Is St.Anne the Grandmother of God?

[Tom]

steve99:

The geanealogies of Matthew & Luke are strictly though Joseph’s line, because in Judeaism it is that line that gives descent.

Very debatable, if you read the paper I linked you’ll find many disagree with you, in fact

Luke 2, 34 And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; 35 And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed. 36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser; she was far advanced in years, and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity. 37 And she was a widow until fourscore and four years; who departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day. 38 Now she, at the same hour, coming in, confessed to the Lord; and spoke of him to all that looked for the redemption of Israel. 39 And after they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth. 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong, full of wisdom; and the grace of God was in him.

Specifically traces a womans lineage in reference to Mary and Jesus, Judith 8,1

Now it came to pass, when Judith a widow had heard these words, who was the daughter of Merari, the son of Idox, the son of Joseph, the son of Ozias, the son of Elai, the son of Jamnor, the son of Gedeon, the son of Raphaim, the son of Achitob, the son of Melehias, the son of Enan, the son of Nathanias, the son of Salathiel, the son of Simeon, the son of Ruben:

steve99:

The question of Mary being of David’s line is actually irrelevant, But personally I conside it quite unproven and just another pious “tradition” of which (unfortunately in my view) our church is littered.

Irrelevant? It is the only way to show our Lord Jesus the Christ was actually from the line of David. If she is not of the house of David then Jesus is not the promised messiah since the Messiah would be of the house of David.

 

[thistle]

Tom:

Very debatable, if you read the paper I linked you’ll find many disagree with you, in fact Specifically traces a womans lineage in reference to Mary and Jesus, Judith 8,1
Irrelevant? It is the only way to show our Lord Jesus the Christ was actually from the line of David. If she is not of the house of David then Jesus is not the promised messiah since the Messiah would be of the house of David.

We are all eagerly waiting to see where you find your statement in the Church’s teaching!

 

[Tom]

thistle:

We are all eagerly waiting to see where you find your statement in the Church’s teaching!

You question if Jesus must be of the seed (of the flesh) of David? O.K. how about

Jn 7,42 Doth not the scripture say: That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem the town where David was?
Romans 1, 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 Which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy scriptures, 3 Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,

I must not be understanding your question. Since there was no “seed of the flesh” from Joseph, the blood lineage is logically from Mary. We’re not talking “legal” we’re talking blood. Legally He could be considered the house of David from either parent, by blood (the flesh) it could only be Mary.

 

[Mr.Bean]

Just a reminder that Mary was born without the stain of Original Sin. There is a difference in Catholic theolgy between original sin and personal sin. Original sin is the stigma that humanity recieved when Adam and Eve descided to become like gods on their own without relying on God. This sin has changed the whole of humanity so that every human that is born is disconected from God (read Introduction to Christianity by Cardinal Ratzinger) Our original sin is wipped away during our baptism. So in saying that Mary was born without Original Sin is, to my understanding, being born in a state of grace like we are after we are baptized.

Peace

(P.S. I would welcome any corrections as I am new to the Catholic faith)

 

[steve99]

Tom:

Irrelevant? It is the only way to show our Lord Jesus the Christ was actually from the line of David. If she is not of the house of David then Jesus is not the promised messiah since the Messiah would be of the house of David.

I think you are quite wrong here. Both Matthew and Luke trace the lineage of Jesus though Joseph. It is via Joseph that Jesus is of the House of David and the Lion of Judah. Both of them thought it important enough to place in their gospels, but neither of them thought it relevant to mention any lineage for Mary.
So either May was not of the tribe of Judah and House of David, or if she was they considered it irrelevant to Jesus’ ancestry.
There is an indication in Luke’s gospel that Mary was actually of levitical descent since her cousin, Elizabeth, was of the House of Aaron (Luke 1:5). Interesting that Luke mentions this point about Elizabeth but says nothing about the ancestry of Mary.
As to the levitical law I think too much may be being made of this. It was very important in the early days when the tribes were fighting for their assigned lands, and needed to keep banded togther. The book of Ruth and Nabob’s vinyard in 1Kings show a deep attachment to the land they inherited. But I suggest this would have been destroyed by the return from the exiles. The whole land system would have been changed forever.
Also Mary’s family and Joseph were poor. If they had any land in Judah, why were they living up in Gallilee?
I’ve read though the link you gave but I think it is full of suppositions and reliance on the opinions of people living long after the event.
As the the Protoevangelium of James, I’ll stiick to scripture which has been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[linus]

Contarini:

This requires you to say that Jesus is not one of Adam’s posterity. That would make the Incarnation and Atonement meaningless. How can Jesus die on behalf of Adam’s posterity if He is not one of us? Furthermore, you’re contradicting Scripture in saying this.

I’m not contradicting Scripture at all. He was able to die for us because through the virgin birth He became FULLY HUMAN and as a human sacrifice (the *“Lamb of God”) * He took upon Himself our sins and died in our stead (2 Cor. 5:21).

Jesus is the “seed of the woman” and of the “seed of David.” That means that He is descended, through Mary, from Adam and Eve. You can’t deny that Jesus is of “Adam’s posterity” unless you deny that He was truly born of Mary.

He is of the “seed of the woman” because He was virgin born. He’s the “Son of David” because through His adoptive parents He has the legal right to David’s throne. *“Son of David” * is a Messianic title.

Furthermore, Jesus refers to Himself over and over again as the “son of Man” (huios anthropou). This is the Greek translation of the Hebrew “ben-Adam” which occurs in the OT (especially in Ezekiel). Thus, Jesus is saying explicitly that He is of the posterity of Adam. Deny this and you are contradicting Christ Himself.

]“Son of Man” is also a Messianic title. As far back as Genesis it was revealed that man’s Redeemer would be a man: a “Kinsman Redeemer.” Jesus called Himself the “Son of Man,” but He was not a son of Adam. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph.

Yes, and this being “made righteous” is just as real (though imperfect in this life) as being “made sinners” was.

I completely agree. I am right now, and forever, just as righteous as Jesus Christ. I am “in Christ Jesus,” “made righteous.” This righteousness is not maintained by me, but is, in fact, a free gift (Rom. 5:17).

But Adam as created by God was good, and Jesus did not come to deliver us from that good human nature created by God. That would be to deliver us from our humanity, which was not His purpose. Rather, He came to transform our humanity and raise it to newness of life.

You fail to understand the “fall” revealed in Gen. 3. Please read Romans 5:12-21. By Adam’s one transgression death reigned through him (vs. 17). Through his one transgression there resulted “condemnation” to ALL men (vs. 18). Through his one transgression all were “made sinners” (vs. 19).

Rom. 5:12-21 is about TWO MEN, TWO ADAMS, two actions, two results. If you cannot comprehend this passage you cannot understand who Jesus is and who the believer is IN HIM - no longer “in Adam,” but “in Christ.”

But, in me as in all of us, the work is not finished, as long as we remain imperfectly holy. The “Old Adam” must be continually crucified.

Blatantly false. All who we (true believers) were “in Adam” WAS crucified WITH CHRIST on the cross (Rom. 6; Col. 3:1-3; Eph. 2:6).

“Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17).

You can’t talk about Christ without talking about Mary. Without Mary there would have been no Christ. Christ would not have been a human being. (And no, before you say something silly, of course I’m not claiming that Mary is greater than Christ in any way.)

I know what you’re saying - although said poorly. But you fail to understand what I am saying. I didn’t say Mary had nothing to with the Incarnation, I said the Incarnation has nothing to do with Mary. Please try to understand the difference.

Blessings,
L.

 

[mlchance]

linus:

I am right now, and forever, just as righteous as Jesus Christ.

No, you’re not.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[forthright]

"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor. 5:17).

Unless you have never sinned since becoming a believer, you are misinterpretting this verse. I ditto Mark: “No you’re not.”

 

[Philthy]

Nonie:

Hi!
I had a tough question from a friend who is not Catholic about the relationship of the relatives of Mary to God. His question was if Mary is the Mother of God then what is Marys relatives relationship to God, if they carry the same genetic strain as Mary. Would Marys Mother St.Anne be Gods Grandmother?Could God then have a cousins etc.? I told him that I thought Mary had been created in a special way without sin in grace. But this didn’t explain it very well to him and perhaps I am wrong. Can someone shed some light on this subject for me?
Thanks!!

whoever is asking such questions is truly a moron - though worthy of love. do not all Protestants believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters? why would they then quibble over a grandparent? baffling…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

linus:

The problem with your theory, and the whole theory of the Immaculate Conception is that the purpose of Christ’s substitutionary sin-sacrifice was for God to be able to justly and perfectly forgive all sins committed.

Really? I have not “commited” original sin - is it not forgiven me?

linus:

A sin-sacrifice does not* “prevent”* or “prohibit” one from original sin. In order to do that one must circumvent the normal birth process (Mary had a normal birth).

Really? Where does Scripture state this?

linus:

That’s why Jesus was born of a virgin.

No, he was born of a virgin to fulfill Scripture.

linus:

Mary, like all of us, was born a sinner, being IN ADAM.

Nope. The merits or the eternal sacrifice of Christ can be applied at any point in time: past, present or future. How else could Elijah be taken up into heaven? IF he had never sinned then your quotes below become irrelevent, and NOT “all have sinned”. Do you really want to go there? If you do, you have to give Mary the nod as well - or at least you have to be open to the possibility. If, however, he had sinned, then how could he enter heaven apart from the merits of the eternal sacrifice of Christ? Did he not need Christ also? Or did he actually achieve rightousness through the law?

linus:

ROM 5:12 *“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- *(*i.e., *in Adam).”

Contrasted with what Christ accomplished, judicially, through His death on the cross:

ROM 5:18-19 "For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."
The incarnation is about Jesus Christ, not Mary.

It being about Christ does not exclude the role of Mary, or Joseph or anyone else recorded in Scripture. In a like manner, should we reject all of the writings which are not directly from Christ since its all about Christ? That would obviate all but the gospels and your quotes above would be in the scrap pile as well. Somehow, Mary’s role is meant to teach us something about who Christ is in a more complete way. I understand where you are coming from and your reasons for distrusting what would seem to be a lack of focus on Christ. But I don’t agree that focusing on Mary-in the manner actually promoted by the Church-detracts from a focus on Christ.

linus:

Blessings,
L.

Peace-

Phil

 

[Philthy]

linus:

All who we (true believers) were “in Adam” WAS crucified WITH CHRIST on the cross (Rom. 6; Col. 3:1-3; Eph. 2:6).

Really!? You mean the application of the eternal sacrifice was applied prior to my birth? Hmmm, that sounds familiar…
Anyhow, your statement in its intended context is confusing. My sin nature is not gone entirely - do you honestly believe yours is? And Christ explicitly tells us to “take up your Cross daily” Luke 9:23
Something is not right.

"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor. 5:17).
Blessings,
L.

 

[linus]

forthright:

Unless you have never sinned since becoming a believer, you are misinterpretting this verse. I ditto Mark: “No you’re not.”

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name every one who believes in Him HAS RECEIVED forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).

“…and may be found IN HIM, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:9).

“For by the transgression of the one (Adam), death reigned through the one, MUCH MORE those who recieve the ABUNDANCE OF GRACE and of the GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, will reign in LIFE through the One, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17).

There’s nothing so complex here to “misinterpret.” Those who don’t grasp it simply refuse to believe God’s clarion Word on who Christ is and who we (true believers) are IN HIM - “made righteous.”

Blessings,
L.

 

[Orionthehunter]

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name every one who believes in Him HAS RECEIVED forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).

“…and may be found IN HIM, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:9).

“For by the transgression of the one (Adam), death reigned through the one, MUCH MORE those who recieve the ABUNDANCE OF GRACE and of the GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, will reign in LIFE through the One, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17).

There’s nothing so complex here to “misinterpret.” Those who don’t grasp it simply refuse to believe God’s clarion Word on who Christ is and who we (true believers) are IN HIM - “made righteous.”

Blessings,
L.

Linus, this thread is about St. Anne. Your interjecting of simplistic interpretations of Scripture is disrespectful to the OP’s purpose of this thread. More importantly, your simplistic interjection is disrespectful to the Word of God. Note 2 Peter 3:15-18:

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability. But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.)

 

[Philthy]

“Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name every one who believes in Him HAS RECEIVED forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).

Just because we have recieved “forgiveness of sins” does not mean that all our past, present and future sins have been forgiven. Just a fact.
“If you do not forgive others their sins, neither will your father in heaven forgive you yours.” Have people stopped sinning against you yet? Then until they do (ie, when you die) then you must continue to forgive (ie have faith) them otherwise your sins will not be forgiven. JC

“…and may be found IN HIM, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith” (Phil. 3:9).

Yup, all true. Doesn’t say you are perfectly righteous right now, however, which is what you are claiming. This is an affirmation of righteousness through Christ, not a quantification of it.

“For by the transgression of the one (Adam), death reigned through the one, MUCH MORE those who recieve the ABUNDANCE OF GRACE and of the GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, will reign in LIFE through the One, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17).

There’s nothing so complex here to “misinterpret.”

I agree - which is why it is so baffling as to how you could have misinterpreted so much of it. Tit for tat.

Those who don’t grasp it simply refuse to believe God’s clarion Word on who Christ is and who we (true believers) are IN HIM - “made righteous.”

Ahhhhh - the old “true believers” caveat, eh. Always the best since “true believers” is never defined biblically so it is left, ultimately for each of us to decide. How convenient. Actually, true faith is enunciated many times as obedience to his commands, “whoever observes my commands is the one who loves me” “Why do you call me “Lord, Lord” yet not do what I command?” etc etc etc. But the mantra is “salvation by faith alone” which directly contradicts the bible “Faith if it is apart from works is dead…so you see a man is NOT JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ALONE” which is not so difficult to interpret, just painful and humiliating for some to interpret genuinely.

Blessings,
L.

Peace,

Phil

 

[Tom]

Steve, please don’t give up on me, I know I’ve taken a long time to respond but I work 14 hours a day and have been very busy with the hurricane damage. Actually it’s 4:15 p.m. and I just finished a flight and have about an hour break so I’ll begin. My belief that Mary is of Davidic lineage is based soley on Scripture. Follow my reasoning: Mary became impregnated while still a virgin, there was NO male “seed of flesh” of David or anyone else from anyone except Mary. His sole humanity comes from Mary. The bloodline of David could NOT have been transferred via Joseph. Mary is the seed of the flesh” of David. Now we’re talking about bloodline, not inheritance. Yes He would be considered a son of David via Joseph, but NOT of Davids bloodline. There are several Scriptural references where it is spoken of the seed of a woman. Being at work and not having my references available is a little difficult, please bear with me. But consider my question, if Mary was a virgin which of course she was, and if she were impregnated by the Holy Spirit, not by flesh, which of course she was exactly how could He be, as written in Scriptures by the Apostles, “Jn 7,42 Doth not the scripture say: That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem the town where David was?
Romans 1, 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 Which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy scriptures, 3 Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,”
Again we’re speaking of the flesh not legal inheritance. Where was His “seed of David, according to the flesh,” if not by Mary?

 

[Tom]

steve99:

I think you are quite wrong here. Both Matthew and Luke trace the lineage of Jesus though Joseph. It is via Joseph that Jesus is of the House of David and the Lion of Judah. Both of them thought it important enough to place in their gospels, but neither of them thought it relevant to mention any lineage for Mary.
So either May was not of the tribe of Judah and House of David, or if she was they considered it irrelevant to Jesus’ ancestry.

Or, as I believe, the lineage of Mary was not in question since Jesus:

1. was born of a virgin (no seed from any flesh other than Mary)
2. was as the Apostle wrote “Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,” (I really can’t see any other reasonable way Jesus could have been “according to the flesh” except by the flesh of His mother, Mary
   These two statements are correct, the reason the lineage of Mary is not covered is NOT that it wasn’t important but that it has already been established, why repeat such a fundamental fact? The only one we didn’t know about was Joseph wasn’t it? Matthew and Luke already know Mary is from the house of David, but now must show that Joseph was also of the tribe of David.“ Luke 3, 23 And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,” the “as it was supposed” tells us Jesus is NOT the son (by blood) of Joseph, which of course we already knew.

 

[Tom]

steve99:

There is an indication in Luke’s gospel that Mary was actually of levitical descent since her cousin, Elizabeth, was of the House of Aaron (Luke 1:5).

Because her cousin married into a different tribe? Weak argument, remember to keep Scripture in context, women were only required to marry in their own tribes “if” there were no male siblings. That’s the context established in Scripture. If there were other male siblings they were free to marry into other tribes. So Mary’s great aunt married into the tribe of Levi and Elizabeth is now of that house. Still her cousin? Remember John is Jesus’ cousin isn’t he? Sure, that’s just ONE of the many possible answers. Any “other” answers to Jesus being of the seed of the flesh of David?

steve99:

Interesting that Luke mentions this point about Elizabeth but says nothing about the ancestry of Mary.

Also keep in mind that Scripture is about her Son, not her, she isn’t God, but He is. Not everything He said and did was recorded, why would they have written more about her? Especially when it was already plain and simple that she was the source of the seed of the flesh.

 

[Tom]

steve99:

As to the levitical law I think too much may be being made of this. It was very important in the early days when the tribes were fighting for their assigned lands, and needed to keep banded togther. The book of Ruth and Nabob’s vinyard in 1Kings show a deep attachment to the land they inherited. But I suggest this would have been destroyed by the return from the exiles. The whole land system would have been changed forever.

I couldn’t disagree more, think about it. We know Joseph and Mary are good devout Jews, they knew and followed the Law. They each were chosen by God and endowed with the grace to complete their task. You think these two didn’t follow the Law? Please show me some credible evidence to this.

 

[Tom]

steve99:

Also Mary’s family and Joseph were poor. If they had any land in Judah, why were they living up in Gallilee?

Poor? Joseph was a professional carpenter, an established craftsman, where is the evidence he was poor? Because of the manger maybe? Remember the reason they were in the barn was there was no room in the Holiday Inn, not because he couldn’t afford a room. He obviously didn’t call ahead for reservations.

steve99:

I’ve read though the link you gave but I think it is full of suppositions and reliance on the opinions of people living long after the event.
As the the Protoevangelium of James, I’ll stiick to scripture which has been inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Oh I stick to Scripture also, it’s just that Scripture tells me it’s obvious Mary was of the house of David. I’ve never been challenged on this one, I always assumed it was obvious to all, thank you for the discussion. The protoevangelium simply is a story, true or not it is possible and not counter to Scripture. I am interested in hearing any good arguments of Mary not being of the house of David. And the link simply shows that most if not all of the early Church fathers also believed she was of the house of David,. And thwey weren’t “long after the event”, if I’m not mistaken, some of them even knew Mary and some of the Apostles.
Well, it’s 11:00 and I have to get up at 4:30 a.m. so I’d better be off.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ be with you always.
Tom

 

[Petergee]

There is an indication in Luke’s gospel that Mary was actually of levitical descent since her cousin, Elizabeth, was of the House of Aaron (Luke 1:5).

You’re making two big assumptions: 1. that by saying Elizabeth was “one of the daughters of Aaron” Luke is referring to Moses’ brother, not to any other Aaron (which was probably a common name in Judea at that time, and people did not have inheritable surnames) 2. That Mary was related to Elizabeth through both her father (Joachim) and Elizabeth’s father, and through a male-only line in both directions. The gospel describes Elizabeth only as Mary’s “kinswoman”. They could have been first, second or third cousins, and related through Mary’s mother (Anne), Elizabeth’s mother, or another female ancestor, in which case Mary need not be of the same “tribe” as Elizabeth.

Also Mary’s family and Joseph were poor. If they had any land in Judah, why were they living up in Gallilee?

You answered your own question in the previous sentences:

The book of Ruth and Nabob’s vinyard in 1Kings show a deep attachment to the land they inherited. But I suggest this would have been destroyed by the return from the exiles. The whole land system would have been changed forever.

After the exile, the Persians, Greeks, Romans and King Herod confiscated land all over the place and gave it to their favourites.