Who are Virgin Mary's parents?

Comments

• But the question is only about the Virgin Mary - and there's only one of those.
  .
  Also, no where in the Bible does it state or imply that Mary was of the tribe of Judah let alone a descendent of David. Given her relationship with Elizabeth, it's likely she was of a priestly (Levite) family. (Please, don't bring up the geneology in Luke: that's Joseph's biological geneology -- the one in Matthew is the Royal Succession list - which past from one heir to his closest male heir, but not necessarily his son.)

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on February 9th, 2009

• Explanation given is accurate .

  • Report
  

  by seahorse on February 9th, 2009

• thanks for the -, I never downgrade anyone just because I dont agree with them everyone is entitled to their viewpoint ,, not christian to down rate .

  • Report
  

  by seahorse on February 9th, 2009

• Accurate according to whom? There is no evidence for Mary being of the tribe of Judah, let alone a descendant of David: it's not stated or implied by the Bible; it is not part of Church tradition - nor even, to the best of my understanding, Marian theology. It was pop view that originated among pop apologists in later times who assumed that would explain the variant "geneologies" in Matthew and Luke (it doesn't) and that that would explain how Jesus could be born of a virgin and yet be David's heir (which it doesn't, because the promise is for a male-line descendant). Even RCC teaching has Mary being of a Priestly family.
  .
  And I downrate not for disagreements but for errors, faulty logic, and false assertions. Though in your case, it was a mistake - a stray click. For whatever reason, it won't let me just set it back to 0: given the choice between giving you +2 or -1, I thought the latter more justified.

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on February 9th, 2009

• I am not worried about being downrated , just think it not a nice thing to do ,to anyone.
  will post more info will do more research and get back to you , late here past bed-time

  • Report
  

  by seahorse on February 9th, 2009

Comments

• Sts.Anne&Joachim According to tradition from the early years and The Gospel of James which was once a gospel before it was decided to be a Apocrypha (doubt of inspiration by the Holy Spirit) Protestants call the deutrocanicals Apocrypha which is false

  • Report
  

  by tiburon2 on August 31st, 2006

• It wasn't "decided" to be Apocryphal: it was never considered to be authoritative/canonical: it does not appear on any canon list (while the 4 canonical Gospels are on them all, including the oldest ones from the 2nd century); no Patristic or heretical writer ever references it as a prooftext (unlike the Canonical Gospels) nor do they write any commentaries on it (unlike the Canonical Gospels).
  
  Also, don't confuse the OT Apocrypha (much of which is considered deutero-canonical by the RCC and the Orthodox) with the NT Apocrypha, which NO sect or denomination regards as Canonical or Deutero-Canonical. And as "The Gospel of James" is ascribed to James the brother of Chist - and clearly wasn't written by him - it is classed by all of Christianity as part of the Pseudopigrapha (false writings).

  • Report
  

  by Stormarm on February 9th, 2009

Comments