Because John was there, and the others had run away?
Either that, or he was proclaiming Mary as Queen of Heaven, Star of the Sea, Co-Redemptrix, and the new Eve. Which one sounds more likely, I wonder?
10 for 10 on snark, 0 for 10 on logic.
Fair cop.
As a Prot, I don't understand the whole Mary thing. I've been told that Jesus asking John to care for her shows he is telling the whole church to venerate her, and that's far too big a jump for me. But this may be the topic for another thread.
No, Gabriel tells the whole church to venerate her in Luke 2. Christ's committing her to John suggests she had no other offspring. Doesn't prove. But suggests. Otherwise to tell her, "John will take care of you now, not your natural son James," is very unnatural.
Sorry, nothing in Luke 2 jumps out at me with that interpretation. And I don't see anything unnatural in saying to two people in front of you, "Look after one another".
Yes it doesn't jump out, you have to know something about Aramaic.
He didn't say look after one another. He said, woman, this man is your son. Man, this woman is your mother. That's a whole different level than "be good to one another."
Some of us don't have to be told - it comes naturally
And to some of us [me] it comes by being told about Those Catholics in terms that cause our young, enquiring, Protestant minds to investigate further. As in "if they're so against it there must be something there"
And as a carpenter, Joseph would not have had flocks to tend, crops to be weeded and harvested, and so forth.
In most agrarian economies everybody not actually confined to bed or in prison has at least some crops and livestock to attend, even if it's only a kitchen garden and a few chickens. A raft-full of my 19th-century forbears were professional bookbinders much in demand for their skills and artistry. But they still kept horses for labor and transport, sowed the crops needed to keep these fed, and raised their own food, canning, drying, smoking and salting to preserve all this through cold northern winters.
... and it would be the rare person who didn't have at least one (more likely a webful) community connection who would be willing to mind said garden, chickens, etc while the owner was gone.
And as a carpenter, Joseph would not have had flocks to tend, crops to be weeded and harvested, and so forth.
In most agrarian economies everybody not actually confined to bed or in prison has at least some crops and livestock to attend, even if it's only a kitchen garden and a few chickens. A raft-full of my 19th-century forbears were professional bookbinders much in demand for their skills and artistry. But they still kept horses for labor and transport, sowed the crops needed to keep these fed, and raised their own food, canning, drying, smoking and salting to preserve all this through cold northern winters.
Yes, he and Mary would have had those small domestic farming duties - but not the larger scale ones.
Because John was there, and the others had run away?
Either that, or he was proclaiming Mary as Queen of Heaven, Star of the Sea, Co-Redemptrix, and the new Eve. Which one sounds more likely, I wonder?
10 for 10 on snark, 0 for 10 on logic.
Fair cop.
As a Prot, I don't understand the whole Mary thing. I've been told that Jesus asking John to care for her shows he is telling the whole church to venerate her, and that's far too big a jump for me. But this may be the topic for another thread.
No, Gabriel tells the whole church to venerate her in Luke 2. Christ's committing her to John suggests she had no other offspring. Doesn't prove. But suggests. Otherwise to tell her, "John will take care of you now, not your natural son James," is very unnatural.
Sorry, nothing in Luke 2 jumps out at me with that interpretation. And I don't see anything unnatural in saying to two people in front of you, "Look after one another".
Actually the veneration is in Luke 1 in the Magnificat, "...from now on all generations will call me blessed" which seems to be more a prophecy than prescription. And, yes, all of us are blessed in various ways but Mary's blessing is a biggy and Christians have been considering her blessed, favored and/or full of grace for about 2,000 years. What that means to each spiritual life varies by individual.
Actually the veneration is in Luke 1 in the Magnificat, "...from now on all generations will call me blessed" which seems to be more a prophecy than prescription. And, yes, all of us are blessed in various ways but Mary's blessing is a biggy and Christians have been considering her blessed, favored and/or full of grace for about 2,000 years.
Some have. I have heard dismissive things said of her in more than one Protestant church.
There's a big leap from calling someone blessed to the sort of veneration that Mary receives in some quarters. I would call Sarah, Moses and Ruth blessed, along with many other Biblical, and post Biblical, figures without venerating them.
There's a big leap from calling someone blessed to the sort of veneration that Mary receives in some quarters. I would call Sarah, Moses and Ruth blessed, along with many other Biblical, and post Biblical, figures without venerating them.
I've been racking my brains (and the internet) to recall a delightful poem I once read that describes Joseph greeting Christ on his descent to Hades with the words: "How's your mother, lad?"
Respect is more than lip service. Why should Mary, wonderful though she was, command more respect than Isaiah, say?
Isaiah didn't carry the Son of God in his womb for 9 months, and raise him for however-many years?
Every mother does that for their child. Some of those children are a lot more challenging, I imagine, than the Son of God was. Do we proclaim them all as Queen of Heaven?
@mousethief , I think I'm in danger of insulting someone who is clearly very important to you, if I haven't done so already. If I have, please forgive me. This is an issue which I, as a Prot, simply do not get. (And that's despite being on retreat last week at an Abbey where the most beautiful part of any service was the hymn to the Virgin sung at the end of Compline.)
It's not what she did for him, it's what he did to her. It seems to me that you are downplaying the importance of having God in one's womb, and I'm not entirely sure why, but at risk of Bulverism, it seems it's because you absorbed the "not specialness" of Mary through your churchmanship. I'm not offended; I've seen it over and over. There's probably nothing I can say that will change your mind on this, and that's okay. It has to be okay, because it's what is.
3. And furthermore she was able to stay with Elizabeth for three months; presumably she wasn't needed at home to do her spinning, weaving, brewing, or whatever young women would be expected to do in those days.
Maybe she carried on doing her spinning, weaving and brewing at Elizabeth's home instead of at her own home in Nazareth. Maybe Elizabeth had sent for Mary to come and stay with her for exactly that reason: she needed an extra pair of hands to help out with the housework during her pregnancy, and her unmarried teenage cousin in Nazareth was the only female relative available at that moment. Anything is possible!
Yes. After all Elizabeth was not only pregnant but elderly. She and her husband had given up hope of having a child. I've always thought how wonderful it was that Mary was able to put aside her perplexity about her own pregnancy and go immediately, unselfishly, to help her much older cousin in her time of need.
Yes - Elizabeth, elderly though she was, bears the last prophet pre-Christ. Mary, the young virgin, bears the Incarnate God whose life amongst us renders unnecessary the continuation of the prophets. That's a pretty standard interpretation.
I've been racking my brains (and the internet) to recall a delightful poem I once read that describes Joseph greeting Christ on his descent to Hades with the words: "How's your mother, lad?"
I've been racking my brains (and the internet) to recall a delightful poem I once read that describes Joseph greeting Christ on his descent to Hades with the words: "How's your mother, lad?"
Because John was there, and the others had run away?
Either that, or he was proclaiming Mary as Queen of Heaven, Star of the Sea, Co-Redemptrix, and the new Eve. Which one sounds more likely, I wonder?
10 for 10 on snark, 0 for 10 on logic.
Fair cop.
As a Prot, I don't understand the whole Mary thing. I've been told that Jesus asking John to care for her shows he is telling the whole church to venerate her, and that's far too big a jump for me. But this may be the topic for another thread.
No, Gabriel tells the whole church to venerate her in Luke 2. Christ's committing her to John suggests she had no other offspring. Doesn't prove. But suggests. Otherwise to tell her, "John will take care of you now, not your natural son James," is very unnatural.
Because John was there, and the others had run away?
Either that, or he was proclaiming Mary as Queen of Heaven, Star of the Sea, Co-Redemptrix, and the new Eve. Which one sounds more likely, I wonder?
10 for 10 on snark, 0 for 10 on logic.
Fair cop.
As a Prot, I don't understand the whole Mary thing. I've been told that Jesus asking John to care for her shows he is telling the whole church to venerate her, and that's far too big a jump for me. But this may be the topic for another thread.
No, Gabriel tells the whole church to venerate her in Luke 2. Christ's committing her to John suggests she had no other offspring. Doesn't prove. But suggests. Otherwise to tell her, "John will take care of you now, not your natural son James," is very unnatural.
Er, where? Which verse?
Luke 1:48 From now on all generations will call me blessed,
Overall, it sounds like the sort of trip you could do if you were the equivalent of an upper-class heroine of a Jane Austen or Georgette Hayer novel, but not if you were one of the common people.
Another partially related thought: I always vaguely assumed that she conceived more or less straight after the Annunciation, but there's nothing in the text to suggest it; in fact, there is a clear separation between chapter 1 and chapter 2. If we take Luke at face value, and ignore Matthew, it would appear that John was conceived during the reign of King Herod (at the latest, 4BC), and Jesus was conceived when Quirinius was governor of Syria (6 AD), i.e. there is a gap of ten years between Luke 1 and Luke 2. Which would put Mary in her twenties at least when Jesus was born.
I wonder if the Ethiopic Orthodox Church shares your position, as their calendar begins with AD 7 to commemorate His birth. Luke ought to refer to a census two decades earlier for a property tax, which makes more sense, as it's ludicrous to have "tout le monde" returning to their home towns for a poll tax. This means that Joseph owned property, as should all descendants of David, perhaps even the inn where there was no room, but would have been bad for business to turn away paying customers. And Mary was just poor in name only, just like the "Poor" Knights of Christ, in being a Levite, since religion was Big Business.
I liked LC's comment, referring us to studies about the nature of Palestinian culture in the first century. It would be interesting to know if @Ricardus comparisons to Jane Austin reflected reality. I think there has been work done in this area. I have a yellow coloured book by Roland de Vaux called Ancient Israel Its Life and Institutions, but that purports to cover a much earlier period. I imagine something like Josephus might give some insights. Anyway, I'm sure this is a well-traveled path.
If Luke had wanted us to draw any conclusions from Mary's social status, he might well have made them explicit. I don't think he would just leave it for people to draw their conclusions if it was important, even if a reader in his time would have understood from the story that she was wealthy. The point of the story is the recognition of Mary's child as the Son of God.
Comments
Sorry, nothing in Luke 2 jumps out at me with that interpretation. And I don't see anything unnatural in saying to two people in front of you, "Look after one another".
He didn't say look after one another. He said, woman, this man is your son. Man, this woman is your mother. That's a whole different level than "be good to one another."
And where in Luke 2 are we commanded to venerate Mary?
And to some of us [me] it comes by being told about Those Catholics in terms that cause our young, enquiring, Protestant minds to investigate further. As in "if they're so against it there must be something there"
In most agrarian economies everybody not actually confined to bed or in prison has at least some crops and livestock to attend, even if it's only a kitchen garden and a few chickens. A raft-full of my 19th-century forbears were professional bookbinders much in demand for their skills and artistry. But they still kept horses for labor and transport, sowed the crops needed to keep these fed, and raised their own food, canning, drying, smoking and salting to preserve all this through cold northern winters.
Yes, he and Mary would have had those small domestic farming duties - but not the larger scale ones.
Actually the veneration is in Luke 1 in the Magnificat, "...from now on all generations will call me blessed" which seems to be more a prophecy than prescription. And, yes, all of us are blessed in various ways but Mary's blessing is a biggy and Christians have been considering her blessed, favored and/or full of grace for about 2,000 years. What that means to each spiritual life varies by individual.
Some have. I have heard dismissive things said of her in more than one Protestant church.
So, lip service, but not action?
Isaiah didn't carry the Son of God in his womb for 9 months, and raise him for however-many years?
For in this Rose contained was
Heaven and Earth in persons three.
A good reason to hold her higher than Isaiah.
Lyda, that is beautiful! Thank you! Thank you!
Doing something. Anything, beyond saying, "Boy yeah she sure was blessed, by gum." What exactly you do is up to you (generic 'you').
Every mother does that for their child. Some of those children are a lot more challenging, I imagine, than the Son of God was. Do we proclaim them all as Queen of Heaven?
Brought me to tears. Thanks, you Lyda.
Beautiful.
Er, where? Which verse?
Luke 1:48 From now on all generations will call me blessed,
by Mary, not Gabriel.
I wonder if the Ethiopic Orthodox Church shares your position, as their calendar begins with AD 7 to commemorate His birth. Luke ought to refer to a census two decades earlier for a property tax, which makes more sense, as it's ludicrous to have "tout le monde" returning to their home towns for a poll tax. This means that Joseph owned property, as should all descendants of David, perhaps even the inn where there was no room, but would have been bad for business to turn away paying customers. And Mary was just poor in name only, just like the "Poor" Knights of Christ, in being a Levite, since religion was Big Business.
If Luke had wanted us to draw any conclusions from Mary's social status, he might well have made them explicit. I don't think he would just leave it for people to draw their conclusions if it was important, even if a reader in his time would have understood from the story that she was wealthy. The point of the story is the recognition of Mary's child as the Son of God.