Why did Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John?

[Todd520]

Rom,
You lost me there

• I asked you to back up what you heard the elder say with official LDS doctrine. Back it up or drop it as FALSE. Why are you comparing the Elder with Catholic truth?
• I haven’t quoted the Catechism with you becuase I thought you were stating your interpretation and not official Catholic views on the verse. Please show me an official reference that ties the verse in Revelations with Mary as the mother of the Church. I will be truely shocked to discover Catholics attribute the Church founding to Mary
• I don’t fault you or anyone else for praying to Mary for intersecion. Whether one prays to Mary or any Saint, I believe God is listening and will read your heart. I just personally pray directly to the main Man - God.

Back to the Elder discussion, if you now know your statements do not reflect offical LDS belief, then you are giving false testimony by repeating them as such.
The most you could do is repeat them as a joke about how poorly catechised some LDS are!

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).

 

[joe370]

Hey Todd, you said to JonNC…

So Jon is this what you think?While Christ is dying, he should have gotten John to promise to hand Mary over to his cowardly cousins (or brothers) that were lurking in the shadows?

Jesus’ brothers, James the less, son of Alphaeus, **who was one of Jesus’ apostles, **Joseph, brother of James the less, son of Alphaeus, Jude, aka Thaddeus, brother of James the less, son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Cananite, who was one of Jesus’ apostles, who (just as James, Joseph and Jude) - could not have been Jesus’ blood brother, for Jesus was from Nazareth, continued to be cowards after Jesus’ resurrection, necessitating the need for John to step up and care for Mary; is that your reasonini?

If he was going to express concern about Mary’s welfare, entrusting John WITH Mary’s welfare was the only option.

After Jesus’ resurrection, at which point all of Jesus’ disciples, be it apostle, brother or otherwise, became emboldened, fearing nothing, yet you still believe that John was Jesus’ only option for taking care of His mother, due to his lack of cowardice at the foot of the cross?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Me, I’m positive about Marys position. When you all get to Heaven, you will be also.

Jesus, no brothers, John being right there looking at Christ on the Cross with Mary? All makes perfect sense to me.

I pretty sure after suffering on the Cross he wasn’t long on conversation. The words spoken were no doubt with last gasping dying breath.

Not by chance who was there and who was spoken to.

Im positive, totally convinced, had there been a brother that Christ needed to convey a message to, he’d had made mention of it. Aside from the fact theres no mention in the Bible.

Thinking many years about the Cross and gaining understanding of what the human body will experience in that situation. I can’t come to any other conclusion about John or Mary. That which was most important to him is what he relayed. There was time to think on the Cross, in a state of shock and confusion and pain. Breathing and speaking would have had created a large problem. Every word spoken would have been a major effort and labored. Then immediatly after speaking the effort to regain one’s breath would have been a effort.

Mary is Christs mother interceeding on “YOUR” behalf. Think about that. Really think about that a awhile. Do you honestly belief Christ would treat you identicle without Marys intercession?

This is the point I part ways. For the simple reason I know and see the way my son in law and I deal with the kids. And the way the mothers interceed. I’m convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt. That it works exactly the same way in Heaven.

As far as the Saints? I don’t pray to them. I do pray to St MIchael. But the Prayer to St Michael was at the end of the Mass when I was a child. I’ve come to understand his ability and presence though the study of exorcism. And here were talking Archangels now.

I see in my mind the other Saints differently. I’m inspired, I find encouragement and find their lifes amazing. Though for example I don’t pray to St Benedict, or St Gregory. I know many do, and its all good. I just don’t do this. Thats not to say at some point I may well change my thinking as experience in life dictates.

Anything that surrounds you with God, and deepens your faith. Its all good.

 

[Nicea325]

The error that I catch by so many who are so confident Mary had other children brings up an interesting question regarding TRADITION a word so many non-Catholics choke on.

Case in point, let us refer to the authors of the NT books/epistles. For instance, my NKJV Study Bible provides an introduction to every NT book/letter. Nevertheless, in many of the introductions it clearly states **‘church tradition’ and/or the ‘early church fathers’ or church councils **taught/believed the specific letter/book was written by the acclaimed author. I do not hear any non-Catholic making any arguments against such church traditions,early church fathers or councils in regards of the authors of the NT.

Now why is church tradition on Mary remaining an ever-virgin such an issue or stumbling block? Is this not a classic case of picking and choosing what suits our agendas,rather than looking at the greater context of Christianity and tradition? Where are the historical writings/church traditions clearly teaching Mary had other children,if there exist a church tradition for the authors of the NT,then why can’t there exist a church tradition for Mary remaining an ever-virgin?

 

[Todd520]

Joe,
If you read my earlier posts, you will see I clearly believe Jesus was never worried about the welfare of his mother. I believe the scripture is in the Bible to give testimony of Christ’s love, to be an example we should strive to follow

Any efforts to discern the size of Mary’s family is wasted

Hey Todd, you said to JonNC…

Jesus’ brothers, James the less, son of Alphaeus, **who was one of Jesus’ apostles, **Joseph, brother of James the less, son of Alphaeus, Jude, aka Thaddeus, brother of James the less, son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Cananite, who was one of Jesus’ apostles, who (just as James, Joseph and Jude) - could not have been Jesus’ blood brother, for Jesus was from Nazareth, continued to be cowards after Jesus’ resurrection, necessitating the need for John to step up and care for Mary; is that your reasonini?

After Jesus’ resurrection, at which point all of Jesus’ disciples, be it apostle, brother or otherwise, became emboldened, fearing nothing, yet you still believe that John was Jesus’ only option for taking care of His mother, due to his lack of cowardice at the foot of the cross?

 

[joe370]

The error that I catch by so many who are so confident Mary had other children brings up an interesting question regarding TRADITION a word so many non-Catholics choke on.

Case in point, let us refer to the authors of the NT books/epistles. For instance, my NKJV Study Bible provides an introduction to every NT book/letter. Nevertheless, in many of the introductions it clearly states **‘church tradition’ and/or the ‘early church fathers’ or church councils **

taught/believed the specific letter/book was written by the acclaimed author. I do not hear any non-Catholic making any arguments against such church traditions,early church fathers or councils in regards of the authors of the NT.

Exactly! The 4 gospels as well as well as the book of Hebrews, were anonymous. We know who wrote them because of Catholic tradition. This really bothered me as a former non-Catholic.

Now why is church tradition on Mary remaining an ever-virgin such an issue or stumbling block? Is this not a classic case of picking and choosing what suits our agendas,rather than looking at the greater context of Christianity and tradition? Where are the historical writings/church traditions clearly teaching Mary had other children,if there exist a church tradition for the authors of the NT?

Excellent points…

Jesus’ supposed blood brothers were not the sons of Joseph and therefore, not the sons of Mary:

James the great was the son of Zebedee, ruling him out. James the less was the son of Alphaeus, who was one of Jesus’ apostles, ruling him out. Joseph, brother of James the less, was the son of Alphaeus, ruling him out. Jude, aka Thaddeus, brother of James the less, was the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Cananite, who was one of Jesus’ apostles, could not have been Jesus’ blood brother, for Jesus was from Nazareth not Cana. Seems pretty cut and dried to me and a perfect reason why Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to John.

 

[joe370]

Joe,
If you read my earlier posts, you will see I clearly believe Jesus was never worried about the welfare of his mother. I believe the scripture is in the Bible to give testimony of Christ’s love, to be an example we should strive to follow

Any efforts to discern the size of Mary’s family is wasted

Todd, so you agree, as per sacred scripture, that Jesus was Mary’s only biological son? You agree that James, Joseph, Jude were sons of a different man, other than Joseph, and that Jesus’ brother Simon was from Cana, not Nazareth, and therefore could not be the son of the holy family?

That is really why I asked the question: Why did Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
The error that I catch by so many who are so confident Mary had other children brings up an interesting question regarding TRADITION a word so many non-Catholics choke on.

Case in point, let us refer to the authors of the NT books/epistles. For instance, my NKJV Study Bible provides an introduction to every NT book/letter. Nevertheless, in many of the introductions it clearly states ‘church tradition’ and/or the ‘early church fathers’ or church councils taught/believed the specific letter/book was written by the acclaimed author. I do not hear any non-Catholic making any arguments against such church traditions,early church fathers or councils in regards of the authors of the NT.

Exactly! The 4 gospels as well as well as the book of Hebrews, were anonymous. We know who wrote them because of Catholic tradition. This really bothered me as a former non-Catholic.

Quote:
Now why is church tradition on Mary remaining an ever-virgin such an issue or stumbling block? Is this not a classic case of picking and choosing what suits our agendas,rather than looking at the greater context of Christianity and tradition? Where are the historical writings/church traditions clearly teaching Mary had other children,if there exist a church tradition for the authors of the NT?

Excellent points…

Jesus’ supposed blood brothers were not the sons of Joseph and therefore, not the sons of Mary:

James the great was the son of Zebedee, ruling him out. James the less was the son of Alphaeus, who was one of Jesus’ apostles, ruling him out. Joseph, brother of James the less, was the son of Alphaeus, ruling him out. Jude, aka Thaddeus, brother of James the less, was the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Cananite, who was one of Jesus’ apostles, could not have been Jesus’ blood brother, for Jesus was from Nazareth not Cana. Seems pretty cut and dried to me and a perfect reason why Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to John.

Well that is an observation I always encounter and gets over looked all the time. Again,a classic case of picking and choosing.

 

[Todd520]

Joe,
Now don’t put words in my mouth

I believe sacred scripture is not explicit on the size of Mary’s family.
I respect Catholic tradition that Jesus was an only Child

Todd, so you agree, as per sacred scripture, that Jesus was Mary’s only biological son? You agree that James, Joseph, Jude were sons of a different man, other than Joseph, and that Jesus’ brother Simon was from Cana, not Nazareth, and therefore could not be the son of the holy family?

That is really why I asked the question: Why did Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John?

 

[joe370]

Todd520;7121381]Joe,
Now don’t put words in my mouth

I believe sacred scripture is not explicit on the size of Mary’s family.
I respect Catholic tradition that Jesus was an only Child

**No need to get mad. After all, I put it in the form of a question! Sacred scripture is not explicit on the size of Mary’s family (extended family) - but sacred scripture is explicit as to the fact that the supposed blood brothers of Jesus, (James, Joseph, Jude and Simon) - posited by many non-Catholics, but not you, **are not the sons of the holy family, as I have shown here at this thread. I know that you respect Catholic tradition and what Catholic tradition teaches regarding Jesus as an only child, but most non-Catholics do not, leaving me with their final authority (sola scriptura) - to show them that Jesus was an only child.

You and I both are in agreement that the holy family had only one child - Jesus. Where we differ is, why Jesus, from the cross, entrusted the care of His mother to John. You seem to believe (I think) - it is because, men like Jesus’ apostles such as His brothers James the less and Simon the Canaanite, were not as brave as John by following Jesus all the way to Calvary, and therefore Jesus was forced to entrust the care of His mother to John. I don’t think that was the case, for the simple fact that all of the apostles, brothers included, were equally as brave as John, post resurrection, and Jesus certainly would have known this and would have trusted them to care for His mother, just as much, but of course, it would not have been their filial obligation for Mary was not their mother, which is why I believe, logically speaking, Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to His beloved disciple, John.

Am I understanding you correctly? I don’t want to be guilty of putting words in your mouth. ****

 

[Todd520]

Joe,
I’m fence sitting on this one - I have no strong belief on the size of Mary’s family.

Since scripture doesn’t explicitly say Jesus was an only child, I am open to the possibility of siblings and would not see it as an insult if future evidence is uncovered.

 

[joe370]

;7121736]Joe,
I’m fence sitting on this one - I have no strong belief on the size of Mary’s family.

Since scripture doesn’t explicitly say Jesus was an only child, I am open to the possibility of siblings and would not see it as an insult if future evidence is uncovered.

Todd, you are right my friend; scripture does not explicitly suggest that Jesus was an only child, but scripture clearly shows that James the greater or James the less, Joseph, Jude and Simon, (all of which, according to most non-Catholics, are biological sons of Mary) - were in fact not biological sons of the holy family, according to scripture - agreed?

 

[Rom_8_35]

Rom,
You lost me there

• I asked you to back up what you heard the elder say with official LDS doctrine. Back it up or drop it as FALSE. Why are you comparing the Elder with Catholic truth?
• I haven’t quoted the Catechism with you becuase I thought you were stating your interpretation and not official Catholic views on the verse. Please show me an official reference that ties the verse in Revelations with Mary as the mother of the Church. I will be truely shocked to discover Catholics attribute the Church founding to Mary
• I don’t fault you or anyone else for praying to Mary for intersecion. Whether one prays to Mary or any Saint, I believe God is listening and will read your heart. I just personally pray directly to the main Man - God.

Back to the Elder discussion, if you now know your statements do not reflect offical LDS belief, then you are giving false testimony by repeating them as such.
The most you could do is repeat them as a joke about how poorly catechised some LDS are!

You have no right to accuse me of giving false testimony or to judge my intentions. What kind of person are you to do so? I stated my reason for my beliefs regarding Jn 19: 26-27 based on church teachings, my education in catholic institutes, personal inquiry and contact with church clergy, religious or lay people and much more. I believe that the Elder who spoke was sincere and knowledgeable about the LDS faith. Also, why are you bringing up the Book of Revelations now? I don’t remember referring to it as part of my argument so I don’t understand what it has to do with what we were talking about. Who is the one changing topics now. If you think the Catholic Catechism gives a verse by verse interpretation of the Bible then you need to look at it again. The Catholic faith is not based on Bible alone. It is comprised of Biblical Scripture, Apostolic/Sacred Tradition and the Church Magisterium.

It has been my observation that you twist my words around and come up with a different interpretation then what was intended. You accuse other posters of putting words into your mouth but have done the same to me. You did it when you stated that I said that the person of Mary represented the church in Jn 19:26-27; which I never did. Now you are asking why I compared the Elder with Catholic truth and that I have somehow implied that Catholics attribute the founding of the Church on Mary. Please go back and reread all my posts again carefully. You have definitely misread them. No one has affirmed Mary founded the Church. Jesus Christ established his church (Mt 16:18-19). When he was on the cross, Jesus placed his disciple in the care of his mother and gave His mother into the disciples’ care. This established a mother/son relationship which is extended to all of Jesus’ disciples (his church). In regards to the Elder, I stated he was clear in his teaching but that I did not agree with him and saw no reason to change my faith. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat myself for you to understand my beliefs regarding Jn 19: 26-27. If you don’t believe ok but don’t twist my words around. Let us both pray for God’s guidance and grace. Live in peace.

 

[Rom_8_35]

Todd, this is what the Catholic Church states regarding Mary as Mother of Christ and Mother of the Church

*Part One: The Profession Of Faith - Section Two: The Profession Of The Christian Faith :Chapter Three: I Believe In The Holy Spirit Article 9: “I Believe In The Holy Catholic Church” Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother Of Christ, Mother Of The Church *

963 Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer… She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."500 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."501

I. MARY’S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH

Wholly united with her Son . . .

964 Mary’s role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. “This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death”;502 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion: Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold your son.” 503

965 After her Son’s Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."504 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."505

 

[Todd520]

Rom, I’m sorry if you are offended as I felt my posts were accurate in responding to your statements.

I suggest we no longer trade posts.

 

[Rom_8_35]

Todd, here is more from the Catholic Catechism regarding Mary’s Motherhood:

**. . . also in her Assumption **

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.507

**. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace **

967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus) 508 of the Church.

968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."509

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation … Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510

970 "Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."511 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."512

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Rom_8_35, I think it’s best to just drop the issue of what the Mormon elder said, since it’s off topic anyway. Suffice it to say that Mormons don’t believe that Jesus was “just a man”, and they believe that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, among other things. They don’t hold to the Trinity, however they don’t believe that Jesus was “just a man” either. Knowing this as a non-Mormon, I can understand why Todd was asking for more information on that.

scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/c/51
scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/j/25

That should put that to rest.

 

[rev_kevin]

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…

Acts 1:14 “They all met together continually for prayer, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, several other women, and the brothers of Jesus.”
Now at this time, Jesus’ brothers were with the disciples, During Jesus’ lifetime, they did not believe he was the Messiah, {John 7:5}, but his resurrection must have convinced them. Jesus’ special appearance to James, one of his brothers, may have been an especially significant event in their conversion.
Here its clear that James was the brother or half brother of Jesus.

Acts 15:13 “When they had finisher, James stood and said, Brothers, listen to me.”
This James is the brother or half brother of Jesus.
The author of the book of James it Jesus’ brother or half brother, a leader in the Jerusalme church.

Galatians 1:19 “And the only other apostle I met at that time was James, our Lord’s brother.”

The second century Syriac Apostolic Constitution tells us that James was “the brother of Christ according to the flesh…and one appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord Himself.” {8.35}

Palestinian Jewish Christian Hegesippus {100-180 ce} portions of whose 5 books of early church history tells us, “There were many James’ cited, but this one…The Lord’s Brother…was Holy from his birth. Everyone from the Lord’s time till our own called him righteous.” {E.H. 2.23}

Now it is said by the CC that the brothers and sisters of Jesus wer cousins, or children of Joseph from a previous marriage. This I believe is said because of the CC’s belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:2-3 and Gal. 1:19 that you sited simply states that James IS the Lord’s brother, Not cousin, not from Joseph’s alleged other marrage, not the James of Zebedee or Alphaeus, not the James of another Mary but the James of Mary, the mother of Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas the brothers of Jesus, plainly stated.

 

[joe370]

kevin;7122936]Acts 1:14 “They all met together continually for prayer, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, several other women, and the brothers of Jesus.”

OK…

Now at this time, Jesus’ brothers were with the disciples, During Jesus’ lifetime, they did not believe he was the Messiah, {John 7:5}, but his resurrection must have convinced them. Jesus’ special appearance to James, one of his brothers, may have been an especially significant event in their conversion.
Here its clear that James was the brother or half brother of Jesus.

Acts 15:13 “When they had finisher, James stood and said, Brothers, listen to me.”
This James is the brother or half brother of Jesus.
The author of the book of James it Jesus’ brother or half brother, a leader in the Jerusalme church.

Galatians 1:19 “And the only other apostle I met at that time was James, our Lord’s brother.”

OK…James was the son of Alphaeus which means he was not the son of Joseph, and therefore could not be the son of the blessed mother Mary.

The second century Syriac Apostolic Constitution tells us that James was “the brother of Christ according to the flesh…and one appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the Lord Himself.” {8.35}

So??? Stick with the bible which is the protestants only authority. Are you putting the second century Syriac Apostolic Constitution before your infallible bible? I just assumed that the bible was your final authority for resolving differences, as is the case with all sola scriptura advocates.

Palestinian Jewish Christian Hegesippus {100-180 ce} portions of whose 5 books of early church history tells us, “There were many James’ cited, but this one…The Lord’s Brother…was Holy from his birth. Everyone from the Lord’s time till our own called him righteous.” {E.H. 2.23}

OK…

Now it is said by the CC that the brothers and sisters of Jesus wer cousins, or children of Joseph from a previous marriage. This I believe is said because of the CC’s belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

I said it because the bible tells us that James, Joseph, Jude and Simon were not the sons of the holy family as I have aptly demonstrated.

Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:2-3 and Gal. 1:19 that you sited simply states that James IS the Lord’s brother, Not cousin, not from Joseph’s alleged other marrage, not the James of Zebedee or Alphaeus, not the James of another Mary but the James of Mary, the mother of Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas the brothers of Jesus, plainly stated.

So you are assuming that there is an unknown James, not mentioned in the bible? Mary is identified as the mother of Jesus ONLY. Mary is never identified as the mother of James, Joseph, Jude or Simon - correct? Pursuant to your own rules, Jesus was Mary’s only son, according to the bible!!!

You do agree with the following though:

James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, the brothers of Jesus, are not the sons of Joseph, ruling them out as sons of Mary mother of Jesus - right? If not then use scripture to prove me wrong and I will concede! Simon is from Cana and Jesus is from Nazareth; clearly they were brothers, according to scripture, but Simon was not the son of the holy family.

 

[Rom_8_35]

I suggest we no longer trade posts.

I agree, I did not notice your last post when I submitted the last part of the Catechism. May God grant you peace, wisdom, health and love.