Posted on 05/19/2011 6:07:52 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
The great-grandmother of Jesus was a woman named Ismeria, according to Florentine medieval manuscripts analyzed by a historian.
The legend of St. Ismeria, presented in the current Journal of Medieval History, sheds light on both the Biblical Virgin Mary's family and also on religious and cultural values of 14th-century Florence.
"I don't think any other woman is mentioned" as Mary's grandmother in the Bible, Catherine Lawless, author of the paper, told Discovery News. "Mary's patrilineal lineage is the only one given."
"Mary herself is mentioned very little in the Bible," added Lawless, a lecturer in history at the University of Limerick. "The huge Marian cult that has evolved over centuries has very few scriptural sources."
Lawless studied the St. Ismeria story, which she said has been "ignored by scholars," in two manuscripts: the 14th century "MS Panciatichiano 40" of Florence's National Central Library and the 15th century "MS 1052" of the Riccardiana Library, also in Florence.
"According to the legend, Ismeria is the daughter of Nabon of the people of Judea, and of the tribe of King David," wrote Lawless. She married "Santo Liseo," who is described as "a patriarch of the people of God." The legend continues that the couple had a daughter named Anne who married Joachim. After 12 years, Liseo died. Relatives then left Ismeria penniless.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.discovery.com ...
Your lack of understanding and familiarity with God’s word is astounding.
The key to understanding God’s provision for his remnant of Israel lies in the epistle to the Romans. In chapter 10 and thereafter, Paul explains that Israel is to be blinded ‘in part’ until the time of the fullness of the gentiles.
Clearly, that time has yet to come, in as much as large numbers of Asians continue to come the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, therefore those Jews that presently have a relationship with the Lord cannot be said to constitute that remnant. Furthermore they, as believers, are among the “wise virgins” of which Christ spoke in the parable regarding the “rapture” or “First Resurrection,” (same event, different terminology) and thus will not be present on Earth when the Remnant is carried into their sanctuary in the desert.
What’s astounding is your inability to read the plain text of Revelation 12, and instead insert your own presumption (or, more likely, that fed to you). My understanding and familiarity is not so lacking as to have immediately figured what you were referring to, but then to also recognize it for the counter-biblical bilge that it is.
Thank ‘you’, and all the other respondents for the ‘clarification’ on ‘Saints’.
Thank ‘you’, and all the other respondents for the ‘clarification’ on ‘Saints’.
Spoken like a true Bible hating papist.
Hee hee hee hee. I love it.
I quote the bible to you to point out how your assertions are directly contradicted by the bible, and rather than post a reasonable response, you call me a “bible-hating papist.”
You “quote” the Bible, and then assign satanic nonsense interpretations to it, and want a more ‘reasonable’ response?
>> You “quote” the Bible, <<
Are you saying I didn’t really quote it, and merely “quoted” it?
>> then assign satanic nonsense interpretations to it, <<
It’s a Satanic interpretation to suppose that “those who hold fast to the their testimony about Jesus” aren’t “blinded Jews”? Or that Mary gave birth to Messiah, fled to Egypt, and was preserved from sin?
Oh, I know what you really mean... it’s Satanic to oppose the nonsensical, counter-biblical teachings of whatever preacher destroyed your God-given faculties of reason.
>> and want a more ‘reasonable’ response? <<
Well, yeah if someone were misquoting the bible and leading people astray, I certainly would expect a Christian would correct their error, which is why I corrected you. Well, my Christian need to be truthful demands I also confess to having a little fun.
Maiden name was Yadont.
Can’t prove it and wouldn’t try, but I’ve always thought Mary was the source of the gospel of Luke, due to the perspective. The giveaway line is “Mary kept these things and pondered them in her heart.” Who would write that unless told, and who would tell it? A devoted scribe listening to an elderly lady, that’s who!
Or if she wasn’t the interviewee, she was the editor :)
Many years ago I met an old gentleman who said his given name was “Scripture” and I inquired how that came about.
It seems his parents didn’t read too well and seeking a name from the Bible for their newborn they picked the first capitalized word that looked like a proper name, “Scripture”.
Well, that IS the story he told and I’ve no reason to doubt it.
“How idiotic can “scholars” get?”
Have you read the scholar’s work? If not, remember that it was filtered through the brain of a reporter. REPORTERS are widely known to not have two brain cells to rub together, and generally go for “the story” not the facts. Since I’ve not read the scholar’s works myself, it’s not proven that the scholar is innocent, but with a reporter involved, it’s at least a possibility.
HTH!
>> “Or that Mary gave birth to Messiah, fled to Egypt, and was preserved from sin?” <<
.
To say that Mary was “preserved from sin” is a lie from the pit of hell, and I urge you to reject that work of the adversary.
Second, Revelation 12 has absolutely nothing to say about Mary. It speaks to the remnant of the descendants of Jacob during the tribulation.
Looking for affirmation of falsehoods is not “reasonable.”
A very cogent point!
Obviously Luke was not a witness to those events. He was just a very competent journalist.
>> “How can a medieval legend shed light on historic geneology a thousand years plus prior?” <<
.
It obviously cannot.
But if it would support what a reader is predisposed to believe, then it is given undue credence.
>> To say that Mary was “preserved from sin” is a lie from the pit of hell, and I urge you to reject that work of the adversary.
Second, Revelation 12 has absolutely nothing to say about Mary. It speaks to the remnant of the descendants of Jacob during the tribulation.
Looking for affirmation of falsehoods is not “reasonable.” <<
Says who? You? You want me to believe you when Revelations 12 explicitly states that the remnant are those who hold fast to their testimony concerning Christ? It doesn’t cease to amaze me: the bible could state, “Water is wet!” And so many anti-Catholics like you could insist that the bible states that water is dry.
>> “You want me to believe you when Revelations 12 explicitly states that the remnant are those who hold fast to their testimony concerning Christ?” <<
.
An apples and oranges dodge!
Rev 12 is after the fullness of the gentiles, and after the “first resurrection.”
Disallowing Hal Camping, that is in the future, not present believers.
OK, there we go... now I’m getting some reasoned response from you, not just denunciations as declarations of satanism.
Here’s the thing: I totally get where you’re supposing that the *remnant* exists in the future... but Revelations doesn’t refer to “those Jews who held fast to their testimony concerning Christ.” That something someone invented, in plain contradiction of the bible.
Besides, those Jews won’t be a mere remnant. Revelation can’t refer to Romans 10-11, because in those times, Israel is no remnant: “in this way all Israel will be saved.” True, this Hebrew word translated as “all” doesn’t necessarily mean, “every individual, without exception.” (Just like Paul’s assertion that “all have sinned” doesn’t mean that Jesus or Mary have sinned.) That would be universalism among the Jews. But it does mean that more than a mere remnant shall be saved.
See, you may disagree with us Catholics, but we do base our beliefs on the scripture. Yes, we also based them on Tradition, but the test of the authenticity of Tradition is its agreement with scripture. They are mutually inclusive of each other.
>> “Just like Paul’s assertion that “all have sinned” doesn’t mean that Jesus or Mary have sinned” <<
.
Jesus was born sinless, while Mary was born in sin. Mary rightly declared herself in need of a savior, and any assertion to the contrary is pure idolatry.
>> “Besides, those Jews won’t be a mere remnant. Revelation can’t refer to Romans 10-11, because in those times, Israel is no remnant” <<
.
The Israel refered to in Revelation is definitely the remnant. How all Israel will be saved remains a mystery that Paul was not compelled to reveal to us. By the shed blood of Christ to be sure, but the details have not been shown to us. We may be inclined to include in “Israel” some that the Lord does not.
I disagree with all that would follow any “tradition” that goes beyond the many tradions described in God’s word, and by his own testimony, so does Jesus Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.