B
batteddy
Guest
The Catholic Encyclopedia on the Virgin Mary says:
- Status
T
Tom
Guest
I would say that the authors of the New Testament were already well aware of the lineage of Mary, it was Joseph they needed to verify and record. The lineage of Mary was adequately spelled out in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, why would they need to restate that which was already known? Joseph on the other hand was not spelled out in Scripture.
G
gryskull
Guest
Not really. If notice the difference between the gospel of matthew and luke you’ll find a difference between the lineage. Matthew traces Jesus’ lineage from Abraham onwards but luke traces it the other way around, from Joseph to Adam.
Matt 1:1-16
*1 1 2 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. **2 **Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. **3 **Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, **4 **Ram the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, **5 **Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse, **6 **Jesse the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon, whose mother had been the wife of Uriah. **7 3 Solomon became the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asaph. **8 **Asaph became the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah. **9 **Uzziah became the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. **10 **Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amos, 4 Amos the father of Josiah. **11 **Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the Babylonian exile. **12 **After the Babylonian exile, Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, **13 **Zerubbabel the father of Abiud. Abiud became the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, **14 **Azor the father of Zadok. Zadok became the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud, **15 **Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, **16 **Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah. *
Luke 3:23-38
*23 12 When Jesus began his ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, **24 **the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, **25 **the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, **26 **the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, **27 **the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, **28 **the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, **29 **the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, **30 **the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, **31 **the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 13 **32 **the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, **33 **the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, **34 **the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, **35 **the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, **36 **the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, **37 **the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, **38 *the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
But if you notice the difference between the father of Joseph. Luke traces Jesus’ lineage thru Mary, Joseph being the son-in-law of Heli.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
Luke does **not **trace the lineage of Mary.
If you read the reference i posted from Eusebius, he reports that the differences between the gospels are that there are 2 ways that Father hood is accounted in Israel, through the law and through generation.
Matthew accounts genealogy through natural generation, however, in Israel, one can be a Father through the law, because if a husband died, the brother would become husband to the widow, thus a son was raised up by law.
There is a nice simple flow chart by Jimmy Akin that explains it here:
cin.org/users/james/file…s_of_Christ.htm
M
Melchior
Guest
Semper Fi:
During Biblical days it was always through the fathers line - but both lines were important. But the males was seen as covenantally primary. However that Mary was of the house of David and that Jesus humanity was of the line of David is beyond dispute for the other reasons you and others gave.
That Joseph was of David’s line only reinforces Jesus heritage since He was of Joseph’s household, and that often mattered as much as blood relations. Circumcision could have made a Dutch boy a son of Joseph of the line of David had he been adopted into that family.
Mel
Just a slight quibble. The “Jewish from the mothers line” was a much later development (centuries) of the Jewish Diaspora in Europe. It became necessary as the Jews were so persecuted and rape of Jewish women so common that to preserve the Hebrew race they could not count on any claim of paternity with certainty, they could only judge for certain by who gave birth, since there was no genetic testing at the time.
During Biblical days it was always through the fathers line - but both lines were important. But the males was seen as covenantally primary. However that Mary was of the house of David and that Jesus humanity was of the line of David is beyond dispute for the other reasons you and others gave.That Joseph was of David’s line only reinforces Jesus heritage since He was of Joseph’s household, and that often mattered as much as blood relations. Circumcision could have made a Dutch boy a son of Joseph of the line of David had he been adopted into that family.
Mel
G
gryskull
Guest
Thanks Dan for letting me know. I’ve read somewhere that Heli was another rendition for Joachim, ie Heliachim. That was something that I thought didn’t go with our tradition that Joachim and Anna were the parents of the Blessed Mother. Hmmm, I got to look into that. Thanks again.
Hey thistle, i stand corrected.
G
gryskull
Guest
I stand corrected with my post about Matthew and Luke. But I still stand on the position that Mary was of Daivds line.
D
Distributist
Guest
This is not something that i have trouble with but what does is that Jesus is only here because of incest - Ruth the grandmother of David was from Moab and Moab was a child of incest between Lot and his daughter.
all i know is that we will find out the mysteries of God and His earth on the last day.
Jonathan
now this doesn’t made sense because Jesus never claimed to be of the Order of Aaron but of the Order of Melchisedech though that doesn’t negate the possiblity.
all i know is that we will find out the mysteries of God and His earth on the last day.
Jonathan
G
gryskull
Guest
Dan,
I read Jimmy Akin’s article and flow chart and it is a pretty good explanation. But looking at what newadvent is saying I can’t disregard the thought that Luke presents the lineage of Jesus through Mary. Here is what newadvent have to say:
Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke’s genealogy, the name of Mary’s father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady’s father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa [25], St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphanius [27], pseudo-Hilarius [28], and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family [30].
Now I remember that this is where I got my info on Mary’s lineage that blends well with our tradition. Any insites?
P.S.
I’ll be reading your link on Eusebius
T
threadkiller
Guest
Sorry folks, I hate to rain on your pre-conceived notions with solid biblical evidence, but for those who have eyes to see. I cite(eyesight. get it?) Luke 1.5: “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah and he had a wife of the DAUGHTERS OF AARON, and her name was Elizabeth”. Now Luke 1.36 “And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren” Now how can Mary descend from the line of David if Elizabeth, a Levite, is her relative? I think Mary is also a Levite, or “daughter of Aaron”.
Jesus gets His priestly lineage through Mary and His kingly lineage by adoption through Joseph. Thus making Him a priest-king after the order of Melchizedek. Heb 6.20. This would make Jesus a Levite, the “Son of David” by adoption. Look at Jesus’ forerunner, Moses. He too, was a Levite who was adopted into a family of kings.Ex. 2.1-10. In the Old Teatament, only the Levites could handle the Ark of the Covenant. If Mary is the new “Ark”, then it is only fitting that her parents were Levites.
Joseph being from the tribe of Judah would be forbidden from touching the “Ark”, thus reinforcing the doctrine of Mary’s “perpetual virginity”.
I think people have a problem with adoption.They think that adoptive parents aren’t true parents. Well, I’ve got news for you folks. We’re all adopted. Rom 8.15. If Jesus can’t be the true “Son of David” by adoption, than how can any of us be true sons and daughters of God by adoption? This would preclude us from crying out “Abba Father”, thus putting us back into the old covenant. I know Rom. 1.3 is often cited to try to make Jesus a blood relative of David because it says “…descended from David according to the flesh”, but I think that the verse highlights the incarnation, not a blood rellaionship to David. Rom 9.5 That verse(Rom1.3) like all verses, should be interpreted in light of all scripture. After all, Jesus said scripture cannot be broken. John 10.35. The problem is that Mary’s lineage is always interpreted “accorrding to the flesh”.
Jesus gets His priestly lineage through Mary and His kingly lineage by adoption through Joseph. Thus making Him a priest-king after the order of Melchizedek. Heb 6.20. This would make Jesus a Levite, the “Son of David” by adoption. Look at Jesus’ forerunner, Moses. He too, was a Levite who was adopted into a family of kings.Ex. 2.1-10. In the Old Teatament, only the Levites could handle the Ark of the Covenant. If Mary is the new “Ark”, then it is only fitting that her parents were Levites.
Joseph being from the tribe of Judah would be forbidden from touching the “Ark”, thus reinforcing the doctrine of Mary’s “perpetual virginity”.
I think people have a problem with adoption.They think that adoptive parents aren’t true parents. Well, I’ve got news for you folks. We’re all adopted. Rom 8.15. If Jesus can’t be the true “Son of David” by adoption, than how can any of us be true sons and daughters of God by adoption? This would preclude us from crying out “Abba Father”, thus putting us back into the old covenant. I know Rom. 1.3 is often cited to try to make Jesus a blood relative of David because it says “…descended from David according to the flesh”, but I think that the verse highlights the incarnation, not a blood rellaionship to David. Rom 9.5 That verse(Rom1.3) like all verses, should be interpreted in light of all scripture. After all, Jesus said scripture cannot be broken. John 10.35. The problem is that Mary’s lineage is always interpreted “accorrding to the flesh”.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
I say, I must bring this up with a priest friend of mine. We had a short discussion on this subject, about Mary’s line. We both agreed that there was descent from Aaron, and we both recognized that it was Mary’s cousin Elizabeth who was also descended from Aaron.
A part of the conversation revolved around Mary as a possible Levite
From my understanding, and according to the traditions of the Church, Mary was a member of the tribe of David. If you go back through the Scripture you will see that girls were expected to marry within their tribe. I cannot remember what part of the Torah it is mentioned but that is something that is part of Jewish law.
According to the traditions (that may stem from the Protoevangelium of James - not a good source in my opinion), Mary was an orphan who lived within the Temple until she reached maturity. That was when the men of her tribe were called to the Temple and a husband was chosen from among them. I am not sure whether this legend is true or not since the source is one that is not 100 per cent reliable due to certain embellishments. However, this same tradition has been reinforced from other sources that others might also think suspect but since there is verification from these different sources I accept that there is some truth in the story.
However, I do think that the strongest argument for Mary being a descendant of David happens to be Genesis 3:14-15, because it is stated that the Messiah would come from the seed of the woman. This is verified by St. Paul’s comments on the same subject, indicating that Mary is also a member of the tribe of David.
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Elizabeth was not Mary’s mother, but a female relative of Mary’s mother. What we know from your quotation is that Mary’s mother had a relationship to the house of Aaron.
Also, you have ignored Genesis 3-14-15 in your analysis.
T
threadkiller
Guest
Mary became a member of the “House of David” when she married Joseph. That dosen’t conflict with Gen 3.14-15 or Paul’s comments about her.I say, I must bring this up with a priest friend of mine. We had a short discussion on this subject, about Mary’s line. We both agreed that there was descent from Aaron, and we both recognized that it was Mary’s cousin Elizabeth who was also descended from Aaron.
A part of the conversation revolved around Mary as a possible Levite
From my understanding, and according to the traditions of the Church, Mary was a member of the tribe of David. If you go back through the Scripture you will see that girls were expected to marry within their tribe. I cannot remember what part of the Torah it is mentioned but that is something that is part of Jewish law.
According to the traditions (that may stem from the Protoevangelium of James - not a good source in my opinion), Mary was an orphan who lived within the Temple until she reached maturity. That was when the men of her tribe were called to the Temple and a husband was chosen from among them. I am not sure whether this legend is true or not since the source is one that is not 100 per cent reliable due to certain embellishments. However, this same tradition has been reinforced from other sources that others might also think suspect but since there is verification from these different sources I accept that there is some truth in the story.
However, I do think that the strongest argument for Mary being a descendant of David happens to be Genesis 3:14-15, because it is stated that the Messiah would come from the seed of the woman. This is verified by St. Paul’s comments on the same subject, indicating that Mary is also a member of the tribe of David.
As far as Church traditon goes, the Cathechism states that Mary is a “daughter of Israel”. So I don’t know what traditions you’re refering to.
T
Tom
Guest
No need to be sorry, since these “kinswomen” could be related by various relationships I don’t see why they could not be considered from different tribes. Could St Anne (or a more distant relative) have had a sister who married a Levite who gave birth to Elizabeth? She would be considered a Levite even though she was from Judah? I mean there are any number of ways this could be possible, no? The OT specifically says the virgin would be of the house of David, and the seed of the woman would be the Christ, and the Child would be of the “seed of the flesh” of David.
T
Tom
Guest
That would be Numbers chaps 27-29, but it only pertains to women who have no brothers, so that the inheritance would remain within the tribe.
T
threadkiller
Guest
I never stated that Elizabeth was Mary’s mother. I said that her parents were Levites. They being St. Ann and St. Joachim. I’ll try to be more exact next time.
I didn’t ignore Gen 3.14-15. I just didn’t think about it. I did not and do not see it’s relevance here.
You’ve completely “ignored” the scriptural evidence that I’ve presented to bolster my claim. There’s more, but I don’t know if I should present it or not. If you dismissed the little, how can you be trusted with more? Luke 19.26. Nonetheless, I’ll take a leap of faith and hope that maybe you’ll at least consider some of the evidence that I present. Here goes. Every king that sat on the throne of David was an adopted son. 2 Sam 7.12-14. That includes the present occupant of that throne. Jesus, God Himself, who condescended to allow Himself to be adopted by man. Luke 3.23 This is how Jesus became the “Son of David”. Through adoption. In like manner, we become sons and daughters of God through adoption. Rom 1.3.
Christ’s Levitical ancestors had to be between the ages of thirty and fifty years old to service the tent of meeting.Num. 4.3, 23, 30, 47. Jesus Himself was between the age of thirty and fifty years old during His ministry on earth. Luke 3.23 > John 8.57.
The prophet Samuel, a forerunner of Jesus, was a Levite. 1Sam 2.11. Samuel’s mother Hannah, one who was called barren 1 Sam 1.5, a forerunner of Mary (2 Sam 1-10) was a Levite…Elizabeth, one who is called barren, a relative of Mary’s (Luke 1.35), was a Levite. Luke 1.5.
Here’ a snippet of the footnotes on the “Presentaion of Jesus” Luke 2.22-38 from the New American Bible: “…The law further stipulated (Nm.3.47,48) that the firstborn son should be redeemed by the parents through the payment of five shekels to a member of a priestly family. About this legal requirement Luke is silent”. Num 3. 47,48: “you shall take five shekels for each individual, according to the standard of the sanctuary shekel, twenty gerahs to the shekel. Give this silver to Aaron and his sons as ransom for the extra numbers”. Why should Joseph and Mary pay a ransom to the sons of Aaron if Jesus is a son of Aaron? Through Mary of course. Luke 1.5, 36. Maybe this is why Luke is silent on the ransom requirement.
Well anyway, just some more scriptural evidence as to the Lineage of Jesus and Mary that you might consider or “ignore”.
T
threadkiller
Guest
I guess if you isolate verses and read scripture with a protestant rather than a catholic sense, then you can speculate all you want. It just depends on how strongly you feel about holding on to your pre-conceived notions. Like MaggieOH, you ignore all the other scriptural evidence I presented. I agree that the OT says that the virgin will be of the “House of David”.Isaiah 7.13, 14. When Mary married Joseph, she became a member of the “House of David”. That fullfills the Old Testament prophecy quite nicely. That dosen’t mean her Levitcal heritage disappeared.
Jesus is our High Priest as well as our King.Heb 6.30& 8.1,2.
Again I say Jesus gets His priestly lineage through Mary and His kingly lineage through Joseph. At least I’ve presented scriptural evidence to bolster my claim. You should do the same minus the imaginative speculation about who might have married who.
By the way. Where does it say the “seed of the flesh” of David and what does that mean in light of Jesus’ admonition that “It is the spirit that gives life, the FLESH is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life”? John 6.63 I think that spirit is the spirit of adoption. That spirit that brought Jesus into the “House of David” and brought us into the “House of God”.
T
Tom
Guest
You really lost me there! You are speculating on Mary being a Levite. Are you saying anyone who disagrees with your view must be Protestant?
No, I didn’t ignore it, I simply don’t see your “proof”. You make a lot of claims and logic but no Church teaching to back it up.
www.drbo.org:
Joseph did not take Mary as wife until after she was found to be with child, she was not of the house of David by Joseph until after the Spirit had overshadowed her. See also the note on Mt1, 16 from the DR Bible
www.drbo.org:
Those darned Protestant writers… oh wait they are Catholic… BTW since this is an approved Catholic Bible I think I’ll agree with my Church, but I’m open to view your official Church documents which say she must be Levite.
T
Tom
Guest
My speculation was simply to point out that your interpretation lacked merit.
www.drbo.org:
the seed of David , “ACCORDING TO THE FLESH” is fairly clear we’re not talking by adoption. You and I of course are adopted into His brotherhood, He was of the house of David, but not by adoption.
T
Tom
Guest
So this says Elizabeth was a Levite, where does it mention Mary? Simply says they are kin, doesn’t say they are both Levite does it?
Pure speculation, and contrary to Scripture as has already been addressed.
There are so very many possibilities here I won’t even speculate as you are.
O.K. olive branch time, it really makes little difference, it shouldn’t make or break anyone’s faith.
- Status