Why did Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John?

[joe370]

It seems that Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, had already taken a vow of celibacy. As much as the following passage confuses me regarding Mary’s reaction, in light of her engagement to Joseph, it does seem to lend itself nicely to the fact that Mary planned on remaining celibate, which would explain why Jesus was her only child, and why Jesus, from the cross, entrusted the care of His mother to John; perhaps I am missing something and someone could clear the air for me?

"In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary… Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 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?”

First thing we see is that Mary is clearly the queen of the church, if in fact Jesus is the promised Davidic King of His creation, the church, the house of Jacob, which of course He is.

Secondly, why in the world would Mary, (a virgin) - who was already pledged to be married to a man named Joseph at the time of her visitation, be so confused by the following words? Surely Mary understood how this would naturally take place, given the fact that she was engaged:

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

 

[Todd520]

Rom,
So we do agree it represents an act of love. However, I think you are reading way too much into the intent of this verse by making Mary represent the Church and John represent everyone. (reminds me of english class and Melville)

I contended that Jesus’ actions toward his mother were not just simple acts of kindness or selfless love to be used as a model for good behavior as you affirmed… . .

I believe that His actions in that incidence were meant to mean much more than just establishing a good role model. It was an expression of love in which he entrusts His church into his mother’s care and then places her, in our care (His church).

I do like your analogy but I don’t think it was the primary intent of the gospel writer.

 

[joe370]

Hey Todd…

Rom,
So we do agree it represents an act of love. However, I think you are reading way too much into the intent of this verse by making Mary represent the Church and John represent everyone. (reminds me of english class and Melville)

I do like your analogy but I don’t think it was the primary intent of the gospel writer.

Hey Todd, I totally respect your opinion. However, if Jesus is your brother, according to scripture, (and He is) - and Mary is the mother of Jesus, then certainly Mary is your mother as well - maybe? Spiritually speaking of course.

Surely the woman below is not the nation Israel for the simple fact that Christians who hold to the testimony of Jesus, are not the offspring of Jerusalem, for Jerusalem rejected/rejects Jesus as the Messiah and all those who obey God’s commandments and** hold to the testimony of Jesus, in His mystical Body, the Church. Those who hold to the testimony of Jesus are the rest of the offspring of the woman who is Mary, the mother of Jesus - right? Jesus is of course her original offspring, and we, as Christians, are the rest of her offspring, besieged by the dragon, by virtue of the fact that we are brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ and comprise His mystical Body, of which He is the head and savior? If this is true then surely Mary is the mother of the church founded by Jesus? **

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.

 

[Todd520]

Hi Joe,
Actually, LDS view Mary as our ‘spirit sister’, not our mother. Mary has a soul/spirit created by God just like the rest of us.
Mary gave birth to the mortal Jesus but she was never the literal mother of God, since God has always existed

if Jesus is your brother, according to scripture, (and He is) - and Mary is the mother of Jesus, then certainly Mary is your mother as well - maybe? Spiritually speaking of course.

I do believe the woman is Israel since the Jews gave birth to Christianity. At the time this was written, Christianity was considered a Jewish sect instead of a separate religion.
All who hold to the testimony of Jesus are thus the spiritual offspring of Israel, in some fashion

Surely the woman below is not the nation Israel for the simple fact that Christians who hold to the testimony of Jesus, are not the offspring of Jerusalem,

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.

 

[joe370]

Hey Tod…

Todd520;7115772]Hi Joe,
Actually, LDS view Mary as our ‘spirit sister’, not our mother. Mary has a soul/spirit created by God just like the rest of us.
Mary gave birth to the mortal Jesus but she was never the literal mother of God, since God has always existed.

Of course Mary was created like the rest of us. How do you figure that Mary is your sister, spiritually speaking?

Of course Jesus, who is God, always existed. Where did the immortal Jesus come from, if not from Mary?

You don’t believe that Jesus was God incarnate?

So when did Jesus become God on earth if Mary only gave birth to a mere human, as opposed to God, according to the LDS teaching/tradition?

I do believe the woman is Israel since the Jews gave birth to Christianity. At the time this was written, Christianity was considered a Jewish sect instead of a separate religion.
All who hold to the testimony of Jesus are thus the spiritual offspring of Israel, in some fashion

Yes, Christianity was a Jewish sect, rejected by the Jewish authority, and continues to be rejected. I agree that Jesus was the long awaited Davidic Messiah that was to come from the nation of Israel, promised to the nation Israel, as well as all the nations, and therefore should qualify as the woman of chapter 12 in a sense, believed and taught by the CC, but, the nation Israel, as the woman, rejected and continues to reject her own offspring, if you are right, because her offspring obeys God’s commandments and holds to the testimony of Jesus. Doesn’t make much sense does it? Therefore the woman, exclusively speaking, cannot be the nation Israel. Israel gave way to the Messiah, thanks to God, through the woman Mary who gave birth to Jesus the Messiah, and, in every sense, must be the woman sought after by the dragon - who of course fails, and decides to pursue her offspring for the simple fact that her offspring continue to do what the dragon abhors more than anything.

One thing worth noting: the woman was divinely protected and that was why the dragon became enraged and pursued her offspring, “the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 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.”

Sadly, the nation Israel was not so lucky. The nation was destroyed in AD 70.

What makes more sense:

The woman of the offspring, (the very offspring that obeys God’s commandments and holds to the testimony of Jesus) - ** the very woman that gave birth to Jesus,** is the mother of Jesus, as well as Jesus’ brothers and sisters who qualify as the rest of her offspring because they obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus, who is their brother and savior. Jesus built His church, comprised of said offspring because they obey God’s commandments and hold to His testimony, and therefore said offspring (Jesus’ church) - comes from the woman, Mary.

or

The woman of the offspring, the very offspring that obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus,** is the nation Israel,** and this woman, from the outset, rejected her own offspring, for the simple fact that the woman’s offspring continues to obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

.

 

[Todd520]

Joe, I’ll add onto my previous answers

Actually, LDS view Mary as our ‘spirit sister’, not our mother. Mary has a soul/spirit created by God just like the rest of us.
Mary gave birth to the mortal Jesus but she was never the literal mother of God, since God has always existed

Yes, Mary has the tremendous distinction of giving birth to Christ on Earth. I would say she was his surogate mother (my words). Please don’t twist the words to read into it that Jesus is not divine.
LDS believe everyone born of this earth is our spirit brother or sister, including Mary

I do believe the woman is Israel since the Jews gave birth to Christianity. At the time this was written, Christianity was considered a Jewish sect instead of a separate religion.
All who hold to the testimony of Jesus are thus the spiritual offspring of Israel, in some fashion

I still think the metaphore of Isreal makes more sense. Isreal gave birth to many offspring, the most recent being Christianity (at time of writing). Whether they are considered heretical or illegal by the establishment might only get them classified as illegitimate offspring

Maybe Rome is the dragon?

 

[joe370]

Hey Todd…

Joe, I’ll add onto my previous answers

Yes, Mary has the tremendous distinction of giving birth to Christ on Earth. I would say she was his surogate mother (my words). Please don’t twist the words to read into it that Jesus is not divine.
LDS believe everyone born of this earth is our spirit brother or sister, including Mary

I still think the metaphore of Isreal makes more sense. Isreal gave birth to many offspring, the most recent being Christianity (at time of writing). Whether they are considered heretical or illegal by the establishment might only get them classified as illegitimate offspring

Maybe Rome is the dragon?

Do you mean the Roman Empire? If so, then absolutely. I do respect your opinion and will digress. I was really hoping that someone would address my original question with an answer that opposes my belief, yet still makes sense.

 

[joe370]

Below, we can see that Jesus’ brothers are not His blood brothers, based purely on the exegetical principle that any interpretation of scripture must be done in harmony with all the other scriptures regarding the subject at hand, as per sola scriptura, which would certainly explain why Jesus (an only child of Mary) - entrusted the care of His mother to John. When our non-Catholic brothers and sisters insist that Mary had other children, they quote these verses as well as parallel verses:

Matthew 13:55: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Gal. 1:19: “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother”
These verses named Jesus’ brothers. Let us look at these four men: James, Joseph, Jude and Simon.*

James and Joseph

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee, ruling him out. The other James is called James the less:

Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome.”

So James the less is in fact the son of a woman named Mary, (just not Jesus’ mother Mary) - and Joseph is his brother, which means that Jesus’ mother is not the mother of either James or Joseph, which rules those 2 fellows out, as well as James the son of Zebedee. Certainly if this Mary was the mother of Jesus she would have been identified as Jesus’ mother just as scripture does in other places.

Further proof:

Matt 10:3: “…James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.”

Matthew of course is talking about James the less, as opposed to James, son of Zebedee! Alphaeus is the father of James the less who is the brother of Joseph, ruling out Joseph and the blessed mother Mary as their parents.

Scripture tells us that Alphaeus is the father of James the less in Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13, which means that Joseph, brother of James the less, is Alphaeus’ son as well.

To recap, Mary, the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, is not the Mary who is the mother of Jesus. If she were, logically speaking, she would have been identified as the mother of Jesus, just as is the case in John 19:25! Joseph, husband of the blessed mother Mary, is not the father of James the less or Joseph; Alphaeus is their father, ruling out the holy family as the parents of either James or Joseph!

We can now conclude that James the less and Joseph are sons of a woman named Mary who was probably married to a man named Cleophas, aka Alphaeus, father of both James the less and Joseph, ruling them out as the children of Joseph and the blessed mother Mary.

This still leaves us with Jude and Simon. So far, two of the four brothers have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the blessed mother Mary!

Jude

Acts 1:13: “…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and Jude the brother of James…”

Well, we know that this is James the less as opposed to the James who is the son of Zebedee, which eliminates Jude. As a matter of fact Jude says the same thing in his letter:

Jude 1:1: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…”

Clearly James, James the less, Joseph and Jude were not Jesus’ siblings according to sacred scripture. Furthermore, scripture nowhere calls them the children of Jesus’ mother Mary.

Simon

This was easy. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as was the case with Joseph, Mary and their son Jesus, which rules him out immediately. Simon was a Cananean, while Jesus was a Nazarene. See scriptural proof below:

Mark 3:18: “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean…”

Matt 2:23: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

From scripture we can draw the conclusion that Simon the Zealot, who is from Cana, is a brother of Jesus, but clearly not a biological son of Mary and Joseph. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter two where Mary and Jesus are invited to a wedding, to see why Jesus is called Simon’s brother! No doubt these are relatives of the holy family, having this wedding in Cana, and extended family were usually called brothers. But were they extended family? Mary said to the servants: “Do as He says.”
’
Think about that statement for a minute; let it sink in? What would give Mary, a humble woman from Nazareth, any authoritative position to speak to the servants of the family in Cana, at their wedding??? The simplest and most logical answer would be: she is extended family to those giving the wedding feast which would explain why Simon is called Jesus’ brother.

To encapsulate, Simon was not a sibling of Jesus, but very likely related to Jesus, and James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father named Alphaeus and the same mother named Mary, ruling them out as children of Joseph and the blessed mother Mary, which leaves us with Jesus as the sole child of Mary and Joseph, other than the sisters which I will touch on next.

 

[Rom_8_35]

Rom,
So we do agree it represents an act of love. However, I think you are reading way too much into the intent of this verse by making Mary represent the Church and John represent everyone. (reminds me of english class and Melville)

I do like your analogy but I don’t think it was the primary intent of the gospel writer.

Yes Todd520, I agree Jesus’ passion proves God’s love for us. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding about Jn 19: 26-27. I never said that Mary represents the church. She represents no one; she is just herself, the Mother of God. Jesus’ disciple represents Christ’s church (then and now), note how the name John is never spoken, the verse reads “and to his disciple he stated “this is your mother.”

 

[Rom_8_35]

Joe, I’ll add onto my previous answers

Yes, Mary has the tremendous distinction of giving birth to Christ on Earth. I would say she was his surogate mother (my words). Please don’t twist the words to read into it that Jesus is not divine.
LDS believe everyone born of this earth is our spirit brother or sister, including Mary

Based on the information you posted in this thread, it is obvious why you can’t conceive the fact that Jn 19: 26-27 is significant in that this is where Jesus placed the church under Mary’s care while also placing her in our care. From what I was told by a LDS elder, Mormons consider Jesus just a man; a creature created by God (on an equal basis with Mary and Lucifer) and was not God incarnate. Therefore, Mary is seen as another of God’s creature or fellow spirit. It is believed that Jesus earned his godliness through his exemplar lifestyle, death and other needed requirements. If I’m not mistaken, it is their belief that Jesus was married and had three wives.

For my part, I could never agree with LDS teaching about Jesus. I believe Jesus was both God and man. He had a divine nature as well as a human one. He is the second person in the trinity. As such, Mary is said to be the Mother of God the Son. I strongly accept the belief that man can never become God, God-like or assume a divine nature through any means. Man was created in God’s image to live with Him not be Him. The great sin that Adam and Eve committed that brought death into the world was their attempt to be like God by eating the forbidden fruit.

“but the serpent said to the women: “you certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be open and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad,”
Gn 3: 4-5

They were deceived by the serpent and because they wanted to be like God they were banished from the Garden of Eden and passed the burden of original sin onto their decedents. It was only through the action of God becoming man and offering himself up as a sacrifice on the cross that redemption was obtained for all of God’s children.

Now don’t say I’m off topic. Since all that I said is interconnected and I am trying to show you the relationship between the God/man Jesus and His Mother Mary and why I believe the way I do. If you can’t believe Jesus was both man and God from the time of his conception then it is natural you will not see the Virgin Mary as the mother of God and His Church. For that reason, Jn 19:26-27 will not hold any other meaning aside from the one you proposed. Again, I invite you to pray (as I do) to ask God for the graces we need to love him and act according to his will. I wish you well.

 

[Todd520]

Rom,
I think there was a severe communication breakdown between the Elder and you. Either that or the elder was not really an Elder

Getting into the LDS view of Jesus is a sidetrack which I won’t pursue in this thread.
However, I’ll leave you with a challenge - find support for your statements on what LDS believes from LDS.org or Mormon.org. This is a fair challenge since I cite the Catechism when debating with Catholics what Catholic dogma states.

Based on the information you posted in this thread, it is obvious why you can’t conceive the fact that Jn 19: 26-27 is significant in that this is where Jesus placed the church under Mary’s care while also placing her in our care. From what I was told by a LDS elder, Mormons consider Jesus just a man; a creature created by God (on an equal basis with Mary and Lucifer) and was not God incarnate. Therefore, Mary is seen as another of God’s creature or fellow spirit. It is believed that Jesus earned his godliness through his exemplar lifestyle, death and other needed requirements. If I’m not mistaken, it is their belief that Jesus was married and had three wives.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Todd,

I do not understand why Mormons are not satisfied with the traditional understanding shared by both Jews and Christians of Old Testament figures, as well as the general understanding of personages in the New Testament.

One thing you did say that made me think parallel about sisters and brothers in spirit…St. Francis of Assisi considered all of creation as brothers and sisters…even Death…Franciscan theology is an alternative theology in the Catholic Church in contrast to traditional theology; however the truths of our faith are found in the catechism.

 

[rev_kevin]

I happily agree with you.

Yes, Mary is our Mother as John is given as a son to her. But are we blood sons and daughters of Mary or is John her blood son? No.

Similarly, the brothers and the sisters you mention in Jn 7 and Mk 3 were not necessarily Jesus’ blood brothers and sisters.

Yes, I agree with you; I don’t pick and choose because I don’t have an agenda in all this; just to know what exactly the Bible says, the brothers in John 7 and Mark 3 are not blood brothers of Jesus nor John is blood son of Mary.

Only if you believe Mary had no other children which I believe she did.

 

[rev_kevin]

Having read kevin’s posting, it makes me wonder what he is trying to show here. The complete post suggests that it was Jesus who had some indifference with the family, and not the family with their mother. But the question OP asks Why the mother instead of going home was told to go with John. Does it not create animosity in the family, something Jesus never wants as the very principle of His teachings is LOVE?

What I gave was quotes straight from the Bible. Its not my words, its from the Bible. What would you think if your brother wouldn’t come to see you when you asked for him and instead he said Who is my mother? Who is my brothers? Then looking around at the people saying thess are my mothers and brothers, anyone who does the will of God are my mother and brothers. Wouldn’t you feel a kind of rejection from your brother if he said this?

His brothers did not believe who Jesus said he was. “He’s out of his mind.”
“For even his brothers didn’t believe him.”
Straight from the Bible, not my words.
There was animosity already in the family.

I suggest you re-read my post, there are 2 verses where its his brothers had a indifference with Jesus and one verse where Jesus didn’t go to his mother, brothers and sisters when they ask for him.

Where do you see my complete post Jesus having indifference with his family and not the family with the mother. Show me where the family had a indifference with their mother.
Why is it confusing to you. Read it and you will understand what I’m saying. Now keep in mind that I said “IN A WAY.”

 

[Rom_8_35]

Rom,
I think there was a severe communication breakdown between the Elder and you. Either that or the elder was not really an Elder

Getting into the LDS view of Jesus is a sidetrack which I won’t pursue in this thread.
However, I’ll leave you with a challenge - find support for your statements on what LDS believes from LDS.org or Mormon.org. This is a fair challenge since I cite the Catechism when debating with Catholics what Catholic dogma states.

Todd, the Elder was very clear in what the Mormon faith teaches and there is no way I would trade the complete truth taught by the Catholic Church for any other man made Church. I don’t remember you citing the Catholic catechism about the Church’s teaching about Mary. If you did, you would have to post that she is regarded as the Mother of God and she watches over the Church (and so much more). If you want to get a better understanding of the Catholic Faith I would not just look at the catechism. Read the writings of the early church fathers, the doctors of the church, the councils, the encyclicals, etc…

From personal experience and prayer, I am learning to rely on God to steer my path even if it is not a path I would have chosen myself. God has never led me astray but has always directed me to the truth, deepened my Catholic faith and helped me increase my love for him. Every time I might find myself struggling in life, Mother Mary has always been there to listen to my prayers, intercede on my behalf and guide me to a closer relationship with God the Father, her son, Jesus and the Holy Spirit while increasing my love for the Church.

Look, it is clear that you have your faith and I have mine and I can respect that. Despite our differences, let’s just live our respective lives giving testimony to God’s greatness, mercy and love. Let us both pray for God’s guidance and grace. I wish you and your family many blessings. (I truly mean that).

 

[swariffin]

My non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, why, in your opinion, would Jesus entrust the care of His mother Mary to John, if Jesus had brothers and sisters?

John 19:

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his blessed mother Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold, your son. Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

If this does NOT confirm that Mary had no other children who could care for her, necessitating the need for Jesus to entrust her care to one of his disciples, then could someone please elaborate? If Mary had several sons and daughters who could have, and would have, according to Jewish custom, been entrusted with Mary’s care, then why was John necessary? It would have been the responsibility of Jesus’ brothers and sisters to be the caretakers of their beloved widowed mother.

Surely Jesus did not mean daily care for Mary. I can think about 2 reasons :

1. John was the only disciple who followed Jesus till His last breath. Such loyalty, can only come from a mature faith, despite John’s young age compared to Peter and the gang. Mary’s faith is also a mature faith, even from the incarnation stage of Jesus, until His death in the cross. Mary did know more about Jesus prior every other person in this planet.
2. John was foretold by Jesus in Mat 16:28 that “someone will not die until they see the son of man come in His glory”. The word they, means more than one. So, John must share his revelation while in exile in Patmos island with Mary. John 19:27 surely means that John took Mary where ever he lived. So, while in the exile in Patmos, John must have shared his revelation with Mary, since Mary lived with John. Indeed John lived with Mary, because tradition said that after exile in Patmos, John brought Mary with him and lived in Ephesus.

 

[Reuben_J]

Only if you believe Mary had no other children which I believe she did.

As you have unwittingly demonstrated by your logic, there is nowhere in the Bible that says Mary had other children. So your belief is not supported by Scripture.

The passage, Jn 7 & and Mk 3, that you used to support your contention did not say they are blood brothers of Jesus just as in Jn 19:26-27, Mary is not John blood mother and vice versa even though they are given as mother and son by Jesus. You seem to agree with this logic and that I concurred.

 

[wwolverine]

Dear Kavin,

I re read your post as you said, and still i dont find any reason why Jesus gave Mother Mary in care of John is favourite disciple. As the OP says. Why?

Lets see in Mark 3 20-21 “when Jesus returned to the house where he was staying, the crowd began to gather again, and soon he and his disciples couldn’t even find time to eat. When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him home with them, He’s out of his mind, they said.”
His family tried to help him but the wouldn’t let them so they thought he was not in his right mind.

1. Here it clearly shows that the siblings had some indifference with Jesus and His way. No where does it show where Mother Mary was ie, was she with Jesus or was she with the sibblings? as its mentioned WHEN HIS FAMILY HEARD

John 7 it when Jesus’ brothers ridicule him. John 7:2-5 “But soon it was time for the Festival of Shelters, and Jesus’ brothers urged him to go to Judea for the celebration. Go where your followers can see your miracles! they scoffed. You can’t become a public figure if you hide like this! If you can do such wonderful things, prove it to the world! For even his brothers didn’t believe him.”

1. Here too it shows the indifference of sibblings with Jesus. No where does it show with whom Mother Mary was.

Mark 3:31-35 Jesus’ mother and brothers arruved at the house where he was teaching. They stood outside and sent word for him to come out and talk with them. There was a crowd around Jesus, and someone said, Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you. Jesus replied, Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? Then he looked at those around him and said, These are my mother and brothers. Anyone who does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother."

1. Here its very clear that Mother Mary was with the sibblings, hence it shows that they were taking care of her, so why Jesus hands her over to John? Where they illtreating her? If so than only the sibblings would have gone together, without their mother.

The first 2 his brothers did not believe who he said he was and what he said he could do. In the third on he (in a way) rejects he brothers, sisters, and mother.
So the Jewish way that has been talked about here on this forum Jesus didn’t go by. So why on the cross would he go by Jewish tradition of giving his care to his brothers or his family when they did not believe who he was and he (in a way) rejected them. According to Mark 3:31-35 every believer was his brothers, sisters, and mother so he could give the care of his mother to any believer he wanted to.

Now this is where i found it difficult to understand your point of view, as to what belief in Jesus had to do with taking away mother and placing her in someone else.s care. And where does it say that the sisters never believed in Jesus? as its only the brothers who were saying things.

 

[joe370]

Hey Rev Kevin, you said:

*Only if you believe Mary had no other children which I believe she did.
*

Kevin, below, we can see that Jesus’ brothers are not His blood brothers, based purely on the exegetical principle that any interpretation of scripture must be done in harmony with all the other parts of scripture, as per sola scriptura, which would certainly explain why Jesus (an only child of Mary, unless you can use scripture to prove me wrong) - entrusted the care of His mother to John. You insist that Mary had other biological children according to scripture, so let’s see if you are right:

*Matthew 13:55: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Gal. 1:19: “But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother”
*

Let’s begin with James:

There are two men named James among the disciples. One is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee, ruling him out. The other James is called James the less:

Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome."

So James the less is in fact the son of a woman named Mary, (just not Jesus’ mother Mary) - and Joseph is his brother, which means that Jesus’ mother is not the mother of either James or Joseph, which rules those 2 fellows out, as well as James the son of Zebedee. Certainly if this Mary was the mother of Jesus she would have been identified as Jesus’ mother just as scripture does in other places.

But there is more proof:

*Matt 10:3: “…James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” *

Matthew of course is talking about James the less, as opposed to James, son of Zebedee! Alphaeus is the father of James the less who is the brother of Joseph, ruling out Joseph and the blessed mother Mary as their parents.

Scripture tells us that Alphaeus is the father of James the less in Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13, and that Joseph is the brother of this James, which means that Joseph, brother of James the less,** is Alphaeus’ son **as well, ruling him out as the son of the holy family.

To recap, Mary, the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** is not the Mary who is the mother of Jesus. **If she were, logically speaking, she would have been identified as the mother of Jesus, just as is the case in John 19:25! Joseph, husband of the blessed mother Mary, is not the father of James the less or Joseph; Alphaeus is their father, ruling out the holy family as the parents of either James or Joseph!

We can now conclude that James the greater, is the son of Zebedee as opposed to the son of Joseph, husband of Mary, and that James the less and his brother Joseph are sons of a man named Alphaeus, as opposed to sons of Joseph, husband of the blessed mother Mary, ruling them out as the children of the holy family.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Continued Kevin…

This still leaves us with Jude and Simon. So far, two of the four brothers have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the blessed mother Mary and theretofore are eliminated as potential sons of Joseph and Mary!

Next, we have Jude:

Acts 1:13: “…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and **Jude the brother of James…”
**
Well, we know that this is James the less as opposed to the James who is the son of Zebedee, which eliminates Jude. As a matter of fact Jude says the same thing in his letter:

Jude 1:1: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and **brother of James…” **

Clearly James, James the less, Joseph and Jude were not Jesus’ siblings according to sacred scripture. Furthermore, scripture nowhere calls them the children of Jesus’ mother Mary.

Next, Simon:

This was easy. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as was the case with Joseph, Mary and their son Jesus, which rules him out immediately. Simon was a Cananean, while Jesus was a Nazarene. See scriptural proof below:

*Mark 3:18: “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean…”

Matt 2:23: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
*
From scripture we can draw the conclusion that Simon the Zealot,** who is from Cana, is a brother of Jesus, but clearly not a biological son of Mary and Joseph.** Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter two where Mary and Jesus are invited to a wedding, to see why Jesus is called Simon’s brother! No doubt these are relatives of the holy family, having this wedding in Cana, and extended family were usually called brothers. But were they extended family? Mary said to the servants: “Do as He says.”
’
Think about that statement for a minute; let it sink in? What would give Mary, a humble woman from Nazareth, any authoritative position to speak to the servants of the family in Cana, at their wedding**??? **The simplest and most logical answer would be: she is extended family to those giving the wedding feast which would explain why Simon is called Jesus’ brother.

To encapsulate, Simon was not a sibling of Jesus, but very likely related to Jesus, and James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father named Alphaeus and the same mother named Mary, ruling them out as children of Joseph and the blessed mother Mary, which leaves us with Jesus as the sole child of Mary and Joseph, which again, would explain why Jesus chose John to care for His mother.

Even if James, Joseph, Jude and Simon continued to NOT believe, with which scripture disagrees, as per Acts1, they still were not Jesus’ blood brothers and therefore it would not have been their filial responsibility to care for Mary.

Your thoughts Kevin?