Joachim among the Shepherds
Giotto di Bondone
1304-06
Fresco, 200 x 185 cm
Cappella Scrovegni (Arena Chapel), Padua
Posted on 11/21/2005 2:11:12 PM PST by annalex
For your bumping enjoyment
Cousin.
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is mariology in one lesson:
It was a deed of perfect justice that our nature, which was voluntarily enslaved and struck down, should again enter the struggle for victory and cast off its voluntary enslavement. Therefore, God deigned to receive our nature from us, hypostatically uniting with it in a marvellous way. But it was impossible to unite that Most High Nature, Whose purity is incomprehensible for human reason, to a sinful nature before it had been purified. Therefore, for the conception and birth of the Bestower of purity, a perfectly spotless and Most Pure Virgin was required.Today we celebrate the memory of those things that contributed, if only once, to the Incarnation. He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). Even in what He assumes, He is perfectly pure and has no need to be cleansed Himself. But for our sake, He accepted purification, suffering, death and resurrection, that He might transmit them to us.
God is born of the spotless and Holy Virgin, or better to say, of the Most Pure and All-Holy Virgin. She is above every fleshly defilement, and even above every impure thought. Her conceiving resulted not from fleshly lust, but by the overshadowing of the Most Holy Spirit. Such desire being utterly alien to Her, it is through prayer and spiritual readiness that She declared to the angel: "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be it unto Me according to thy word" (Lk. 1:38), and that She conceived and gave birth. So, in order to render the Virgin worthy of this sublime purpose, God marked this ever-virgin Daughter now praised by us, from before the ages, and from eternity, choosing Her from out of His elect.
[...]
Now, when Righteous Joachim and Anna saw that they had been granted their wish, and that the divine promise to them was realized in fact, then they on their part, as true lovers of God, hastened to fulfill their vow given to God as soon as the child had been weaned from milk. They have now led this truly sanctified child of God, now the Mother of God, this Virgin into the Temple of God. And She, being filled with Divine gifts even at such a tender age, ... She, rather than others, determined what was being done over Her. In Her manner She showed that She was not so much presented into the Temple, but that She Herself entered into the service of God of her own accord, as if she had wings, striving towards this sacred and divine love. She considered it desirable and fitting that she should enter into the Temple and dwell in the Holy of Holies.
Its quite wonderful, isn't it!
Wrong. Jesus was an only child. St. James was the brother of St. John and they were the sons of Zebedee and Salome.
"And going on from thence a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were mending their nets in the ship:" Mark 1:19
"And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:" Mark 3:17
"And James and John the sons of Zebedee, come to him, saying: Master, we desire that whatsoever we shall ask, thou wouldst do it for us:" Mark 10:35
"And so were also James and John the sons of Zebedee, who were Simon's partners. And Jesus saith to Simon: Fear not: from henceforth thou shalt catch men." Luke 5:10
Zebedee & Salome begat James (the great) and John
Cleophas-(Alphaeus) & Mary (the other Mary, Mt 27:56,61, 28:1, Jn 19:25) begat James (the less), Jo'ses, and Jude
THE HOLY SPIRIT & the Blessed Virgin Mary begat Jesus Christ
Where do you suppose the descendents of Jesus are these days?
You do realize that the Da Vinci Code is poorly written fiction, don't you?
Disputation of the fact that Jesus Christ was an only child is a relatively recent hobby, in the history of Christianity, practiced by the linguistic literalist sect who think they've found the smoking gun by pouncing on the words "brother(s)", "sister(s)" and "until" in Scripture. All that proves is that they misinterpret Scripture.
By the way, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al, all believed and taught that Jeus Christ was an only child and that His mother was a perpetual virgin.
Let me add that the literalist interpretation is that they are cousins, or perhaps other kinsfolk, because that is how "adelphoi" was normally used in the period, to describe any relative belonging to the same generation.
"Let me add that the literalist interpretation is that they are cousins, or perhaps other kinsfolk, because that is how "adelphoi" was normally used in the period, to describe any relative belonging to the same generation."
That is correct. Even today in Greek, any kinfolk of an older generation are called uncle or aunt even though they might in fact be 4th cousins twice removed.
Thanks for posting this and the great pictures!
The only precise way to translate "eos" is "prior to". It does not necessarily indicate that the opposite happened after the event the preposition controls; that should be inferred, or not, from the context. For example, if I say "I did not drink alcohol prior to the age of 18" the context indicates that after that age I did drink alcohol. That is because the mentioning of age is otherwise meaningless. But if I say "I did not drink alcohol prior to this blood test" it does not mean that I walked out of the clinic and drank. The context is about the blood test, which would be affected by alcohol consumption prior, but not after.
In Matthew the context is the supernaturality of the birth of Jesus, so he explains things in relation to that event. He is simply not concerned with Mary and Joseph as a couple.
"Eos" is used in the sense that precludes the understanding "prior but not after" many times in the scripture. For example, Luke 1:80 refers to John the Baptist being in the desert "eos" his manifestation to Israel. But we know he remained in the desert and preached to Israel till his arrest much later. In 1 Timothy 4:13 Timothy is told to continue studies "eos" Paul arrives. Clearly Paul is not telling Timothy to stop afterwards.
Keep alive.
So I think that the Protoevangelium tells us a true story in essentials: that Mary was a dedicated temple virgin, form a pious Jewish family, betrothed to Joseph as an economic arrangement as she reached adulthood. This explains how she said to the Angel "I know not man" as if having children with Joseph naturally was somehow out of question.
For more on temple virgins see Did Jewish Temple Virgins Exist and was Mary a Temple Virgin?
Oh, the irony. You do realize that the Protoevangelium of James is poorly written fiction too, don't you?
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.