Is St.Anne the Grandmother of God?

[Axion]

Nonie:

hello,
I thought the Church taught that Mary had to be concieved without sin because God couldn’t be born of a sinner because that would make his human nature sinful as well. I believe the Church looks at Marys relationship to Jesus in a logical manner. If Jesus is God and is perfect, and his human nature is taken from that of Mary then she would have to be perfect as well.
I could be mistaken on this point. My theology is a little rusty that is why I am here at this site!
Nonie

Yes. Since Jesus got His human nature from Mary, that human nature could not be sinful. This is because if Jesus took on a sinful nature, He would become a sinner in need of redemption.

Mary is different. She is human, not God, and therefore Mary can be born of sinful parents. She can be redeemed - as she was redeemed (preserved from sin) at her conception. This is why the Imacculate Conception happened, because Mary did have parents subject to original sin.

 

[mark_a]

Della:

And all so they can avoid what they actually cannot avoid if they want to fully understand the Incarnation.

Hello Della,

I recognise your name from this forum and consider you to be one of the “big guns” here.

Do you think you can explain the incarnation to me? Sometimes I think I may have an inkling, a momentary glimpse. But then it all returns to that same fuzzy mystery.

 

[forthright]

Axion:

Yes. Since Jesus got His human nature from Mary, that human nature could not be sinful. This is because if Jesus took on a sinful nature, He would become a sinner in need of redemption.

We should be careful not to imply that God has to do things a certain way. If God had deemed to protect Jesus from the effects of original sin in some other manner, he could have. The method he chose was to have Mary immaculately conceived. Mary’s immaculate conception was not mandatory for God.

 

[linus]

Orionthehunter:

If one is FULL of Grace, they have no room for any sin, including original sin. You have to keep in mind that the Bible talks about how Jesus died to forgive our sins. However, we are never removed of the stain (residual) of sin until we are purified in Heaven. Since Mary was still of this world, she could only be FULL if she never had sinned and thus never even had a stain of sin. Otherwise, being FULL of Grace would be impossible.

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. 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). That’s why Jesus was born of a virgin. Mary, like all of us, was born a sinner, being IN ADAM.

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.

Blessings,
L.

 

[jasonb82abn]

Jmj

Linus, you have some interesting points and opinions! They are well thought-out, no doubt. It is also fair that you try to disprove the Immaculate Conception through reason. You cannot, of course, disprove it… though you may make a convincing argument.

I think the real reason **you ** doubt the truth of the Immaculate Conception is because you are Protestant. Not to say that some Catholics might not understand it either. You have the “right” to “believe” anything you want, especially **because ** you are a Protestant. But, believing error won’t make it true… regardless of how much “evidence” can be provided to support your theories.

It comes down to authority I think. You accept the authority of the Catholic Church on certain things… and reject that authority when it suits you. But, you are not the only one – and I am glad you are here, posting on these forums, at all! I have hope for you Linus! I also have hope that you will not always be afraid of your mother! St. Mary is a wonderful and “gracious” advocate for us all! I think if you start to see her as more that just a “woman” who gave birth to God… and realize that you too have a connection with this “woman” - you will find it easier to turn to her.

We, as Christians, imitate Christ. And Mary is truly our mother! And I assure you… Jesus will not be offended if you love and honor His mother - He did. We’re just following His lead!

Come home my friend! You’re very close right now – all you need to make the trip is faith, the understanding will follow.

May the Lord be with you!

Jason

 

[steve99]

LSK:

Remember, Jesus was born of Mary, who was of the house of David. His lineage as a Jew and as a member of David’s House is quite important as part of Salvation History…do you think that’s why they are concerned with this?

Where does it say in scripture that Mary was of the house of David? I thought that one of the important points about Joseph marrying mary has that he was of the house of David, and therefore Jesus became legally of the house of David through Joseph.

 

[Contarini]

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.

That’s a flawed and inadequate theology. The purpose of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was to purchase for God a glorious Church having no spot or wrinkle. (Eph. 5:25-27) In the Roman Catholic view, Mary is the foretaste of this. I think they go too far in saying that she never experienced original sin. But they have a far better and more Biblical conception of salvation than you appear to do (judging from this one post).

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).

So you have latched onto the weakest and most questionable part of Augustine’s original sin theory, have you? There’s nothing sinful about “normal birth.” Sin is not part of what it means to be human. It is a corruption of human nature, and God’s purpose is to free us from it.

Edwin

 

[forthright]

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. 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). That’s why Jesus was born of a virgin. Mary, like all of us, was born a sinner, being IN ADAM.

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.

Blessings,
L.

Do the verses you quote indicate that Jesus sinned too? He was a man after all. What about the millions of aborted babies? Is there no hope for them because they did not know Jesus?

Remember, we do not say the Mary did not need a savior. We all do, including her. (She even said “my soul rejoices in God my savior.”) She was saved from sin by a special grace that prevented it.

As an analogy, suppose you stop someone from accidentally falling into an open manhole. You have saved them from the fall. If you look down inside and find others who have already fallen, you can pull them out and save them as well. All of them were saved, but one of them was saved without actually falling in the sewer.

 

[b_justb]

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!!

Yep Anne was Jesus’ Grandma, and John the Baptist was Jesus’ cousin.

 

[linus]

Contarini:

That’s a flawed and inadequate theology. The purpose of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was to purchase for God a glorious Church having no spot or wrinkle. (Eph. 5:25-27)

There’s nothing “flawed” in my theology. I certainly concur with what you state above, but in context of that passage the Church being “cleansed,” and “having no spot or wrinkle” is through Christ Himself sanctifying her by “the washing of water WITH THE WORD…” (Eph. 5:26). In this context it is not the cross or water baptism, but abiding in the Word of God - this Word being the Scriptures. And this Church He presents to HIMSELF in all her glory (Eph. 5:27).

Now corresponding to this is, the reconciliation Christ accomplished though His work on the cross is also a cause for the holiness and blamelessness of the Church when she is presented before Him (see Col. 1:22; cf. Rom 5:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:14-21).

Of course none of this is possible unless ALL her sins are forever forgiven, which is accomplished completely and perfectly through the substitutionary, sin-sacrifice of Christ.

In the Roman Catholic view, Mary is the foretaste of this

I’m glad you said “in the Roman Catholic view,” because you’ll find no such teaching by the Apostles in the Scriptures.

I think they go too far in saying that she never experienced original sin.

One does not “experience” original sin, one is naturally born with it. It is impossible for any of Adam’s posterity to be born without it, and the majority of his posterity will experience the effects of it - death (Rom. 5:17). For this reason even infants are subject to death.

But this Adamic curse is quashed by and through faith in the “Last Adam,” Jesus Christ. Instead of “condemnation” to all men in Adam, there results “justification” to all men who are now “in Christ,” the “Last Adam,” through faith in Him (Rom. 5:18). Instead of “death” which reigns in Adam, the “gift of righteousness” reigns IN LIFE through Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:18), our new Federal Head. Through Adam’s one act of disobedience, says the Scriptures, all of Adam’s posterity were “made sinners” (Rom. 5:18). But through the one act of obedience by the Last Adam, Jesus Christ (His sacrificial death on the cross), all true believers in Him are "made righteous (Rom. 5:19; cf. 2 Cor. 5:21).

It is the one who is now “in Christ Jesus” who is “made” blameless and spotless because of the cross Christ endured as a sin-sacrifice. As the Apostle Paul states:

"And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11; cf. 1 Cor. 1:2, 30).

But they have a far better and more Biblical conception of salvation than you appear to do (judging from this one post).

Not based on what I posted above.

There’s nothing sinful about “normal birth.” Sin is not part of what it means to be human. It is a corruption of human nature, and God’s purpose is to free us from it.

NONE of Adam’s posterity become “sinners” by personally sinning. We’re BORN sinners, being born IN ADAM. Paul states this clearly when he says “…IN ADAM all die” (1 Cor. 15:22). Adam, the Federal head of all mankind, became of sinner by actually sinning, i.e, by personally transgressing a definite Commandment back in the Garden. But all of us, his posterity, are BORN sinners, being born IN ADAM (Rom 5:18; cf. 5:12).

Jesus didn’t come to merely free us from a “corrupt nature,” but to free us from Adam himself- from the Divine judgment, condemnation and death that all born in him inherit. This He accomplished through His death on the cross, where He took upon Himself, as a substitutionary sacrifice, our sins and our judgment, dying in our stead. To the end that all who believe in Him, by the power of God, through the cross, are no longer “in Adam,” but *“in Christ,” * the “Last Adam,” “made righteous.” God now sees humanity either “in Adam” or “in Christ.”

In whom are you Contarini, and on what basis?

No, Contarini, RC’ism does not have a better, Biblical conception of salvation than I (nor do you). And, yes, Contarini, there is everything sinful about a “normal birth.” Because by “normal birth” one is born “in Adam” (including Mary), and from the moment of conception under Divine condemnation and judgment, destined to die (including Mary). Mankind’s ONLY hope is to (through faith in Christ) be born again out of Adam and into Christ Jesus, the "Last Adam, " made righteous IN HIM.

The incarnation has ALL to do with Jesus Christ - none of Mary.

Blessing,
L.

 

[linus]

forthright:

Do the verses you quote indicate that Jesus sinned too?

Absolutely not. He was not born in sin, i.e., born IN ADAM, but is Himself a “Last Adam.” In His humanity, a direct creation of God. This was the purpose of the virgin birth.

What about the millions of aborted babies? Is there no hope for them because they did not know Jesus?

These we leave in the hands of God Himself who is infinitely just.

She was saved from sin by a special grace that prevented it.

Proof?

As an analogy, suppose you stop someone from accidentally falling into an open manhole. You have saved them from the fall. If you look down inside and find others who have already fallen, you can pull them out and save them as well. All of them were saved, but one of them was saved without actually falling in the sewer.

The problem with your analogy is that the cross does not, nor cannot, prevent anyone, even Mary, from being born IN ADAM. The virgin would have to have been virgin born herself to be free of Adam’s sin (original sin). She was not.

Blessings,
L.

 

[mlchance]

linus:

It is impossible for any of Adam’s posterity to be born without it, and the majority of his posterity will experience the effects of it - death (Rom. 5:17).

With God all things are possible. – God

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Tom]

steve99:

Where does it say in scripture that Mary was of the house of David? I thought that one of the important points about Joseph marrying mary has that he was of the house of David, and therefore Jesus became legally of the house of David through Joseph.

Try Numbers 1-5 & 35-36
Scripture is not silent on the lineage of Mary. Joseph and Mary were devout Jews who knew and followed the Law. Mary was an only child, as such she was required, by Jewish Law (Numbers 36, 7), to marry a man from her own “tribe” or house. Both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRBrg
Numbers 36, 5 Moses answered the children of Israel, and said by the command of the Lord: The tribe of the children of Joseph hath spoken rightly. 6 And this is the law promulgated by the Lord touching the daughters of Salphaad: Let them marry to whom they will, only so that it be to men of their own tribe. 7 Lest the possession of the children of Israel be mingled from tribe to tribe. For all men shall marry wives of their own tribe and kindred: 8 And all women shall take husbands of the same tribe: that the inheritance may remain in the families,
This of course must be kept in context, it only applies to families who have no male children. Men must marry within their own tribe only if their wife to be has no brother.

 

[Contarini]

linus:

There’s nothing “flawed” in my theology. I certainly concur with what you state above, but in context of that passage the Church being “cleansed,” and “having no spot or wrinkle” is through Christ Himself sanctifying her by “the washing of water WITH THE WORD…” (Eph. 5:26). In this context it is not the cross or water baptism, but abiding in the Word of God - this Word being the Scriptures. And this Church He presents to HIMSELF in all her glory (Eph. 5:27).

So Scripture says “water” but you don’t believe it? On what basis do you allegorize this particular passage? Given that the Church has historically seen the water as the water of baptism, why do you interject a non-literal interpretation here contrary to the faith of historic Christianity?

Ephesians does not say that “the Word” is Scripture. On what basis do you claim this? (And no, I’m not denying that the Scriptures are the written Word of God. All Scripture is the Word of God, and Scripture is the only written form of the Word of God. But nothing here indicates that we are talking about the written Word rather than the proclaimed Word.)

The work of Christ on the Cross is applied to us through the proclamation of the Word of God, received in faith and sealed in the waters of baptism. This is the historic belief of the Church, and it fits the Scriptural texts you have cited with no need to stretch and strain. Your interpretation involves arbitrary allegorization and the creation of distinctions alien to the natural sense of the text and the historic faith of the Church.
You wind up setting different parts of the Christian Faith–the Cross, the Word of God, and water baptism–against each other, as if each does something quite different. Why do you do this? What is your Scriptural justification for this cutting and slicing?

Now corresponding to this is, the reconciliation Christ accomplished though His work on the cross is also a cause for the holiness and blamelessness of the Church when she is presented before Him (see Col. 1:22; cf. Rom 5:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:14-21).

Good. We agree so far.

Of course none of this is possible unless ALL her sins are forever forgiven, which is accomplished completely and perfectly through the substitutionary, sin-sacrifice of Christ.

But again, this needs to be applied to individuals through repentance and faith. I’m sure you agree that all human beings are not automatically saved by the work of Christ. We must repent and believe.

 

[Contarini]

It is impossible for any of Adam’s posterity to be born without it

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.

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.

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.

But through the one act of obedience by the Last Adam, Jesus Christ (His sacrificial death on the cross), all true believers in Him are "made righteous (Rom. 5:19; cf. 2 Cor. 5:21).

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

It is the one who is now “in Christ Jesus” who is “made” blameless and spotless because of the cross Christ endured as a sin-sacrifice.

No need for scare quotes. We are truly being made blameless and spotless. But the process is not yet finished, and in the meantime we have forgiveness for our sins and errors through the blood of Christ, as long as we continue to repent and believe.

Jesus didn’t come to merely free us from a “corrupt nature,” but to free us from Adam himself- from the Divine judgment, condemnation and death that all born in him inherit.

If by “Adam” you mean “the Divine judgment, etc.,” then we do not disagree. A corrupt nature has exactly those consequences, and we have all received a corrupt nature from Adam.

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.

God now sees humanity either “in Adam” or “in Christ.”

In whom are you Contarini, and on what basis?

In Christ, on the basis of the Cross and Resurrection, received through (continual) faith and repentance, and sealed in the waters of baptism.

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.

The incarnation has ALL to do with Jesus Christ - none of Mary.

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.) Indeed, you can’t talk about Christ without talking about the whole human race, from Adam onwards, as Luke shows in his genealogy in chap. 3. You seem to want to separate Christ entirely from humanity. That leaves us with no
Christ and no salvation.

Edwin

 

[steve99]

Tom:

Try Numbers 1-5 & 35-36
Scripture is not silent on the lineage of Mary. Joseph and Mary were devout Jews who knew and followed the Law. Mary was an only child, as such she was required, by Jewish Law (Numbers 36, 7), to marry a man from her own “tribe” or house. Both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRBrg
Numbers 36, 5 Moses answered the children of Israel, and said by the command of the Lord: The tribe of the children of Joseph hath spoken rightly. 6 And this is the law promulgated by the Lord touching the daughters of Salphaad: Let them marry to whom they will, only so that it be to men of their own tribe. 7 Lest the possession of the children of Israel be mingled from tribe to tribe. For all men shall marry wives of their own tribe and kindred: 8 And all women shall take husbands of the same tribe: that the inheritance may remain in the families,
This of course must be kept in context, it only applies to families who have no male children. Men must marry within their own tribe only if their wife to be has no brother.

That’s a good argument that I haven’t seen before.
But how do we know that Mary was an only child?

 

[steve99]

Tom:

Try Numbers 1-5 & 35-36
Scripture is not silent on the lineage of Mary. Joseph and Mary were devout Jews who knew and followed the Law. Mary was an only child, as such she was required, by Jewish Law (Numbers 36, 7), to marry a man from her own “tribe” or house. Both Joseph and Mary were of the house of David.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRBrg
Numbers 36, 5 Moses answered the children of Israel, and said by the command of the Lord: The tribe of the children of Joseph hath spoken rightly. 6 And this is the law promulgated by the Lord touching the daughters of Salphaad: Let them marry to whom they will, only so that it be to men of their own tribe. 7 Lest the possession of the children of Israel be mingled from tribe to tribe. For all men shall marry wives of their own tribe and kindred: 8 And all women shall take husbands of the same tribe: that the inheritance may remain in the families,
This of course must be kept in context, it only applies to families who have no male children. Men must marry within their own tribe only if their wife to be has no brother.

Further thoughts on your point above. This argument only shows that Mary was of the tribe of Judah not of the house of David (and that assumes she was an only child as I said above).
She might have had elder brothers who would then be uncles of God - to try and relate this to the original point of the thread

 

[Tom]

steve99:

Further thoughts on your point above. This argument only shows that Mary was of the tribe of Judah not of the house of David (and that assumes she was an only child as I said above).
She might have had elder brothers who would then be uncles of God - to try and relate this to the original point of the thread

That Mary was a direct physical descendant of King David is a teaching of the Fathers of the Church. Whether this fact is illustrated in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew is a more particular question, but the idea that Mary’s descent can be traced directly from David has been held since ancient times. A.J. Maas testifies as follows:

“Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Num 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 (Eph. l8), 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., Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8. St. John Damascene (De Fide Orthodoxa IV:14) states that Mary’s great-grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli’s cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli’s levirate son. … At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.” 15
St. Ignatius, second successor of St. Peter to the See of Antioch, martyred in the Colosseum of Rome about 110 A.D., declared: “I offer my life’s breath for the sake of the Cross, which is a stumbling block to unbelievers, but to us is salvation and eternal life. What has become of the philosopher? What of the controversialist? What of the vaunting of so-called intellectuals? The fact is, our God Jesus Christ was indeed conceived by Mary according to God’s dispensation of the seed of David, but also of the Holy Spirit.” 16
St. Justin, martyred in Rome about 165 A.D., in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, asserts time and again that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, who was physically descended from King David. In one place (No. 100) he is more specific: “Therefore (Christ) revealed to us all that we have perceived by his grace out of the Scriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures; likewise to be the Son of the patriarchs, since He became flesh from the Virgin descended from them, and submitted to become a man without comeliness, dishonoured, and subject to suffering. … He said that He was the Son of man, either because He had been born from the Virgin, who was, as I said, descended from the stock of David and Jacob and Isaac and Abraham: or because Abraham was the father both of Himself and of those whom I have enumerated, from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear.” 17
St. Irenaeus (ca. 140-202 A.D.), in his work Against Heretics, speaks of Jesus, “Who was of a virgin who was of the stock of David.” Irenaeus, after reasoning that Jesus could not properly have inherited the promises through Joseph, because in the genealogy of Joseph (Mt 1:2-16) his ancestor Jechonias had been prophetically deprived of the Messianic inheritance, turns to the genealogy of Luke and speaks of the Virgin Mary. 18
The Greek philosopher Celsus, a great opponent of Christianity, in his so-titled True Discourse, written about 178 A.D., accuses Christians of insolence for having drawn up a genealogy of Jesus that traces his descent through the kings of the Jews all the way back to the first man and declares: “And so the wife of a carpenter would not have been unaware that she arose from such great ancestry!” Thus, the pagan Celsus in the second century saw the genealogy of Luke, and possibly that of Matthew, as pertaining to the Virgin Mary, and he attacked Christians for believing that this was the descent of Mary. Origen, writing Against Celsus in about 246 A.D., does not deny that Christians believe this about Mary. Rather he says: “So what? Say that she was not unaware. What does that do to us? Say that she was unaware. Does it follow from this that she was not descended from the first man or that her lineage does not pertain to the kings of the Jews? Does Celsus think that poor people are always born from poor people and kings from kings? It seems useless, therefore, to tarry longer over these things, since it is clear even in our age that some who are poorer than Mary have been born of rich and illustrious parents, and potentates and kings born of the least noble.” 19 The point to be drawn from this exchange is that in the second and third centuries Christians were attributing to Mary a genealogical descent identical in at least some elements with the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

For the complete article go to:
rtforum.org/lt/lt11.html

 

[Tom]

steve99:

That’s a good argument that I haven’t seen before.
But how do we know that Mary was an only child?

From writings other than Scripture, such as the Protoevangelium of James, as well as others.
These are not Scripture and no guarantee of their accuracy is given, but they do give an historical, and at the time, accepted account of the life of Mary. I personally don’t need “proof” either way. To me the argument is strictly to “prove” the Catholic Church incorrect so that we can justify not being a part of the Church that Jesus Christ established. Silly attempt if you ask me.
To read the Protoevangelium go to: newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
Again, neither the Catholic Church nor I make any statement as to the “gospel truth” of these ancient writings. Believe them if you like reject them if you like.

 

[steve99]

Tom:

That Mary was a direct physical descendant of King David is a teaching of the Fathers of the Church. Whether this fact is illustrated in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew is a more particular question, but the idea that Mary’s descent can be traced directly from David has been held since ancient times. A.J. Maas testifies as follows:
For the complete article go to:
rtforum.org/lt/lt11.html

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