaw

Please vote

SomeDebatePerson

#18

--> @GreatfulGoy

Where have you been?

SomeDebatePerson

#17

--> @GreatfulGoy

Don't forget about the debate. You have a week to make your argument . . . again.

SomeDebatePerson

#16

--> @melcharaz

Does Israel play a role in the New Covenant? From Israel’s rejection came salvation to the Gentiles.

Mary is also the spiritual Mother of the Church.

Also, the Mary interpretation works better when looking at Psalm 45, which is directed to Christ. Who will be the Queen of Heaven? Can a place be queen? Also, the Bible starts and ends with a woman and the enemy.

melcharaz

#15

1 john 5:6
Jesus was born with blood and water as any child. But also died with blood and water, both poured out on the ground upon his death, so the earth must repent by blood and be covered by water.
John 19:34

Psalms 2 is directly connected to revelation 12. For the earth will seek to destroy the Lord's anointed, yet he shall come and break them asunder.

melcharaz

#14

--> @SomeDebatePerson

Do you not know who the woman is in revelation 12:1? She represents israel, the wings given to her are representative of the same wings he carried israel across the wilderness (exodus 19:4 deuteronomy 32:11)

and the same wings that he covered her with.

(isaiah 40:31 psalms 91:4 as well as to the gentiles who join israel ruth 2:12)

The 12 stars represent the 12 tribes. Out of israel came not only christ, but the redemption of the gentiles. The water sent after her by the dragon (satan) represent the nations. (See later in revelations how babylon sits on many waters)

The cross is the method of death, yes, from the wounded body of christ, both the earth and the mercy seat in heaven recieved blood.
Hebrews 10:9-13

(Revelation 11:19. Thats why he told moses to make the ark after the pattern shown him in the mount exodus 25:40 and acts 7:44)
Hebrews 10:1

SomeDebatePerson

#13

--> @melcharaz

Jesus had to die to save us. If the death is the means of salvation, then the type of deaths makes sense too. Deuteronmy 21:23 is foreshadowing Christ's death in a way. The curse is the atonement. Why do you think the cross is the Christian symbol anyway?

SomeDebatePerson

#12

--> @melcharaz

Jesus came to take the throne of David (Luke 1:32). In the Old Testament, the mother of the king was queen, not the wife.

"The daughters of kings have delighted thee in thy glory. "The queen stood on thy right hand, in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety" (Psalm 45:9). It makes sense when you then look at Revelation 12:1 "And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."

melcharaz

#11

--> @SomeDebatePerson

The cross wasnt the means of salvation, it was the means of death wereby christ died, buried and rose the 3rd day would obtain salvation for us by his sinless blood.

When jesus instructs to take up our cross and follow him, is he instructing us to carry salvation? No, he is instructing us to bear the method of death, the method of death is to crucify the flesh, to make it a cursed thing. And to die to self.

melcharaz

#10

Also it doesnt make sense for mary to be the queen of heaven if the entire church is his bride. The church is to rule and reign with him, not just mary.

If someone says mary is the key saint, then what key? The only key that matters is the key of david, not mary.

Isaiah 22:20-22
Revelation 3:7
The key of david is the key given to Jesus Christ in the eternal sense, because what david did was he unlocked 2 things that continued after him (not including his lineage)
amos 9:11 acts 15:16 the tabernacle of david.

Isaiah 55:3-6
Which is the mercies of david
And to call the heathen or the unknown nations as an inheritance.
Psalms 2:6-9

SomeDebatePerson

--> @melcharaz

Well, the cross was the means of salvation that God chose. He chose the cross for a reason.

melcharaz

--> @SomeDebatePerson

So when you say he chose the cross, that brings up 2 questions.
1: do you mean the method of his death? Because deuteronomy 21:23 OT says cursed is every man that hangs on a tree.
And the wounds in his hands is a reference to zechariah 13:6
And the piercing in his side zechariah 12:10

Galatians 3:13

Or are you trying to say the cross its self was important? If so, what distinguished it from any other cross? Nothing, except he was put on it.
And i can say the same regarding mary, God was put in her.

GreatfulGoy

--> @GreatfulGoy

I will start really concise to let the 5 Rounds flow better rather than overdo Round 1.

GreatfulGoy

--> @melcharaz

The Holy Spirit shall guide the events that unfold.

🫶

melcharaz

--> @GreatfulGoy

1 hour

SomeDebatePerson

--> @GreatfulGoy

No worries. It's good that I made the time for the argument a week. I sometimes want to make it short, but I realize people often need a lot of time.

GreatfulGoy

Ill get to this soon, dont worry

SomeDebatePerson

--> @melcharaz

You made severial points, which I will answer.

Him chosing her doesn’t mean it’s not important. God chose the Cross. Is this Cross not important? No, it is a symbol of Christianity.

The book of Judith is deuterocanonical. Even if you don’t believe it’s scripture, it still shows how the phrase is used.

melcharaz

Sure? But God could have selected someone else. He chose her cause he highly favored her.

I wouldnt say her role is essential. Unless you look it from the perspective of giving birth to him.

Then id say a woman was essential, not her specifically

Also why quote book of judith? Its not even canonical.

Did you even ask your opponent about it or mention it? He could just pull out gospel of thomas or another book thats not canon to refute you.

fauxlaw Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

An interesting debate, but one in which the Topic, "Does the Bible teach Mary is the Co-Redemptrix?" Fell onto a trap of discussion far more than the simple BoP of the Resolution: whether or not Mary serves a role as "Co-Redemptrix" by biblical evidence. Itwould have been prudent for Pro, the instigator, to define the term "Co-Redemptrix" specifically, because much of the resulting debate flourished in inglorious discussion of its definition. Define it in Description and put it to rest. The instigator of any debate has that privilege, and if the contender then. disagrees with the offered definition, they then have the option to not engage the debate. Failure by the instigator to provide definition itions in Description makes the definitions open season. a much less powerful position.
That said, Pro acknowledges that a co-anything in not equal to, in this case, a redemptive role. Would have been a good idea for Pro to define this term, as well, because it does not equate to simple "save" of someone, but rather, a divine role of eternal redemption of a soul, which Con correctly argues is not Mary's role in mortality as she is "blessed among women," but not "divine" in her mortality.
Pro's R1 cit4es Genesis 3, and Revelation 12 as evidence that Mary is a Co-Redemptrix. Con's R1 rebuts the claim, that neither Genesis not Revelation put Mary in that role, but rather, a "woman" who is not named. It just as likely can define Eve in those roles [my personal view, but thesis not part of my voting decision.] Further, Con's argument asks a critical question, and a response that pro is never capable of rebutting: "What does Mary actually redeem us from? Nothing without Jesus. What does Yeshua redeem us from? Everything and Mary's role was to birth and raise the redeemer. Mary's role, by this rebuttal, does not achieve the status of "co-redemptrix."
The debate really ends there, Con's BoP having been adequately met. Without Jesus' role as Redeemer, completing the task entirely on his own, Mary's separate role as a disciple, perhaps the first and best, not-withstanding, is not even a secondary role to meet the title of co-, let alone a "redemptrix" at all. The redemption, accomplished in entirety by Jesus, alone, sufficed for the accomplishment, which is not an ongoing role.
As said, Pro could not defeat the Con R1 rebuttal, The debate turned out to be accomplished with Con's in R1. No deducti0on for Con's forfeit of R2, as it represented by 20% of the entire debate. Pro went too far afield trying to use verses, both OT and NT, attributing acti0ons to Mary when Mary is not the named "protagonist" in any of the references. As Pro argued, himself, several women, OT and NT, are named as "blessed among woman," so that Mary's award of that mention, even by an angel {Gabriel] is neither unique, nor redemptive by the definition of that word.

Round 1

Is Mary is the Co-Redemptrix?

Does the Bible teach this?

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

Round 5

New comment