Son behold your mother

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hisalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hisalone

Guest
At the cross one of the last acts of Jesus was to give His mother to one of His disciples, John.
John who wrote 5 of the NT books never instructs or teaches to give devotion or to pray to Mary. Would not he be the one to do so?
The doctrines on Mary are clearly unbiblical.
One of the many differences between todays Catholic Church and the one of the first century.
 
Hisalone said:
At the cross one of the last acts of Jesus was to give His mother to one of His disciples, John.
John who wrote 5 of the NT books never instructs or teaches to give devotion or to pray to Mary. Would not he be the one to do so?
The doctrines on Mary are clearly unbiblical.
One of the many differences between todays Catholic Church and the one of the first century.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be a natural thing to give thanks to Mary for accepting God’s plan for her life and giving human flesh to Jesus? If not for Mary the mother of Jesus/God we would not have salvation. So to me it makes perfect sense ( have devotions to ) to thank Mary and John shouldn’t have to tell us to do this. I don’t know if the doctrines on Mary are CLEARLY unbiblical but they are Tradition.

Jeanne
 
Mary is not prayed TO. We get intercession through her.

Go here for biblical sources of Mary:
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

Alot of it is tradition, but if you look at our fore fathers statements, you will see they were all talking about Mary from the beginning of the Church!!
 
I am amused that the argument here is presented that Marian devotion is unbiblical since John did not expressly write of it. He did not write, to my knowledge, of Mary growing older, but it would be fallacious to say that Mary growing older was unbiblical.
 
It is interesting that modern Protestants find Marian devotion “unbiblical” and ignoring that all early Protestant reformers believed in the ever-virginity of Mary, or her recognition as “Mother of God.”
 
Hisalone said:
At the cross one of the last acts of Jesus was to give His mother to one of His disciples, John.
John who wrote 5 of the NT books never instructs or teaches to give devotion or to pray to Mary. Would not he be the one to do so?
The doctrines on Mary are clearly unbiblical.
One of the many differences between todays Catholic Church and the one of the first century.
Click to expand...
unbiblical is not the same thing as extrabiblical IMO
 
I do find it funny when the doctrines of Mary being the Mother of God and her perpetual virginity are called into question as if they were an invention of the Catholic church. As one of the above posters mentioned even the reformation leaders such as Luther and Calvin accepted these teachings and they’ve been part of christian teaching since the beginning.

Claiming Mary isn’t the Mother of God and denying her perpetual virginity seems more like an invention to me.

As for the OP thinking the early church didn’t believe these things about Mary he/she might want to see what the early church fathers had to say about Mary…
 
Hisalone said:
At the cross one of the last acts of Jesus was to give His mother to one of His disciples, John.
Click to expand...
From which some reasonably infer that Jesus had no brothers and sisters, which in turn seems to support the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Hisalone said:
John who wrote 5 of the NT books never instructs or teaches to give devotion or to pray to Mary. Would not he be the one to do so?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure there’s universal agreement that the disciple, John, wrote five of the New Testament books but I’m open to correction.
JeanneH said:
Hisalone;5547308:
The doctrines on Mary are clearly unbiblical.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if the doctrines on Mary are CLEARLY unbiblical but they are Tradition.

Jeanne
Click to expand...
One of the disturbing results of the post–Reformation cacophony amongst Non–Catholic Western Christians has been to render the term “biblical” entirely meaningless. The term “unbiblical’ therefore has to fall into the category of “non–word.” So it seems to me that suggesting the doctrines on Mary are clearly unbiblical leads to as much lucidity as suggesting that doctrines on Mary are clearly unjumblesale.
Hisalone said:
One of the many differences between todays Catholic Church and the one of the first century.
Click to expand...
In none of the New Testament books are Christians instructed to maintain the ambience of the first century so perhaps the Catholic Church ought to be applauded for stoically resisting the temptation to force imaginary anachronisms upon its members? 🙂

Ecumenically,
Mick
👍
 
Hisalone said:
At the cross one of the last acts of Jesus was to give His mother to one of His disciples, John.
John who wrote 5 of the NT books never instructs or teaches to give devotion or to pray to Mary. Would not he be the one to do so?
The doctrines on Mary are clearly unbiblical.
Click to expand...
It’s a paradox.

You say Mary is unbiblical, but Mary and the bible are Catholic.

What will we do?
One of the many differences between todays Catholic Church and the one of the first century.
Click to expand...
By the way, how are your bishops and priests doing?

And don’t get me started on contraception!
 
Hisalone said:
At the cross one of the last acts of Jesus was to give His mother to one of His disciples, John.
John who wrote 5 of the NT books never instructs or teaches to give devotion or to pray to Mary. Would not he be the one to do so?
The doctrines on Mary are clearly unbiblical.
One of the many differences between todays Catholic Church and the one of the first century.
Click to expand...
John never mentions, instructs or teaches anything about praise bands, huge full screen tv’s and monitors, internet ministry, or a ton of other things either.

So what?
 
StrawberryJam said:
John never mentions, instructs or teaches anything about praise bands, huge full screen tv’s and monitors, internet ministry, or a ton of other things either.

So what?
Click to expand...
John never mentions peanut butter sandwiches but what do you care you dont believe in God anyway
 
mark_a said:
It’s a paradox.

You say Mary is unbiblical, but Mary and the bible are Catholic.

What will we do?

By the way, how are your bishops and priests doing?

And don’t get me started on contraception!
Click to expand...
I did not say Mary was unbiblical.
Reading comprehension is our friend.
 
SSTeacher said:
From which some reasonably infer that Jesus had no brothers and sisters, which in turn seems to support the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

To go from no brothers and sisters to perpetual virginity is a great leap.
Some would say that James the brother of Jesus and His other brothers were not believers at the time of the crucifiction so in order for Mary to still be with members of the way she was given to John

I’m not sure there’s universal agreement that the disciple, John, wrote five of the New Testament books but I’m open to correction.

One of the disturbing results of the post–Reformation cacophony amongst Non–Catholic Western Christians has been to render the term “biblical” entirely meaningless. The term “unbiblical’ therefore has to fall into the category of “non–word.” So it seems to me that suggesting the doctrines on Mary are clearly unbiblical leads to as much lucidity as suggesting that doctrines on Mary are clearly unjumblesale.

One of the disturbing things in Catholic theology is to attempt to cause confussion where there is none.

In none of the New Testament books are Christians instructed to maintain the ambience of the first century so perhaps the Catholic Church ought to be applauded for stoically resisting the temptation to force imaginary anachronisms upon its members? 🙂

**Doctrines are an ambience? **

Ecumenically,
Mick
👍
Click to expand...
 
Hisalone, the early church had a lot to say about the “Ark of the New Covenant”, here is a few samples:

“[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain’” (Ascension of Isaiah 11 [A.D. 70]).

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]).

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

There are many more. You should look up all the writings of the Early Church Fathers and more.
 
Hisalone said:
At the cross one of the last acts of Jesus was to give His mother to one of His disciples, John.
John who wrote 5 of the NT books never instructs or teaches to give devotion or to pray to Mary. Would not he be the one to do so?
The doctrines on Mary are clearly unbiblical.
One of the many differences between todays Catholic Church and the one of the first century.
Click to expand...
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. John 19:26-27 (KJV)

From King James Version. John took Mary the mother of Jesus unto his own home. In that simple sentence there was no argument no “if’ from John but he just obeyed the Lord.
If we are called to imitate our older brothers in the faith (as was exhorted by Paul), to **take Mary to our home **would come naturally for Christians as we are merely imitating the apostle John who did that on the command of the Lord.
 
Reuben_J said:
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. John 19:26-27 (KJV)

From King James Version. John took Mary the mother of Jesus unto his own home. In that simple sentence there was no argument no “if’ from John but he just obeyed the Lord.
If we are called to imitate our older brothers in the faith (as was exhorted by Paul), to **take Mary to our home **would come naturally for Christians as we are merely imitating the apostle John who did that on the command of the Lord.
Click to expand...
John took Mary into his home and provided for her needs. He did not kneel before her, light candles to her, sing songs and hymns about her. Johns mind was focused on Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top