Why did Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John?

[MartinJordan]

I would think that if Jesus had (uterine) siblings , he would also be also responsible for taking care of them;being the eldest.

It would much better sense that he was the only child being responsible with his Father’s (God) work, and that’s why parents didn’t know where he was, or what he was doing when they lost him at age 12.

MJ

 

[KathleenGee]

Joe…

This is well put…how could anyone want to have sex with a woman who just gave birth to the Son of God…

Their home was the sacred dwelling of the God Most High.

Mary had only one vocation in life and that was to bear the Son of God…and that all generations would call her blessed. She could not do or be anything else…her soul was pierced by a sword…she only wished to serve God alone

This concept to live only for the kingdom of Christ seems impossible to most…that one must experience the carnal to be happy in this life.

 

[joe370]

Hey Radical thanks for sticking around.

It isn’t surprising that you do not find my answer satisfying…given your commitment to being dissatisfied with anything not Catholic. I can’t change your bias, but I can at least demonstrate your use of a double standard.

I, as a former non-catholic am committed to finding the truth, and if that truth agrees with your interpretation, then I will be the first to say: I was wrong. I have no biases. I will try really hard to see things from your perspective.

So your answer is that he didn’t offer the fullness of the truth (re the manner of eating not involving cannibalism) that day to the disciples who walked away…but he clarified his meaning some time later to an entirely different group.

Even the the apostles did not have a firm grasp of Jesus’ word in John 6 - agreed, just as they did not have a firm grasp on a lot of things until the day of Pentecost? I believe that all was made crystal clear to the apostles on Pentecost, who then proceeded, via the guidance of the HS, to share those truths with everyone.

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

So here is that double standard that I am talking about. It is (in your mind) just fine for Christ not to clarify that he was talking about some miraculous manner of non-cannibalistic eating that day, but it is unfathomable that he wouldn’t explain the meaning of his metaphor that day? By Pentecost, the metaphor had become clear for the loyal disciples in that, by that time, they had seen when and how Christ gave his flesh for the life of the world.

I too wonder why Jesus Christ on that particular day, did not clarify that he was talking about some miraculous manner of non-cannibalistic nature. I agree with you regarding that. My point is: why didn’t Jesus simply clarify (as He does at other times) - and tell them that He was merely speaking in metaphor? It’s just a real simple question without any double standard. You gave me your answer and I tried to embrace it but it makes no sense to me.

… and that is why His church has been teaching and believing that the bread and wine truly becomes Jesus’ flesh and blood.
only a part of his church has taught that notion…and the percentage is getting smaller all the time

For 1500 years this was taught by the CC and the EOC even though some folks within these 2 churches have doubt it. I agree with you regarding the fact that many more people within the CC as well as non-Catholics, are doubting this teaching, but that doesn’t mean that they are right. If Jesus’ church, from Pentecost on, had been teaching the symbolic interpretation then, without doubt I would agree with you, but that is not the case.

 

[joe370]

really, apart from that fraction of Lutherans and Anglicans who adhere to a real bodily presence, where are these protestants that disagree with me? …I dare say that it is a lot easier for me to find Catholics who disagree with you than it is for you to find protestants that disagree with me.

Most protestants believe that Jesus was speaking in metaphor: this is a symbol of my body. They don’t believe that Jesus’ flesh is true food or that Jesus’ blood is true drink. If this is what you believe then they do in fact agree with you. My bad…

I see that you have picked up that stone called “double standard” yet again…Again, ask yourself this question: From a Catholic perspective, which thinks that Jesus was speaking of an unknown miraculous manner of eating, why didn’t Jesus simply say something like: “Wait, I am talking about a miraculous manner of eating that isn’t cannibalistic.”

I agree with you; that would have been helpful. However, Jesus did say:

"Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life.

That is the point of this thread. Why didn’t He simply clarify as He did at other times???
Back at you,…Why didn’t he clarify that day that transubstantiation was involved? I have provided my answer, and it is:

Why Jesus did not say, that day, “Wait, I am talking about a miraculous manner of eating that isn’t cannibalistic,”** I do not know.** However, it was made clear on Pentecost, otherwise Jesus’ church would not have taught it in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century…I should see the early church leaders believing and teaching what you believe regarding the Eucharist if in fact you are correct. The idea that the CC and EOC were teaching heretically for 1500 years, until Calvin and company came along and saved the day is silly.

b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back.

Jesus said: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, but first they must know the truth and willfully reject the truth. All Jesus had to do was say something like: I am speaking symbolically, please don’t leave, and then if they left we would know that the Father did not draw them to Himself.

 

[joe370]

Now you tried to answer my question which was:

Explain why Jesus didn’t offer the fullness of truth and clarify that he was referring to some hithertobefore unknown manner of eating whereby his flesh was not actually present to one’s senses, if in fact, He was speaking of the consumption of transubstantiated flesh (as a little more than half of all Catholics believe)?

He did, through His church, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth. If he didn’t, no one in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries would have embraced the teachings of the present day CC, but I can find no one in the early church that disbelieved this notion. No one in the early church agrees with you. Did the holy spirit misguide Jesus’ early church as early as the 1st and 2nd century? Jesus never used the word transubstantiation. Jesus said: I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." 52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Seems like a valid question to me. Why didn’t Jesus simply tell them that his words were symbolic? Instead He tells them that His words are spirit and life.

"Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Here was an opportunity for Jesus to tell them that His words are merely symbolic, but instead he says:

“I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

…but you, for some unknown reason, started talking about Pentecost.

That is because Jesus said:

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.

And that occurred on Pentecost - right?

You want to know why Jesus didn’t offer clarification of his metaphor in John 6. I provided an answer to that question.

Which is: b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back.

So, Jesus, knowing that they were not called by the Father, deprived them of truth? I am trying to see things from your perspective, but that makes no sense to me. Jesus would have at least given them a fighting chance by saying something like, I am only speaking in metaphor, if in fact that was what he meant. However, you do raise a good point as to why Jesus, on that day, did not explain what he meant regarding the miraculous nature of His words.

I want to know why Jesus didn’t offer clarification of the miraculous manner of eating (that you think he was talking about) in John 6 on that day …You dodged that question. Try again.

Again, I don’t know why Jesus didn’t offer clarification of the miraculous manner of eating, on that particular day?

I think that it would be entirely appropriate for a non-Christian to wonder why an all-knowing God wouldn’t have clarified a matter that has so divided Christianity. The ridiculousness comes from your obliviousness to the double standard that you employ. Y

I don’t mind you calling me oblivious, but don’t tell me that I am employing a double standard. You said:

I think that it would be entirely appropriate for a non-Christian to wonder why an all-knowing God wouldn’t have clarified a matter that has so divided Christianity, but you are okay with God not telling the grumblers that his words are symbolic. Certainly those non-Christians would wonder why an all-knowing God wouldn’t have clarified a matter that has so divided Christianity since the 16th century reformation, regarding the symbolic interpretation??? However, I do not believe that you are employing a double standard for you provided an answer that you believe sufficiently addresses the matter. It just makes no sense to me. I tried to drink it in but no dice.

Radical, show me an example of this teaching dividing Christianity, prior to the 16th century reformation? Even most of the reformers believed in the true presence…

Your answer is, b/c (as the author of John makes clear) those who left hadn’t actually been called by the Father and so no purpose would have been served by Christ trying to win them back, and again, that makes no sense to me. Jesus, who is a loving God, would have still revealed to them the truth, if in fact he was speaking in metaphor.

c

) Why didn’t Jesus clarify his meaning in John 6, if He was only speaking of a miraculous form non-cannibalistic eating?; or d) Why didn’t Jesus simply say, “I am speaking of a miraculous form non-cannibalistic eating.”?

Again, I don’t know why Jesus did not clarify on that particular day. I am not gonna make something up.

PS…You may wish to adopt my answer…it would work for you and it would work in answer to the agnostic too…but then you would have to be satisfied with the answer (as it relates to your question) and that would sure stink, now wouldn’t it?

I cannot adopt your answer because your answer implies that Jesus would deprive the grumblers of truth, regarding the metaphor, and I can’t believe He would do that - sorry.

I enjoyed our dialogue friend.

 

[rinnie]

Not so fast there, Mary was not yet pregnant was she?
Mary said, “How can I have a baby, I’m a virgin?” or the K.J. version “How shall this be, seeing I know no man?” Your version, “How shall this be?” Why would she say that because she was wondering who she was going to get pregnant. Remember she was not pregnant yet, She was just being told about it.

If I say to you, “Your going to marry Jane, you would respond, how can this be, I don’t know anybody named Jane?”

If someone came to you, assuming you are a man, and said you are going to have a baby, would you say OH, OK or would you say, how can this be, I’m a man?"
Remember Mary was confused and disturbed so her natural responce would be to question it. That would be a normal responce from anyone.

OK get for real what do you think she meant when she said, I know no man. Of course she knew how babies are concieved.

What do you expect her to ask after being told that she will become pregnant and have a son. Why do you think she should have had to wait until she was told by the HS. It really don’t matter when she asked.

The angel said you are going to have a baby, Mary said How can this be. This is a logical question since she is still a virgin.How am I going to have a baby, I’m a virgin. Its kind of like saying How can I do that, I don’t have a hammer.

You answered the question for me, Mary did not say, “I took a vow to God to be with no man” now did she, she questioned the angel, How can this be, I know no man." Big difference in the wording and the meaning.
There you are explained.

Rev Kev, Not so fast there yourself. You are going to have to do better then that. How can she not know who she was going to be married to yet, when the scripture right above this says the angel Gabriel was sent from God to Galilee call Nazareth to a Virgin BETROTHED TO A MAN NAMED JOSEPH. Try Again

 

[rinnie]

Now here is something else Rev, Kev, Maybe you can explain to us.

Now according to S.T. Joseph was a old man who was a widow. Now we could argue this all day, but does not matter so that is not my point. But lets say this is true. Now Joseph was going to marry the Blessed Mother and then quietly divorce her. But WHY?

Now lets step back in time. Mary was the daughter of Anna who were very religious People. When Anna had a daughter she promised to give her up to God. Now Mary was taken to the Temple her whole life since birth. She was put here for this reason. Now as I told you Joseph was old. You ASSUME he is going to divorce Mary quietly because of the baby. But this is not the way I was taught. My way makes more sense anyway.

Joseph KNEW his faith, So did the Holy People. It was not strange for them to hear that a virgin would bear a son. It was predicted. These people were living for this day. God promised this to Isaiah. Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel which means GOD is with us.

Now in Matt 1:19 the Penalty for anyone that approved adulterty was death by stoning. Not only Mary but for Joseph. Now Joseph was UNWILLING TO EXPOSE HER TO SHAME! Why???

Simple You assume Joseph was going to divorce her because she was Pregnant. That was not why at all. Joseph did not want to marry her because he was old. He KNEW he would not be around to raise this Chld and she would be alone. But God said, its okay. You are who I want.

Now go back and read the scripture, if he was afraid to marry her because she was w/child why was he going to marry her anyway and then divorce her quietly.

According to his law I told you that was proven adultery, and he a already put his life in danger before the angel appeared. (dt. 22; 21-23) He would also be stoned to death.

Now why is it that after Jesus as a Child is in the temple teaching, you hear no more about Joseph? Where was he when Jesus was on the Cross, Teaching, Etc. Simple, my teaching was correct Joseph was already dead.

That is why all you hear about is Mary, Mary is at the foot of the Cross. Mary is the Person at Pentecost with the Apostles Etc. Joseph married her simply to satisfy the law and nothing more. He knew she would remain a Virgin. He knew the scriptures. He was a very devout Holy Man.

Joseph knew his scripture.

Old Test.

David arose and went to bring up the ark N.T. Mary arose and went to visit Elizabeth
David was leaping and dancing before the Lord. N.T. The babe in my womb leaped for joy.
David said, How can the ark of the Lord come to me? N.T. Elizabeth said and why is this granted to me that the Mother ofthe Lord should come to me.
And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obededom the Gittite 3 months. N.T. And mary remained with her about 3 months.

Jesus was expected Luke 2:8-11 By the titles the angels had usd the shepherds knew right away that the Messiah had been born. They like Joseph, they knew their scripture.

ANd luke 2:25-32 They also knew Jesus was comming. It was prophesied.

Simeon’s Prophecy to Mary, (And a sword will pierce through your own soul also) Again it was predicted.

 

[joe370]

Oops…Disregard post 122, 123 and 124. I accidentally clicked on the wrong thread. Those posts were for another thread.

Sorry folks…

 

[rev_kevin]

Rev Kev, Not so fast there yourself. You are going to have to do better then that. How can she not know who she was going to be married to yet, when the scripture right above this says the angel Gabriel was sent from God to Galilee call Nazareth to a Virgin BETROTHED TO A MAN NAMED JOSEPH. Try Again

Where in what I said do you see where I said she didn’t know who she was going to marry? I said she knew no man. Talking about sexual relations, not who she was going to marry.

 

[rev_kevin]

Hey Kevin…

My bad. I thought you were a sola scriptura advocate.

If I thought that, then I would have said that, but I did not.

Good point. They could have been His half brothers. So you agree that it is possible.

Because they were His brothers. Just as Joseph, James, and Jude, sons of Alphaeus, (who were not the sons of Mary and Joseph) - could have been Jesus’ brothers.
Then wouldn’t is say “Is this not the carpenters son, hao mother named Mary and the son’s of Alphaeus James, Joseph and Judas.” Hay there’s one missing, Simon. But it don’t say that now does it. So it would stand to reason that they were Jesus’ half brothers.

Like you said: Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus’ brothers were not his 1/2 brothers? Take the Brady bunch for example: the boys were considered the brothers of the girls (just as Jesus was considered the brother of James, Joseph…) - but Mrs. Brady was not the biological mother of the boys just as Mary did not have to be the biological mother of James, Joseph… I cannot prove that you are wrong but you can’t prove that I am wrong - right?

You are so right my friend. Perhaps there was another Joseph, Simon, Jude and James. Prove to me that these unknown brothers could not be Jesus’ half brothers or brothers from an extended family, and I will concede your point! Show me where the bible says: Mary mother of Jesus and Simon and Joseph and Jude and James? Now that would be pretty compelling but it still would not rule out the possibility that those other men could have been Jesus’ half brothers or brothers from extended family which would have been the case with James, Jude and Joseph, sons of Alphaeus if these particular fellows were who they were talking about when they said:
there is nowhere in the Bible that says they are his extended family it says brothers/sisters. Like I said “and his {Jesus’} brothers…” It like saying, is that not the executives son, is his mother not Mary and his brothers…" wouldn’t they be your brothers and your mothers sons or would they be the sons of someone else. If it were the sons of someone else it would say, "Is that not the executives son, is his mother not Mary, and the sons of Roger and Sara.

“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”

Doesn’t it seem possible that these 4 fellows could be the same 4 fellows that were the sons of Alphaeus with the exception of Simon who was not from Nazareth?
Ya it could be possible and it could be possible that they were the sons of Mary and Joseph who happen to have the same names. After all they were common names.

I cannot prove conclusively that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon were not the sons of Mary and Joseph or that they are the sons of Joseph and Mary, nor can you.
So it is possible then.

Using scripture prove to me that those men were in fact the sons of Mary and Joseph, and not brothers from an extended family, which would have been the case with James, Joseph, Jude, sons of Alphaeus and Simon the Canaanite?
I already have.

Prove it? Prove that Mary and Joseph had other sons? Something like: …Jesus’ mother Mary, and her other sons, Joseph, Simon, Jude and James.

Exactly. The brothers of Jesus could be Joseph’s sons from a prior marriage.

Nope! Meaning Joseph, Mary and Jesus…

 

[rev_kevin]

Your sentence that I underlined isn’t clear. As it reads, Mary is going to get someone pregnant Op’s I worded it wrong.

Problem with this comparison is that Mary knew who she was married to. Yes I know it was just a example.

The normal response for a married woman however was not to say that they don’t have relations. They would assume that they would. The natural response for a woman even just engaged to be told they would have a son would be to assume that it would be with the one they were marrying. Your line of reasoning would be for one who was not going to be married ever. That would make sense.
OK get for real what do you think she meant when she said, I know no man. Of course she knew how babies are concieved.I answered that way because something was said about her not knoweing where babies come from.


Not logical for an engaged women much less for a married on.

You think? Mary did not say Yeah Joseph and I will have a child. Nope she curiously says I know not man. Not Joseph and I are not having relations but I do not know man period. She is saying I do not have relations with anyone. Her question was really does God want me to break my vow? Then angel answers in the negative.

No it wasn’t.

 

[joe370]

Kevin, if there is a chance, as you have suggested, that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon could have been Jesus’ half brothers or step brothers, then there is a chance that Mary was not their biological mother - right? I cannot prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mary did not have other children with Joseph, but you cannot prove that she did, if in fact you concede that Jesus’ brothers could have been His half /step brothers - agreed?

 

[rev_kevin]

Kevin, just curious: do you defer to the teachings of any one particular church leadership? If so do they teach fallibly or infallibly? I know of no protestant Pastor that claims to teach erroneous doctrine, which means that they must teach error free doctrine, or infallible doctrine.

No I don’t. Wether the Bible is infallible or not, the message that it gives has meaning and a good example of how to live a good, clean, respsectible life. It shows us how to love one another and care for eachother. To me its the message it gives. See things can get lost in translation, words misused or interperted wrong.

 

[rev_kevin]

Kevin, if there is a chance, as you have suggested, that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon could have been Jesus’ half brothers or step brothers, then there is a chance that Mary was not their biological mother - right? I cannot prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mary did not have other children with Joseph, but you cannot prove that she did, if in fact you concede that Jesus’ brothers could have been His half /step brothers - agreed?

Half brothers, agree. Step brothers, not so sure.

 

[adrift]

Where in what I said do you see where I said she didn’t know who she was going to marry? I said she knew no man. Talking about sexual relations, not who she was going to marry.

1. Mary and Joseph had already started the marriage process. A strange statement for a woman entering into marriage doubly strange for one who is married and awaiting the completion of the marriage rite. That would have been for Joseph to take her into his home. Her thoughts than should have been that Joseph would do that soon. Not I have no relations with a man.
2. Mary says she does not have relations with anyone. Strange if she is marrying Joseph to say anyone. A statement that would make sense if she weren’t married but absolutely strange for a woman in the first part of marriage.

 

[rev_kevin]

1. Mary and Joseph had already started the marriage process. A strange statement for a woman entering into marriage doubly strange for one who is married and awaiting the completion of the marriage rite. That would have been for Joseph to take her into his home. Her thoughts than should have been that Joseph would do that soon. Not I have no relations with a man.
2. Mary says she does not have relations with anyone. Strange if she is marrying Joseph to say anyone. A statement that would make sense if she weren’t married but absolutely strange for a woman in the first part of marriage.

I don’t see what is so strange about what she said. Sure she was going to be married to Joseph but they did not have marital relations yet so it would stand to reason that she would say what she said.
Well did she have relations with anyone. NO, so this is not a strange answer.

 

[Holly3278]

I agree that Mary was perpetually a virgin and that the only child she ever had was Jesus. However, is it possible that she had step-children who were Joseph’s biological children that he brought with him into the marriage from a previous marriage?

 

[joe370]

I don’t see what is so strange about what she said. Sure she was going to be married to Joseph but they did not have marital relations yet so it would stand to reason that she would say what she said.
Well did she have relations with anyone. NO, so this is not a strange answer.

Mary, who was engaged to Joseph, (although they did not have marital relations yet) - under normal circumstances, would not naturally conclude that the angel might be referring to her and Joseph having a child, which would make her response unusual?

But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”

How will this be," Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

What an odd thing to ask in light of the fact that she was engaged to be married. Either she had not planned to have a child with Joseph, or…actually I have no idea what that or could be. I am sure she knew how babies were made, and knowing that she was going to be married, or was married, must have known that they would have children and that the angel must have been referring to her and Joseph having a child, at the very moment that the angel spoke to her, which makes her response inexplicably strange.

Your point, that Mary couldn’t understand how she could have a child considering the fact that she was still a virgin, implies that she never even considered the notion that her and Joseph would one day have a child, and that the angel could have been referring to that, which would make the angels words very difficult to grasp, which of course does not support your position. I am trying to see things from your perspective but I’m just not understanding it.

 

[rinnie]

Why is it strange, they were not married yet,
By saying what you are saying here, you are condoning pre-marital sex, your saying its ok. Remember they were engaged, not married. “When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord commanded, He brought Mary home to be his wife, but she remained a virgin until her son was born.” See no pre-marital sex by them. They were not married because it says “He brought Mary home to be his wife.” If she was already his wife,

1. The angel would not tell Joseph, "do not be afraid to go ahead with your marriage to Mary.
2. Why would Joseph take his wife home to be his wife? Wouldn’t he just take his wife homeif she was his wife?

Then why did you say here it was strange, and I was condoning pre-marital sex then? I don’t get it? If an angel appeared to me and told me I was GOING to have a Son I would not say how. Why would I? I would assume as everyone else that I would get pregnant on my honeymoon.

But Mary asked how am I going to get pregnant. Why would she say that, as I stated before unless she intended to state pure. The angel did not say you ARE with Child she said you will conceive a Child. When Mary asked how, the angel knew exactly why she asked it, and then answered by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Now Mary did not say HUH? Or WHY? SHe knew why, and so did the Angel that is why she got the Right answer, She knew then she was able to keep her vow to God. Because if she had not made a vow to God she would have no reason to ask How am I going to get pregnant. Which indeed shows she had all intention to keep that vow to God. Or she would have said, what about my vow to God, Do I not need to keep it now, but she knew she was still to keep that vow to God, and that is how God made that promise she made to him become possible for her.

Now if she had not made this vow, would she not have said, But why not by my husband, But she did not make that statement did she.

She said I am a handmaid of the Lord let him do with me as he pleases. So she understood did she not, or why make such a statement.

 

[KathleenGee]

In old Jewish culture, temple virgins were entrusted to chaste older male guardians. To say that S. Joseph had children of his own when he married could be…but when he was warned and to take flight to Egypt with the Holy Family, it appears he had no other attachments to other children.

Not only that…but there are references about Christ’s family concerned about his welfare…and this is also a sign that they were not approximate to Him in His domestic life to know He was the Son of the God Most high.

When I go before the Blessed Sacrament to pray…before the Eucharistic Lord…it is the same Jesus who lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago. His presence was made available to me through a chaste, celibate priest. Orthodox priests can marry. But in the Latin rite there is grace in one’s calling. Being in the chapel I imagine what it would be like being with the Christ Child…and

I see the home of Nazareth God’s sanctuary on earth. The home looked the same to the neighbors, but it was set aside and holy. The Holy Family always fit in like everyone else and did not bring attention to themselves either.