Biological son of Joseph

  • Thread starter Thread starter bapcath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
There are many many threads on this topic in these forums where posters have given much better explanations than I would be able to. You should do a search.

If the lineages are different (one through Joseph and one through Mary) why would the Church not teach this?
Click to expand...
As I already explained, both genealogies mention Joseph. And both genealogies differ from Joseph back to King David. Two of David’s sons (Nathan and Solomon) are obviously different people and yet one is in Matthew and the other in Luke.

The explanation in the Catholic Encyclopedia (the one that St. Augustine himself came to believe) is good enough for me. After all St. Augustine is a Doctor of the Church. And note that this explanation does reconcile that both genealogies are of Joseph (although they are quite different genealogies).

And note that the C.E. also explains that Mary’s genealogy (even if it is not listed in the gospels) is also through David and that Church tradition teaches this.

“Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary’s Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; II Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary’s great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli’s cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli’s levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenæus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.”

I have provided references and direct links to my sources of information. The Catholic Encyclopedia (although not perfect) is at least a decent reference to established Roman Catholic opinion (mostly of about 100 years ago). You have not provided any reference or link, but instead you request me to find my own references to your opinion. Links to opinions of other posters are not as authoritative as published and imprimitured documents, are they?

jmm08
 
In brief:
Jesus is fully human, and fully divine.

Anything stated to the contrary is false.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top