Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Jewishness of Mary
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//jewishmary.htm ^ | unknown | By Sr. M. Danielle Peters U-Dayton

Posted on 06/16/2007 5:09:43 PM PDT by stfassisi

To be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Christ,” said St. Jerome.[2] Could we develop this statement further and conclude: To be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Mary, the Mother of Christ?

The Bible is over 95% male-oriented. Of 1,426 names in the Bible only 111 names are women’s. … Mary of Nazareth, however, is among the women most mentioned in the Bible, that is, in the New Testament. She is an exception to the rule and almost for that reason an exceptional woman.[3]

The factual data we gain from the Scriptures on Mary’s life are by no means copious[4]. As far as details about Mary’s person are concerned, we do not know much about her liking, knowledge, exterior etc. However, through the spiritual intervention of God in her life, she becomes a person in terms of her religious vocation. Her process of individuation is initiated by her reflection on who she is and her mission as handmaid of the Lord.[5]

It is not possible to establish an exact chronological point for identifying the date of Mary’s birth … Her presence in the midst of Israel – a presence so discreet as to pass almost unnoticed by the eyes of her contemporaries[6] …Only in the mystery of Christ is her mystery fully made clear.[7]

Mary of Nazareth, daughter of Joachim and Anna,[8] is first mentioned by name in the Gospel of Mathew.[9] She was an ordinary woman, and her name was common enough that other women of the same name in the gospel had to be distinguished by their relatives or their place of origin.[10]

From tradition we can assume that she grew up as a young Jewish girl in a small town in the Palestinian Galilee. “Since Mary was born into Judaism, she experienced the Hebrew Scriptures both in her prayer and her mode of life as a woman of Nazareth.”[11] Mary’s education as a girl included listening to the readings of the Torah and the Prophets in the synagogue. We cannot know for sure but it is quite possible that Mary knew how to read.[12]

Although women probably were seated separately from men during the synagogue services, they could have learned the prayers and listened attentively to the readings from the Sacred Scripture. … There is no reason to question that Mary was present in the synagogue when Jesus read from Isaiah 61. Would she not have reflected on such passages already, wondering about their Messianic implications?[13]

It might be helpful to recall that until the completion of her eleventh year a Jewish girl was a minor and from her 12th birthday on she was considered to be of age. This means that from that day on, Mary was expected to keep those parts of the Torah, which were binding on women. At the same time she also became eligible for marriage.

Like all good Jewish girls, she would have been docile, submissive, and obedient to her earthly parents’ wishes. Thus, when she was of marriageable age, about fourteen, and her parents promised her to a man many years her elder, she accepted their decision. In all actuality, she had no choice.[14]

Consequently, we can presume that it was around that time that Mary was betrothed to Joseph. The time of betrothal generally lasted a year, with the exception of widows.[15] We know that the Annunciation[16] occurred during the phase of her betrothal.

God had addressed Himself to women before as in the case of the mothers of Samuel and Samson. However to make a Covenant with humanity, He, hitherto addressed himself only to men: Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Now, “at the beginning of the New Covenant, which is to be eternal and irrevocable, there is a woman: the Virgin of Nazareth.”[17]

This takes place … within the concrete circumstances of the history of Israel, the people, who first received God’s promises. The divine messenger says to the Virgin: “Hail full of grace, the Lord is with you” [18]. He does not call her by her proper earthly name: Miriyam (= Mary), but by this new name: ‘full of grace’. What does this name mean? Why does the archangel address the Virgin in this way? In the language of the Bible, ‘grace’ means a special gift, which according to the New Testament has its source precisely in the Trinitarian life of God himself, God who is love[19].[20]

The One who called her His most beloved is Love Himself. It might well be the core experience of her life when Mary learns that she is loved for who she is and not for what she can do. This awareness leads her to identify herself as the handmaid of the Lord[21] and urges her to embrace the mission entrusted to her.

Indeed at the Annunciation Mary entrusted herself to God completely, with ‘the full submission of intellect and will,’ manifesting ‘the obedience of faith’ to him who spoke to her through his messenger. She responded therefore with all her human and feminine ‘I’, and in this response of faith included both perfect cooperation with the ‘grace of God that precedes and assists’ and perfect openness to the action of the Holy Spirit, who ‘constantly brings faith to completion by his gifts’.[22]

Thus, we learn that Mary conceived her son through the power of the Holy Spirit[23]. Both Mathew’s and Luke’s New Testament Infancy Narratives indicate that Joseph and Mary were faithful observers of the law. According to Mathew, Mary was legally espoused to Joseph, even though she did not live with him[24] in accordance with the Jewish requirement of pre-conjugal virginity. Hence, when Mathew tells of Mary’s pregnancy before sharing the life of Joseph, he makes it clear that she had become suspect to infidelity[25]. All the more we have to appreciate Mary’s faith in the angel’s message, since she knew that her life was at stake.

Following the Annunciation we encounter Mary on her way in order to serve her relative Elizabeth[26]. The visitation has a tremendous effect on Zechariah’s house. Elizabeth prophesied[27], the baby was sanctified in her womb[28] and the mute man of the house would eventually be able to speak again.[29]

The Virgin makes no proud demands nor else does she seek to satisfy personal ambitions. Luke presents her to us wanting only to offer her humble service with total and trusting acceptance of the divine plan of salvation. This is the meaning of her response: ”Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done to me according to your word.”[30]

Mary’s Magnificat[31] harmonizes with Zechariah’s Benedictus[32] and reflects her deep roots in the Jewish tradition as well as in the Hebrew Scriptures. He has done great things for me: this is the discovery of all the richness and personal resources of femininity, all the eternal originality of the ‘woman’, just as God wanted her to be, a person for her own sake, who discovers herself ‘by means of a sincere gift of self’.[33] As a daughter of Israel, Mary sings in concord with such women as Miriam, sister of Moses or Hannah, mother of Samuel.

For St. Luke, Mary is the perfect example of awaiting the Messiah with a pure and humble spirit. Luke sees in Mary the Daughter of Zion who rejoices because God is with her, and who praises His greatness for pulling down the mighty and exalting the humble.[34]

The earliest reference to Jesus’ mother in any literature, and the only one in the Pauline letters and all of the epistles of the New Testament, appears in Galatians 4:4. There, Paul simply connotes that God’s son was ‘born of a woman, born under the law.’

The phrase, genomenon ek gynaikos, “born of a woman”, is a frequently used Jewish expression to designate a person’s human condition. It reflects ‘ādām yělûd ‘iššāh of Job 14:1 “a human being (that is) born of a woman " Paul does indirectly refer to her. But it is a reference to her simply as mother, in her maternal role of bearing Jesus and bringing him into the world.[35]

For the purpose of historical investigation, these phrases tell us only that Paul understands Jesus to have been born to a Jewish woman[36]. “The fact that he does not mention Mary’s name does not necessarily mean that he does not know it; but neither can it be assumed that he knows it and declines to use it.”[37]

It is significant that St. Paul does not call the Mother of Christ by her own name, Mary, but calls her woman: it coincides with words of the Proto-evangelium in the Book of Genesis (3:15). She is that woman who is present in the central salvific event, which marks the fullness of time: this event is realized in her and through her.[38] To be born under the law means, for Jesus, that he was fully integrated into the human condition in both time and place through his roots in the Jewish people. Mathew presents us with Jesus’ genealogy.

But the uniform repetitions of male progenitors is interrupted four times in order to mention women: Rahab and Ruth, both of them foreigners, are there to show that the rest of the human race is invited to share in salvation along with Israel; Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah, and Bathsheba, who had been the wife of Uriah before becoming David’s wife, are there to remind us that the promise makes its way despite the weaknesses of a patriarch[39] and of a king[40] and, paradoxically, even derives support from them. These four women and the four irregular births that occur due to them prepare the reader for the mention of Mary and for the birth of Jesus, the extraordinary character of which will be brought out later in the narrative.[41]

Mathew’s gospel affirms the legitimacy of Jesus as a Jewish boy born of Jewish parents. He is the offspring of a legally recognized married couple. Thus, Joseph is the lawful father of Jesus who, in turn, has the responsibility of naming the child. On the other hand, Mary is the mother of this child in an extraordinary way similar to the other women mentioned in the genealogy: Rahab, Tamar, Ruth and Beersheba. Mary is the Virgin Mother[42] of the promised Messiah who is called Emmanuel, God with us!

Clearly then, Mary plays a role in God’s plan of saving His people, and indeed she was foreseen from the time of Isaiah as the virgin who would give birth to Emmanuel. Yet, in the Matthean infancy narrative she remains an instrument of God’s action and her personal attitudes are never mentioned. Once she has given birth to Jesus, she and the child become the object of Joseph’s care. Joseph is center of the drama. [43]”[44]

This becomes evident immediately after the birth of Jesus. When the violence is unleashed against the child and his family[45], Joseph takes initiative upon the Angel’s request, fleeing with the child and his mother to Egypt. Like Mathew, Luke locates Jesus in the history of the Jewish people. For Luke however, “Mary is the guarantor of his roots; and she is the sign of this newness.”[46] The birth took place in conditions of extreme poverty. Luke informs us that on the occasion of the census ordered by the Roman authorities, Mary went with Joseph to Bethlehem. Having found ‘no place in the inn’, she gave birth to her Son in a stable and ‘laid him in a manger.'[47]

We are reminded again that Jesus was born under the law when, in Luke 2:22-24, Mary and Joseph present Jesus in the Temple and ransom him for a pair of turtle doves as prescribed by Jewish law.[48]

Simeon’s words seem like a second Annunciation to Mary; for they tell her of the actual historical situation in which the Son is to accomplish his mission, namely, in misunderstanding and sorrow. … She will have to live her obedience of faith in suffering at the side of the suffering Savior, and that her motherhood will be mysterious and sorrowful.[49]

The Holy family lived in Nazareth. Not much is said about their family life; but we know that Jesus and Mary were both under the care of Joseph and, most likely, lived a normal Jewish family life.

More about Mary of Nazareth can be learned through the simple metaphors and parables in the language of Jesus in his home. … Often the woman, because of her skills in planning and experience, was in control over the critical aspects of household life. In her natural role of parenting, a woman normally would have nearly double the amount of pregnancies in order to bear the desired number of children to carry on the chores and responsibilities of the household[50].

Archeological discoveries in households attest to devotions of a religious nature at home, for example;

If the practice in Nazareth was close to Pharisaic norm, Joseph would ask the family when darkness fell on the eve of the Sabbath: ‘Have you tithed? … Light the Lamp’. Thus would they collaborate in keeping the commandments at home.[51]

Throughout the years that followed, up to Jesus’ public ministry, Mary was, for Jesus, what every Jewish mother was supposed to be for her child. “While Joseph was alive Mary apparently went with him to Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles.”[52] It is during such a pilgrimage that the 12-year-old Jesus was lost for three days and Mary and Joseph went in search of him[53]. Luke’s Gospel recalls the anxiety of a mother who thought her son was lost and who of finding him, reproached him.

Here as well as upon the shepherds’ visit to the ‘babe lying in the manger', Mary as a woman of Israel and daughter of Zion remembers and ponders over the words and events of God. The word symballousa used of her in Luke means to turn over and over again in one’s mind and heart in order to face what is happening either through life’s experiences or God’s revelation.[54]

Not much is known about Mary during Jesus’ public life.

A Jewish woman faithful to the law did not participate in public life. Even her chin was covered by the veil, which she wore so that none of her traits were distinguished. The fact that in Mark’s Gospel Mary is searching for Jesus and is familiar with his whereabouts leads to an almost certain conclusion that she is then a widow and has possession of all that Joseph owned.[55]

In John’s Gospel we are told that Mary and Jesus were guests at the wedding feast in Cana. The way she interacts with the servants and initiates the preparations for Jesus’ first sign is another indication “that she was now the only survivor.”[56] Mary’s presence at the wedding feast reveals much about her. It can be summarized in her intuitive grasp of the situation, her concern over the possible embarrassment of the young couple and her willingness to call upon her son.

Mary is present at Cana in Galilee as the Mother of Jesus, and, in a significant way, she contributes to that beginning of the signs which reveal the messianic power of her Son. ... The Mother of Christ presents herself as the spokeswoman of her Son’s will, pointing out those things, which must be done so that the salvific power of the Messiah may be manifested. ... Her faith evokes his first sign and helps to kindle the faith of the disciples.[57]

The meaning of Mary at Cana is exposed fully when His Mother stands ‘near the cross of Jesus,’ and hears Him say: ‘Woman, there is your Son’[58].

The Gospel means more than that the dying Jesus is providing for His Mother’s care. … Mary on Calvary symbolizes … the new Israel, the new People of God, the mother of all men, Jew and Gentile.[59]

Both times, at the beginning and at the consummation of his public life, Jesus addresses her as ‘woman’.

The words of Jesus to His Mother, ‘Woman, how does this concern of yours involve me? My hour has not yet come,’ were an invitation to deepen her faith, to look beyond the failing wine to His messianic career. … It is striking that no sign is done to help Mary believe. The Mother of Jesus requires no miracle to strengthen her faith. At her Son’s word, before ‘this first of his signs’ she shows her faith.[60]

Mary’s last appearance is found in Acts 1:14. We see her in the midst of the Apostles in the Upper Room, prayerfully imploring the gift of the Holy Spirit.[61] For the church of that time, Mary is now a singular witness to the years of Jesus’ infancy and hidden life at Nazareth. Now she can release what, until now, she has kept pondering in her heart.

In summary,

Mary of Nazareth – whose name is written at times in the Hebraic form, Mariam – was a chaste young Jewish girl betrothed to a devout Jewish man, Joseph. The portrait of her in the New Testament is that of a prayerful Jewish woman with very human traits who aspired to follow the practices set by Jewish law and religion. The picture of Mary that emerges through the Gospels is at times powerful and detailed. She celebrates. She suffers. She observes. She prays. She treasures things in her heart and reflects on them. ... To understand what seems to be a rather casual first appearance of Mary in Scripture, we need to place Mathew 1:16 in the context of the whole of Mathew’s first chapter and pull in John 1:1-5.[62]


TOPICS: Catholic; Orthodox Christian
KEYWORDS: mary; miriam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-157 next last
To: FormerLib
But Fr. Whiteford presented the topics far better than I ever could.

I'm very willing to converse with you but I'm not willing to go off and read the work of some apologist. If you've studied this persons writings perhaps you can sum up. The question on the table is:

The bible doesn’t point to a source of completely new doctrine unmentioned in the bible. Have I missed the place where it does after reading it some 40 times or is there some reason that I should look to that source though the bible doesn't point to it?

81 posted on 06/26/2007 7:40:47 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
Have I missed the place where it does after reading it some 40 times or is there some reason that I should look to that source though the bible doesn't point to it?

As Fr. Whiteford cited, the New Testament itself uses non-biblical oral history as a source, thereby validating that as a source for us to use as well. The answer to your question is that you apparently have missed this and that you should look to that source for further illumination in regards to what the Bible teaches in addition to those things which the Bible does not reference.

Have you ever read the Church Fathers?

82 posted on 06/26/2007 7:59:57 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
As Fr. Whiteford cited, the New Testament itself uses non-biblical oral history as a source, thereby validating that as a source for us to use as well. The answer to your question is that you apparently have missed this and that you should look to that source for further illumination in regards to what the Bible teaches in addition to those things which the Bible does not reference.

I'm sorry but that doesn't hold. The Holy Spirit can site whatever He wants but no one else is able to make that call. In other words, if a lady selling purple makes a statement that is put in the bible, that doesn't mean that all lady's selling purple are suddenly sources for inspired scripture.

Have you ever read the Church Fathers?

I read the bible. I don't believe in such a thing as "Church Fathers"

83 posted on 06/26/2007 8:22:00 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
The Holy Spirit can site whatever He wants but no one else is able to make that call.

As the article noted, if the Apostle Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. Clearly, the Holy Spirit points us to this place for a reason.

I don't believe in such a thing as "Church Fathers".

Are you suggesting that these men who assembled the New Testament that you currently use did not exist at all or that they cannot possibly have anything to teach us?

84 posted on 06/26/2007 8:29:29 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
The angel seems to have noticed the difference in intent since Ole Zech was punished.

So you agree Mary did hesitate? Methinks you are playing word games.
85 posted on 06/26/2007 8:38:47 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
The Holy Spirit can site whatever He wants but no one else is able to make that call.

As the article noted, if the Apostle Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. Clearly, the Holy Spirit points us to this place for a reason.

The bible cites possessed people also and little pieces of doctrine is derived from what they say. Once again, this does not mean that we can go get additional doctrine from possessed people. The same is true for religious organizations like pharasees. You are still using this same flawed logic. There is one and only one trustworthy source for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction.

I don't believe in such a thing as "Church Fathers".

Are you suggesting that these men who assembled the New Testament that you currently use did not exist at all or that they cannot possibly have anything to teach us?

Neither you nor I can trace the motions of the Holy Spirit. I don't know the condition of the Man that gave me the gospel such that I was born again and it's not important that I know anything about him. In that instant that I was born again I was given the gift of faith in the Gospel and the Bible. Faith doesn't require seeing. It's nifty and comforting to know that the bible has been around a long time and is read by a lot of people but that is not proof it's just nice to know.

86 posted on 06/26/2007 8:49:41 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
There is one and only one trustworthy source for doctrine, correction, reproof and instruction.

And as we've pointed out in this thread, that concept is directly contradicted by Scripture.

It is only by hanging onto this non-Scriptural concept that one can refuse to acknowledge what the Church truly teaches about Mary.

87 posted on 06/26/2007 9:39:39 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib

I think that I have pointed out fairly clearly that you don’t have any scripture that says to go flesh out new doctrines from other sources. All you’ve done is show that the bible actually mention that people exist. You’ve tried to stretch that around an entirely different idea.


88 posted on 06/26/2007 9:53:06 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
I think that I have pointed out fairly clearly that you don’t have any scripture that says to go flesh out new doctrines from other sources.

Actually, we've proved that Scripture itself states that it does not include everything that Jesus said or did in addition to proving that Scripture itself refers to tradition to tell about people whose stories are not found in Scripture.

All you've got is this 16th-Century man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura which contradicts Scripture itself.

Some take it further to suggest that if it doesn't exist in Scripture (some even insist upon a single, rather-modern translation over any other!), then it cannot be a teaching of the Church. I can't help but be reminded of those folks who declared that potatoes were a work of the devil because they weren't specifically mentioned in Scripture.

89 posted on 06/26/2007 11:59:07 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ps2; RobbyS
Zechariah was a Levite Priest, and old man who had studied, trainied and served God all his life....His knowlege of the word,the promises and prophesies of God were to be greater than a 16 year old or so girl was though taught the word of God had not trained and worked and was surrounded by it for decades like Zechariah.

1. Robby said Mary agreed without hesitation. Not so.

2. Zechariah was a doddering old man (I am in the same boat) and couldn't be expected to be as sharp as he once was.

3. You are reading more into the wisdom, knowledge, and training of Zechariah than is clear from Scripture.

90 posted on 06/26/2007 3:03:37 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most li kely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib; DungeonMaster; Always Right
Just on such example would be Saint Ignatius' letter to her and her subsequent response, which can be read on this site as well as others. Here is where we can come to understand her ongoing role in the church.

Universally branded as a forgery. No exceptions. It is not true.

Your initial statement cannot be supported by fact, logic or reason.

That is true - - - - concerning your statement.

91 posted on 06/26/2007 3:08:58 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most li kely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib; DungeonMaster
In the second place, if Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet in II Timothy 3:8 Paul refers to them as opposing Moses. Paul is drawing upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most prominent Egyptian Magicians in the Exodus account (Ch. 7-8) were "Jannes" and "Jambres."2 And this is by no means the only time that a non-biblical source is used in the New Testament — the best known instance is in the Epistle of St. Jude, which quotes from the Book of Enoch (Jude 14,15 cf. Enoch 1:9).

Note how Paul considered tradition:

2 Thessalonian:
[15] So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.


Past and present tense. No consideration for new, manufactured "Tradition".

92 posted on 06/26/2007 3:21:00 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most li kely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib; DungeonMaster
All you've got is this 16th-Century man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura which contradicts Scripture itself.

Really? Is the following Sola Scriptura?

“Among those things which are said openly in Scripture are to be found all those teachings which involve faith, the mores of living, and that hope and charity which we have discussed.”

Who said it?

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine trans. by D.W. Roberston, Jr. (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1958) 11:9.

That's about 12 centuries before your "man-made" attack on Sola Scriptura.

93 posted on 06/26/2007 3:37:20 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most li kely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; pray4liberty; Ping-Pong; GoLightly
Why would Matthew single out 4 women for mention in his genealogy if there was nothing special about them?

Matthew singles out 4 special women because there "was" something special about all of them.

[Matthew 1:3] Tamar: As I have mentioned previously Tamar was not a Canaanite. Tamar was Hebrew.....and the mother of Zerah and Perez. [At Judah's desire, Er married Tamar, a daughter of Aram, [Genesis 10:23] the son of Shem, but because she was not a Canaanitish woman, his mother used artifices against her, and he did not know her, and an angel of the Lord killed him on the third day after his wedding.] This is quoted from Legends of the Jews Volume II. This is not scripture and I am not intending to imply that it is.

[And in those days Judah went to the house of Shem and took Tamar the daughter of Elam, the son of Shem, for a wife for his first born Er.] This is quoted from The Book of Jasher [Chapter 45:23]. This is also not scripture, but is mentioned in [Joshua 10:13] and [2 Samuel 1:18]. Jasher calls him Elam and the Legend of the Jews call him Aram.....Tamar's father. The "Legend of The Jews" says "a daughter" of Aram....possibly meaning down through his line and not actually his real daughter.

Tamar, being Hebrew, and believing that her father-in-law , Judah, might marry another Canaanite women....(his wife Bath-Shua had died [Genesis 38:12] was attempting to keep the bloodline pure Hebrew. Judah, as a widower, would now certainly be able to marry her...if he desired, but did not. Tamar was also quite well aware of the divine injunction against Israelites marrying Canaanites. [Genesis 24:3] And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.

Tamar and Judah's son, Perez, becomes an ancestor of our Lord. Because of the unusual circumstances and the fact that Tamar was already mentioned in Hebrew scriptures....Matthew decides to include her in his genealogy.

You already know why Ruth [Matthew 1:5] would be included in Matthew's Gospel as Samuel (ostensibly) wrote scripture about her. This is the same reason Matthew mentions Rachab [Matthew 1:5] as she was the mother of Boaz....another central figure in that book of scripture...and Rachab would then indeed be a special woman too. It goes without saying that Rachab was an Israelite and not the same person as the "Rahab" of the Book of Joshua. At no place in scripture does it mention the harlot, Rahab....marrying anyone. As I said earlier the similarities of the two names has led some folks into this confusion. The two instances would be separated by at least 120 years anyway.

Finally, Bathsheba [Matthew 1:6]: She also was an Israelite, daughter of Eliam who was the son of Ahithophel, an adviser to King David [2 Samuel 15:12] And Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David's counselor, from his city, even from Giloh, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy was strong; for the people increased continually with Absalom. It is because Bathsheba was the mother of King Solomon that she was given a special place in Matthew's genealogy.

Furthermore according to what I understand from Jewish law, the offspring of a Gentile father and Jewish mother was a Gentile. But the offspring of a Jewish father and Gentile mother was Jewish, and after that birth, the mother was considered to be a daughter of Israel in good standing.

I believe this is Talmudic Law....not Torah. I could be wrong.

94 posted on 06/26/2007 8:22:39 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Universally branded as a forgery. No exceptions. It is not true.

Incorrect. Considering that you initiated your reponses with a falsehood, I respectfully decline to entertain any additional ones.

Good day.

95 posted on 06/27/2007 4:37:27 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Really? Is the following Sola Scriptura?

I guess I should correct this error as well. No, it is not Sola Scriptura, although your usage of a quote out of context does follow the Sola Scriptura "pattern".

Returning to Fr. Whiteford's article referenced above:

In this approach to Scriptures, it is not the job of the individual to strive for originality, but rather to understand what is already present in the traditions of the Church. We are obliged not to go beyond the boundary set by the Fathers of the Church, but to faithfully pass on the tradition we received. To do this requires a great deal of study and thought, but even more, if we are to truly understand the Scriptures, we must enter deeply into the mystical life of the Church. This is why when St. Augustine expounds on how one should interpret the Scriptures [On Christian Doctrine, Books i-iv], he spends much more time talking about the kind of person the study of the Scripture requires than about the intellectual knowledge he should possess: (St. Augustine, "On Christian Doctrine," A Selected Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1, vol. ii, eds. Henry Wace and Philip Schaff, (New York: Christian, 1887-1900), pp. 534-537.)

1. One who loves God with his whole heart, and is empty of pride,

2. Is motivated to seek the Knowledge of God's will by faith and reverence, rather than pride or greed,

3. Has a heart subdued by piety, a purified mind, dead to the world; and who neither fears, nor seeks to please men,

4. Who seeks nothing but knowledge of and union with Christ,

5. Who hungers and thirsts after righteousness,

6. And is diligently engaged in works of mercy and love.


96 posted on 06/27/2007 4:52:07 AM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Since Tamar didn't have children from either of Judah's sons, (Er and Onan) and Shelah wasn't given to her in marriage, it was actually Canaanite custom for the father (Judah) to "do the duty" himself so the family lineage would continue. Apparently, Judah was not willing so Tamar had to trick him into it. Going up to a sheepshearing meant wild hanky-panky doings with strange (Canaanite) women.

Several ancient traditions suggest Tamar was not a Canaanite but an Aramean; and thus she is righteous as compared to Judah who married a Canaanite (Jubilees 41:1; Testament of Judah 10:1). Source: http://www.moshereiss.org/articles/24_tamar.htm

The poor girl only wanted justice.

97 posted on 06/27/2007 5:54:52 AM PDT by pray4liberty (http://totallyunjust.tripod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Incorrect. Considering that you initiated your reponses with a falsehood, I respectfully decline to entertain any additional ones.

The two letters to the Apostle St. John and the one to the Blessed Virgin , which exist only in Latin, are unanimously admitted to be spurious.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA - IGNATIUS LETTER TO THE VIRGIN MARY A FORGERY

Argue with the Catholic Encyclopedia.
98 posted on 06/27/2007 7:07:47 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most li kely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
"No, it is not Sola Scriptura..."

Perhaps it would be appropriate for you to define what your definition of Sola Scriptura is.
99 posted on 06/27/2007 7:12:29 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most li kely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354-430)

In those things which are clearly laid down in Scripture, all those things are found which pertain to faith and morals. (De Doct. Chr. 2:9)

Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud. (De Pastore, 11)

All those things which in times past our ancestors have mentioned to be done toward mankind and have delivered unto us: all those things also which we see and deliver to our posterity, so far as they pertain to the seeking and maintaining true religion, the Holy Scripture has not passed over in silence. (Ep. 42)

Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write. (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.)

Let them [the Donatists] demonstrate their church if they can, not by the talk and rumor of the Africans; not by the councils of their own bishops; not by the books of their disputers; not by deceitful miracles, against which we are cautioned by the word of God, but in the prescript of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the verses of the Psalms, in the voice of the Shepherd himself, in the preaching and works of the evangelists; that is, in all canonical authorities of the sacred Scriptures. (De Unit. Eccl. 16)


100 posted on 06/27/2007 7:25:47 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most li kely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-157 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson