[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death?

She lost a son, so Jesus gives to her another to ease her suffering. He did care deeply about His mother. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. It doesn't seem that unusual to me for Jesus to put Mary in the care of one who had been devoted to Him and one " whom He loved". We have no idea why it was best for Mary, but Jesus did know what was best for her.

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care!

As to the Jesus being left behind and Mary and Joseph returning for Him. He was 12, there is nothing saying they had all their other children by this time, its quite possible there were only 2 or 3, after all it was a few years after Jesus birth that they settled down anywhere. Since they traveled with relatives, I would assume they left the others in care of them so as not to have to take them back with them... or its even conceivable that they never brought them in the first place and that they were home in care of others. Apparently they never thought twice about Jesus not being under their direct care on the first day of the return trip, so if there were other children with them there is no reason to think otherwise of them either.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

These 2 verses correspond.


Woah, okie then. Can you specifically tell me that EVERY single verse in the psalm has a prophetic fulfillment to Jesus elsewhere, in the same sense as 4 and 9 do?


Do you really think it that strange. David is the one writing the psalm and we know that Scripture is first read for what it says, and then read for it's deeper connections to other passages. The direct reading shows David in a prayer to God for His protection. David was accused of a crime he did not commit. This is the most obvious meaning. He had become outcast to his family because of the crime that he did not commit. When you look deeper into the passage one can see that there are certain verses, some verses, that refer to Jesus(after all, David is a TYPE of Jesus).

.

So you agree that vs 4, vs 7, vs 9 and vs 10 are all prophetic, but you then exclude vs 8. Yes , I think that is strange, especially because the Bible wasn't written in verses as we have it (which is why I posted it without vs numbers..)so to accept what is directly before and after as being prophetic, but then to exclude what is right in the middle is not logical.

Also look at vs 21 in Psalm 69.... They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Can you show me where this applies to David in any way? As to the verses I gave concerning David, they were to show that he was not a stranger to his brether, or an alien to his mothers children.... he was on very good terms with them.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

I see, but what's your point exactly, besides trying to get away from psalm 69. The psalm shows that he was wrongly accused("Must I now restore what I did not steal?") Clearly this is what David is directly distressed about, and the accusation has made many enemies for him.

Christ did not steal our relationship with God, Adam and Eve did in the garden. Christ came to restore that which He did not steal. I find that prophetic.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to "brother" with reference to Jesus.

George Forman named all his sons George and I personally know a family that named all 3 of their girls Mary, with different middle names that they go by. Besides, there were many forms of the name Mary, one could have been Mary and one Marissa for all we know. As one on here taking the Catholic stand has shone Joses and Joseph are the same, so it could simple be that both were called Mary but had different forms of the name. ( Just pointing this out , I am not agreeing that it referred to Mary's sister, just that it could be)

[P3chrmd]

As to the Jesus being left behind and Mary and Joseph returning for Him. He was 12, there is nothing saying they had all their other children by this time, its quite possible there were only 2 or 3, after all it was a few years after Jesus birth that they settled down anywhere. Since they traveled with relatives, I would assume they left the others in care of them so as not to have to take them back with them... or its even conceivable that they never brought them in the first place and that they were home in care of others. Apparently they never thought twice about Jesus not being under their direct care on the first day of the return trip, so if there were other children with them there is no reason to think otherwise of them either

THIS is the best argument you have...assumption! No thank you...I think I will stick to my original and true belief! The Virgin Mary remained just that...a virgin, ever pure!

[P3chrmd]

The point it is that it is such liberal theology and new age (past 200 or 300 years) to believe that Mary had other children besides Jesus! Martin Luther, John Calvin, and all protestant reformers believed that Mary remained a spotless virgin! And it was taught ever since the beginning of the church! BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE...no one questioned it...because they were there and they knew. It has only been since the reformation, that protestants have gotten further and further away from the church that they have become vulnerable to these liberal theologies...which shows the evils of seperation from The Holy Mother Church! In the next 100 or so years...protestant churches will begin to deny other doctorines...such as Mary being the Mother of God, ect...and before you know it...they will begin to deny even Jesus' own divinity! You loose Mary first...and then next thing you know you will begin to loose Jesus!

I was southern baptist for 18 years of my life...and when I converted to the Catholic Church everything made since...the doctorines of Mary and their purpose and how they protect Christ!

[P3chrmd]

An evangelical Christian once retorted indignantly to me "Mary isn't my Mother." To which I was forced to respond. "Then what you're really saying is that Jesus is not your Brother." And in truth it is as simple as that. If we as Christians are brothers of Jesus, then, as with Jesus, God is our Father and Mary is our Mother.

The bible also teaches, that all Christians become part of the body of Christ. Again this re-emphasises the fact that as Christians become one with Jesus they share with Him, the Fatherhood of God and also, the motherhood of Mary.

The New Testament has two further passages which confirm Mary's motherhood of Christians:

John 19.25: Near the cross of Jesus, stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing near by, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on the disciple took her into his home.

This is not just a personal bequest of his Mother to John, but, being from the cross itself, has a greater significance. First of all, if Jesus were merely asking John to take care of Mary, He would have made His first request to John. But if you look at the passage, you will see that His first statement is to Mary. The emphasis is therefore upon Mary being Mother to John, not John "looking after" Mary. John here represents all the disciples of Jesus, and hence all Christians, who are given Mary as their Mother.

Revelation 12.17: Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

This passage shows the Dragon (Satan), making war on the Woman (Mary)'s offspring, following the birth of Jesus. These offspring, clearly represent the community of Christians, who are "the rest of" Mary's children.

HERE TOO TYPOLOGY COMES TO OUR AID.

The Old Testament contains many "Types" or precursors of New Testament figures or events. Adam is accepted as a "type" of Jesus, who is sometimes called "the 2nd Adam". Adam, as the first man, sinned, and brought death to all. Jesus, as the second Adam, did not sin, and brought life. So too as Eve brought death to us through disobedience, " Mary as "the Second Eve", brought life through her obedience. So how is the first Eve described?

Gen 2:20: "The man called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living."

And so the Second Eve became the mother of all who live in Christ.

[swordfish7]

Originally Posted by p3chrmd

I think I will stick to my original and true belief! The Virgin Mary remained just that...a virgin, ever pure! … Mary remained a spotless virgin!

I perceive there is an improper view of sex here. Sex, inside marriage, is God ordained, is pure, and is undefiled. Any woman, Mary, or any other, who has sex with her husband remains “pure”, “spotless”, and “undefiled”.

Originally Posted by p3chrmd

protestant churches will begin to deny other doctorines...such as Mary being the Mother of God, ect...and before you know it...they will begin to deny even Jesus' own divinity! You loose Mary first...and then next thing you know you will begin to loose Jesus!
…
the doctorines of Mary and their purpose and how they protect Christ!

Doctrine is important, but is it not the doctrines of God that preserve the other doctrines? This belief that the doctrines of Mary preserve the doctrines of God and the divinity of Christ is somewhat reversed. Such a reversed emphasis could lead to placing more weight on things like celibacy for pastors (they should reflect Mary’s purity) than on the idea that pastors must the husband of one wife and have a good character (reflective of Christ’s own character).

[BurntHombre]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

THIS is the best argument you have...assumption! No thank you...I think I will stick to my original and true belief! The Virgin Mary remained just that...a virgin, ever pure!

Until I see a passage that explicitly teaches that Mary remained a virgin for her entire married life, I'm more comfortable with the assumption that Mary had sexual relations with her husband just like 99.99999% of all married couples throughout history.

Are there any passages that explicitly teach the perpetual virginity of Mary?

[P3chrmd]

Until I see a passage that explicitly teaches that Mary remained a virgin for her entire married life, I'm more comfortable with the assumption that Mary had sexual relations with her husband just like 99.99999% of all married couples throughout history.

Are there any passages that explicitly teach the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Thats cool...go against what all early christians believed and KNEW for a fact...I mean they were there! But since we weren't its easy for us to deny...but thats why Im proud to be a part of a church, who proclaims its faith, regardless of supposed "evidence" that can be proven against it...thats what satan tries to do over and over! I don't understand protestants problem with beliving Mary was always a virgin...If Martin Luther, John Clavin and ALL THE OTHER reformers believed it....why not current day reformists???

[P3chrmd]

I perceive there is an improper view of sex here. Sex, inside marriage, is God ordained, is pure, and is undefiled. Any woman, Mary, or any other, who has sex with her husband remains “pure”, “spotless”, and “undefiled”.

I think we can agree that Mary was...lets say...unique, in that she was The Ark of the New Covenant! She carried, like the old ark, the word of God inside of her...and the bread from heaven...except this time it was The Lord Jesus Christ! She was also spouse of the Holy Spirit...Joseph, as the bible says, was a just man! He respected Gods relationship with Mary and knew that their job and position was to raise the Christ child!!!! Not go off and have lots more "brothers and sisters" their main concern was JESUS! So...yes sex inside marriage is OF COURSE sacred and pure...but in the case of The Mother of Yahweh...things had to have been just a slight bit different!!!

[P3chrmd]

The "seed" of the woman (Gen. 3:15) refers to the Woman’s "children". These are the spiritual children of Our Mother, the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, her firstborn, was "Spirit" conceived in her womb. The "enmity" between these spiritual children of Our Lady and the spiritual children of Lucifer/the Devil will be a warfare between Truth and Error, Humility and Pride, Obedience and Disobedience, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, for the souls of men. Those who "explain" and defend "Our Lady," honor her Son/God, Who chose her for His Mother and ours. See St. John 19:26-27, Eccl. 24:31.

At Baptism we become "children of God the Father" and "children of Our Lady," which is why we call "Mary, ‘Our Mother". Any child - (seed) who attempts to dishonor his own Mother in any way is doing the "works" of the Devil, Satan, who hates Our Lady, for she crushed his head at her own Immaculate Conception, and the Incarnation of Our Lord. It is a continuous ongoing crushing of lies, hatred and heresy, i.e., the Serpents head by Our Lady and her "seed", the faithful Catholic Children who love her.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

The New Testament has two further passages which confirm Mary's motherhood of Christians:

John 19.25: Near the cross of Jesus, stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing near by, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on the disciple took her into his home.

This is not just a personal bequest of his Mother to John, but, being from the cross itself, has a greater significance. First of all, if Jesus were merely asking John to take care of Mary, He would have made His first request to John. But if you look at the passage, you will see that His first statement is to Mary. The emphasis is therefore upon Mary being Mother to John, not John "looking after" Mary. John here represents all the disciples of Jesus, and hence all Christians, who are given Mary as their Mother.

No , that is what you CLAIM this passage means. There is nothing in that exchange to even hint at John representing ALL the disciples or of Mary being given as mother to all Christians... you are adding a great deal here. Jesus was dying and He knew His mother would grieve... He gave her a son to fill that void and to the disciple whom He loved, He gave His mother. If I were dying I would first speak to my mom, and then to a dear friend I loved, not the other way around... I suspect most of us would. In all ways Jesus was a good , faithful son.... I see no reason why you read in to this what you do. It is a very reasonable thing for Jesus to have done. John was the only disciple who died of natural causes, after many years. Jesus knew the past, the present, and the future.....He knew this man whom He loved would be there to care for His mother.

Mary was the mother of Jesus, and she was blessed above all women because God chose her to carry His son.... beyond this she was a woman like any other.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

THIS is the best argument you have...assumption! No thank you...I think I will stick to my original and true belief! The Virgin Mary remained just that...a virgin, ever pure!

Well, I responded to an ASSUMPTION of a catholic poster in this thread, who claimed ( with nothing to back it up ) that Mary and Joseph would have had 7 or 8 children by the time Jesus was 12 so it must follow that they never had other children because we aren't told where all these supposed children are. IF that is the BEST argument the Catholic church has for claiming Mary had no other children.. then NO THANK YOU!!! . Biologically , that just doesn't hold water. I can guarantee you that Mary nursed Jesus. Nursing a child is a natural form of birth control. Until a child is weaned ( or is nursing only infrequently ) a woman rarely ovulates. Besides, show me anywhere in the Bible that it says that a family brought all their children with them when they went to present their 12 yr old sons in the temple. Talk about making assumptions.

[P3chrmd]

No , that is what you CLAIM this passage means. There is nothing in that exchange to even hint at John representing ALL the disciples or of Mary being given as mother to all Christians... you are adding a great deal here

.

Actually, no Im not! You see St. John was a very awsome writer! Why did he not use HIS OWN NAME instead of "the disciple whom Jesus loved"! I MEAN IT WAS HIS GOSPEL...Don't you think that St. John would want to boast that HE was the apostle who was rewarded with the task of taking care of Christs mother! I mean after all the apostles did argue who was the greater among them!!!!

St. John uses the term disciple...because he wants us to put ourselves in the place of him at the cross...Jesus is giving us his mother...why do people INSIST on pushing her away...don't argue with God!

As actor Jim Caviezel (Passion of the Christ star...and devout Catholic) said.."Jesus said 7 things from the cross...he could barely say anything...so why out of all the things he could have said would he go out of his way to give Mary to his disciple?"

Because she didn't have other children? YES that is one reason...but also he gave her as a mother to each one of us seaking refuge and salvation!

Look at this scene at the cross in light of the Wedding feast at Canna in chapter 2 of St. John. The presence of the mother of Jesus, and the way he adresses her as WOMAN! The same way Adam did when he first adressed Eve in Genesis. Compare the beginning of Genesis to St. John...you will find that John was trying to show to us that Christ was the NEW Adam and Mary was the NEW Eve! Jesus and Mary are the only ones mentioned by any sort of name at the wedding feast...because they are the ones of importance! Mary INTERCEEDS for the people to Jesus! And then she is at the end...at the cross with Jesus...who then hands her over as the mother of all Christians...

Thats HOW MUCH Jesus loves us...enough to share his mother with us!!!