Arcadia Discussion Zone

Is it correct that after Sauniere finished tizzying up his little church that he placed a statue of Mary and Joseph either side of the altar, with each of them holding a baby?

yes they are their

They are in Saint Louis Cathedral too Mary holds a child and Joseph holds a child

Thanks Lov.

Is it normal for Joseph to hold a child?

In images/statues of him that I have seen he is empty handed.

Is this common?

Who put you up to the thread, Hotspur?

What sort of question is that?

Next time I will pass it thru Vatican Central for approval. OK?

Hey Hot Spur
a while back we had a conversation about Joseph
I felt that Sauniere was pointing out in a subtle way that Joseph was important in the Holy family

and he is because its His Bloodline which is said every midnite mass at Christmas

thing is Jesus isn't suppose to be from his bloodline
then we go with the theory that Mary's bloodline is from David but then it gets hazy about the title of Messiah

We also have that Joseph had a son named James the Just who headed the church of Jerusalem after Jesus's death

I think its significant he has a child at Rennes but to answer your question
if you in a Acadian church then yes its common but usually he is not

Lov,

What is Joseph's geneology as you see it?

What do you mean by Acadian [sic] church?

The Vatican would never approve of the thread.

Nice dodge, who was behind the initial question?

Do you think I don't have a brain with which to formulate a simple question or that I am so stupid that I can't discern having asked the question of the century or one which will utterly discredit the Roman Church?

First up, it's implied in your first initial question, the simple answer is "Yes". I was trying to ascertain where you got the information. I assume it was someone because I think the book that I know it comes from is out of print. I could be wrong, you could have discovered it yourself.
I was trying to see if I could go over the information to give you feedback but don't worry about it. You've got your answer.
It's trying to ascertain why it occurs that I think you'll have trouble with not that I think you're unintelligent but because it's a rare question & complicated.
But don't worry about it, the question has obviously upset you and I dislike working blind, it annoys me, so I'll just leave it alone.
BTW I was being facetious about the RCC not approving of the thread.

Rain,

It was the way you asked your first question - it was rather strangely put - Who put you up to the thread.

Next time, may I suggest you ask what you want, to the point.

You have the habit of putting an edge or a twist to your questions/statements - it's as if you want to provoke.

I am not personally troubled by this approach, it's just difficult to read sometimes.

My responses were about playing back it back to you - I am not at all upset, just bemused.

Itcher

According to Matthew 1:17 and may I add look at those numbers 1/17

First Series
1. Abraham
2. Isaac
3. Jacob
4. Judas
5. Phares
6. Esron
7. Aram
8. Aminadab
9. Naasson
10. Salmon
11. Booz
12. Obed
13. Jesse
14. David Second Series
1. Solomon
2. Roboam
3. Abia
4. Asa
5. Josaphat
6. Joram
7. Ozias
8. Joatham
9. Achaz
10. Ezechias
11. Manasses
12. Amon
13. Josias
14. Jechonias Third Series
1. Jechonias
2. Salathiel
3. Zorobabel
4. Abiud
5. Eliacim
6. Azor
7. Sadoe
8. Achim
9. Eliud
10. Eleazar
11. Mathan
12. Jacob
13. Joseph
14. Jesus


Thing is Jesus isn't of the bloodline if you have the Immaculate Conception
And we have the point that Joseph may have had children from another marriage or Mary had more children

Here is Lukes
First Series
1. Jesus
2. Joseph
3. Heli
4. Mathat
5. Levi
6. Melchi
7. Janne
8. Joseph
9. Mathathias
10. Amos
11. Nahum
12. Hesli
13. Nagge
14. Mahath
15. Mathathias
16. Semei
17. Joseph
18. Juda
19. Joanna
20. Reza
21. Zorobabel Second Series
22. Salathiel
23. Neri
24. Melchi
25. Addi
26. Cosan
27. Helmadan
28. Her
29. Jesus
30. Eliezer
31. Jorim
32. Mathat
33. Levi
34. Simeon
35. Judas
36. Joseph
37. Jona
38. Eliakim
39. Melea
40. Menna
41. Mathatha
42. Nathan Third Series
43. David
44. Jesse
45. Obed
46. Booz
47. Salmon
48. Naasson
49. Aminadab
50. Aram
51. Esron
52. Phares
53. Judas
54. Jacob
55. Isaac
56. Abraham Fourth Series
57. Thare
58. Nachor
59. Sarug
60. Ragau
61. Phaleg
62. Heber
63. Sale
64. Cainan
65. Arphaxad
66. Sem
67. Noah
68. Lamech
69. Mathusale
70. Henoch
71. Jared
72. Malaleel
73. Cainan
74. Henos
75. Seth
76. Adam
77. God


The convergence of the two distinct genealogical lines in the person of St. Joseph, has been explained in two ways:

(a) St. Matthew's genealogy is that of St. Joseph; St. Luke's, that of the Blessed Virgin. This contention implies that St. Luke's genealogy only seemingly includes the name of Joseph. It is based on the received Greek text, on (os enomizeto ouios Ioseph) tou Heli, "being the son (as it was supposed, of Joseph, but really) of Heli". This parenthesis really eliminates the name of Joseph from St. Luke's genealogy, and makes Christ, by means of the Blessed Virgin, directly a son of Heli. This view is supported by a tradition which names the father of the Blessed Virgin "Joachim", a variant form of Eliacim or its abbreviation Eli, a variant of Heli, which latter is the form found in the Third Evangelist's genealogy

Secondly, according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin.

(b) Both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan. But how can the lines converge in St. Joseph? St. Augustine suggested that Joseph, the son of Jacob and the descendant of David through Solomon, might have been adopted by Heli, thus becoming the adoptive descendant of David through Nathan. But Augustine was the first to abandon this theory after learning the explanation offered by Julius Africanus. According to the latter, Estha married Mathan, a descendant of David through Solomon, and became the mother of Jacob; after Mathan's death she took for her second husband Mathat, a descendent of David through Nathan, and by him became the mother of Heli. Jacob and Heli were, therefore, uterine brothers. Heli married, but died without offspring; his widow, therefore, became the levirate wife of Jacob, and gave birth to Joseph, who was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, thus combining in his person two lineages of David's descendants.

How can Jesus Christ be called "son of David", if the Blessed Virgin is not a daughter of David?

(a) If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2).

(b) Tradition tells us that Mary too was a descendant of David. According to Numbers 36:6-12, an only daughter had to marry within her own family so as to secure the right of inheritance. After St. Justin (Adv. Tryph. 100) and St. Ignatius (Letter to the Ephesians 18), the Fathers generally agree in maintaining Mary's Davidic descent, whether they knew this from an oral tradition or inferred it from Scripture, e.g. Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8. St. John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenæus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm

Its Mary's bloodline that is the important one and she is a descendant of David

what's an acadian church...its one where Acadiens settled from the expulsion in Nova Scotia and their hometowns in France....they revered Saint Joseph and his bloodline as well as Mary's bloodline
thats why you see the statues of Joseph on one side and Mary on the other holding a child

which may indicate TWINS ...Thomas Didymus

So, who's the other baby?
My top three possibilities would be:-
1. Didymous
2. John the baptist
3. Magdalene.

OK, SP, so what's the game now? Any explanation for itcher?

I don't want to drag you away from writing your book, but if you have something to say, say it.

Dave,

Why would Joseph be holding either JtB or MM?

It is entirely normal for images of St. Joseph holding the infant Jesus to be placed near the altars in Catholic churches, considering that the only mention of Joseph in connection with Jesus concerns his infancy. Likewise, it is entirely normal for Mary to be shown likewise holding her baby. Two infants is not the implcation here.

TCP

The Church has been choking on these two conflicting genealogies for two thousand years. For one thing, they both culminate in Joseph. For another, the Church teaches that the father of Mary was Joachim, who is notably absent from Luke's version which they try (painfully) to assert was actually Mary's lineage. Also, while David appears in both lines, the only line that contains the monarchical succession from David is the one provided by Matthew that the Church attribues to Joseph - who the Church maintains is actually no blood relation to Jesus at all.

How does the RCC manage to have its cake and eat it too?

TCP

Tim,

the Church teaches that the father of Mary was Joachim

Is there any scriptural validation of this?


What defines the monarchical succession?

Clearly, the cake undergoes a transubstantiation in going from one Gospel to the next.

You hope.

Nope. That's why I say they're having their cake and eating it too. There's no scriptural validation for either of Mary's parents according to Catholic and Orthodox tradition.



The crown passing down a direct line of descendants or successors. We can see it in Matthew's genealogy, but not in Luke's. Luke's goes from David (who was king) to his son Nathan (who was not king); while Matthew's goes from David (king) to Solomon (king) to Rehoboam (king) down the line to Jeconiah (king) terminating with his son Shealtiel (not king).

TCP

That's about the most plausible excuse I've heard yet!

TCP

The onus would be on someone to demonstrate that the intent was otherwise.

TCP

Look at the blond hair and blue eyes on this kid - clearly it could be no other than Malibu Jesus himself!






TCP