Why did Jesus entrust the care of Mary to John?

[tester]

** 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?

like this?

The oldest surviving Christian liturgy, the Liturgy of St James, called him “the brother of God” (Adelphotheos).

The Liturgy of Saint James is the oldest complete form of the Eastern varieties of the Divine Liturgy still in use among certain Christian churches.

It is based on the traditions of the ancient rite of the Early Christian Church of Jerusalem, as the Mystagogic Catecheses of St Cyril of Jerusalem imply. Forming the historical basis of the Liturgy of Antioch, it is still the principal liturgy of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Syrian Catholic Church in communion with Rome in Syriac and, in the Indian Orthodox Church, the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church.

or this ?

Josephus writes of a Jewish sect, whose leader was James the Just (the brother of Jesus). Josephus’ history includes sections on John the Baptist, the High Priest Annas, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus called the Messiah.

There is broad scholarly consensus that the two passages referring respectively to John the Baptist, and to James the brother of Jesus are genuine.

or this?

Saint Hegesippus (Ἅγιος Ἡγήσιππος) (c. 110 — c. April 7, 180 AD), was a Christian chronicler of the early Church who may have been a Jewish convert and certainly wrote against heresies of the Gnostics and of Marcion.

“James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time”

 

[KathleenGee]

I have been thinking of this passage…vs Mark 3…where Jesus’ family became concerned for Him…

I am referring to Mark 8, 31-33…when Peter became afraid of Christ’s words of being persecuted…Jesus responded to him, ‘You do not have in mind the things of God but the things of man.’

I think the same of Christ’s family…they were not privvy to His ministry and mission. It shows their distance from Him…like shirt tail relatives…and the fact that Christ did not entrust His mother to them.

Any person who is totally consecrated to Christ in truth, always is ready to pick up his cross for Christ, to suffer whatever God wills for him, just as Jesus did in fulfilling His mission – even unto death.

The opinion of man and the flesh vs God and the spirit.

 

[rev_kevin]

OK…

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.

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.

OK…

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.

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.

Para. 3. I didn’t know there were rules that we, meaning non-Catholics, had to use the Bible only. I believe I can use any resource I choose to use. So are you saying the Bible is “fallible.” If so show me the “fallible” Book, Chapter, and Verses please.

Para. 5. Where does it say in the Bible they were not his 1/2 brothers? Why would the Bible state “Is this not the carpenters son, his mother Mary and his brothers…”
To make your point valid it would have to say “Is this not the carpenters son, his mother Mary and the sons …of Alphaeus or of Zebedee” But it don’t say that now does it.

And to look at it another way, Jesus’ name is not mentioned, I’m sure there were plenty of carpenters back then and according to the Bible, Mary was a common name. So this carpenter could be anyone, not just Joseph and since Mary was a common name it could mean any Mary not just the mother of Jesus, and the brothers could be thesons of this Mary and the brothers of the unnamed son. So how do you know that it is talking about Joseph, Mary the mother of Jesus, and Jesus himself? Jesus is not mentioned, the only ones mentioned is Mary and the brothers by name.

Para. 6. No there is no unnamed James.
Incorrect as I stated above in Para. 5.
Once again Incorrect Jesus was not a only child.
Is it because it don’t say and her sons…
Well his brothers means the same thing. Look there is Kevin, his mother and his brothers. Wouldn’t that make my brothers my mothers children as well a me? Or am I a only child by this statement?

Para. 7. No we don’t agree. How do you know they are not the sons of Joseph. Once again “Is this not the carpenters son…and his brothers…” Making the brothers the sons of Joseph. No it don’t rule out as being the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus.

Well I noticed you are using the words “HOLY FAMILY” meaning God, Mary and Jesus correct?
Now these brothers may not be part of the “HOLY FAMILY” or “HEAVENLY FAMILY” but they are part of his, Jesus’ “EARTHLY FAMILY” the family between Joseph and Mary you know Jesus’ 4 earthly brothers and unnamed earthly sisters concieved by Joseph and Mary. Nice play with words “HEAVENLY FAMILY.”

 

[mangy_dog]

If Mary and Joseph had not already agreed to an unconsumated marriage, why would she, after her betrothal, ask the angel how it could be that she was to become a mother?

St Luke, 1:34: And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

I see no one has touched your question…

Mary’s question is not one of doubt (does God have the power to do this thing?) or of ignorance ( the product of a male and female uniion) it was one of resolve.

Mary’s answer reflects her confirmation that God had accepted her vow of perpetual virginity that is, no intention of knowing any man in the sexual sense. Which is why the angel clarified that this would be something of God and by the power of the Holy Spirit and that her child would be the Son of the Most High.

I am the handmaid of the Lord, be unto me as you have said. No further explanation was necessary even though Mary had to take a step of faith because it was still a mystery as to how this would happen and what the consequences would be and what the results of living in a culture where she could be found guilty of adultery and stoned to death etc etc etc.

Mary’s “fiat” inaugurates her as the Co-redemptrix, Co-mediatrix and Advocate - the Ark of the New Covenant.

Ave Maria gratia plena !!

 

[KathleenGee]

If people have no understanding of early Church history and culture of beginning Christianity and the traditions of faith – common understanding of the peoples and events from the New Testament, then it is very hard to believe anything beyond one’s perception.

 

[KathleenGee]

I read the ‘Dialogues’ of St. Catherine of Siena, and they changed my life, especially my spiritual life.

Our Lord chose her, a fragile and ignorant woman, to illuminate Scriptures…and through her, Christ wanted mankind to know that the literal knowledge of Scripture is not enough, that we must ponder Scripture with understanding and in the Spirit…

The Crucified Lord is the bridge we all must follow to reach union with the Heavenly Father.

There is an interesting article – with much deep thought – and not very long…

catholicexchange.com/2010/10/04/134948/print

Will pass this on to some other threads …

 

[rev_kevin]

I see no one has touched your question…

Mary’s question is not one of doubt (does God have the power to do this thing?) or of ignorance ( the product of a male and female uniion) it was one of resolve.

Mary’s answer reflects her confirmation that God had accepted her vow of perpetual virginity that is, no intention of knowing any man in the sexual sense. Which is why the angel clarified that this would be something of God and by the power of the Holy Spirit and that her child would be the Son of the Most High.

I am the handmaid of the Lord, be unto me as you have said. No further explanation was necessary even though Mary had to take a step of faith because it was still a mystery as to how this would happen and what the consequences would be and what the results of living in a culture where she could be found guilty of adultery and stoned to death etc etc etc.

Mary’s “fiat” inaugurates her as the Co-redemptrix, Co-mediatrix and Advocate - the Ark of the New Covenant.

Ave Maria gratia plena !!

I understand that is what you believe. Now lets look at what Mary said. “How shall this be done, because I know not men?”

Here Mary is saying to the angel, How can I get pregnat I haven’t been with a man. See inorder to get pregnat Mary knew that she would have to have been with a man in a sexual way and she told the angel that she hasn’t been with a man. “How shall this be.done, because I know not men?” How can I get pregnat, I haven’t had sexual relations with a men?"

Where do you get this perpetual virginity from this statement?

Mary didn’t say, “How shall this be done, I want to remain a virgin the rest of my life?”
Saying it like that would make your claim correct and understandable, but that is not what she said, now is it?

Its like telling a virgin, “Your going to have a baby.” The virgin would reply, “No I an’t. because I haven’t slept with a man.”
She isn’t saying she is going to remain a virgin the rest of her life, just that right now I haven’t had sexual relations with a man so its impossible to be pregnant but later in life I would want to have children.

 

[KathleenGee]

Rev Kevin,

Mary was a virgin, consecrated…vowed…God respected her vow…He could have created for her a carnate spouse, but instead the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, and her virginity remaining intact.

When Christ was brought to the temple to be consecrated to God as First Born…and this term was used even if the Jewish family had only one child…Simeon prophesized that a sword would pierce the soul of Mary…that He would be the rise and fall of many.

This is a great mission, and for Mary’s soul to be pierced, showed that she would partake in Christ’s mission and suffer. The suffering of the soul is more acutely painful than that of the physical body…not that Christ suffered less…of course, more.

Surely the event of breaking the power of death and linear time as Jesus did, would require a pretty encompassing focus for His mother as well. He had relatives but their concerns for him were more of man than of God. As I shared earlier, raising other children who did not have the constitution as Christ did would be like having two households under one roof. Mary would deal with the the Christ child one way, and then completely re-orientate her perspective and mission in the raising of ordinary and sinful children. She would be constantly juggling and this would dissipate her own spirituality.

 

[adrift]

I understand that is what you believe. Now lets look at what Mary said. “How shall this be done, because I know not men?”

Here Mary is saying to the angel, How can I get pregnat I haven’t been with a man. See inorder to get pregnat Mary knew that she would have to have been with a man in a sexual way and she told the angel that she hasn’t been with a man. “How shall this be.done, because I know not men?” How can I get pregnat, I haven’t had sexual relations with a men?"

Where do you get this perpetual virginity from this statement?

Mary didn’t say, “How shall this be done, I want to remain a virgin the rest of my life?”
Saying it like that would make your claim correct and understandable, but that is not what she said, now is it?

Its like telling a virgin, “Your going to have a baby.” The virgin would reply, “No I an’t. because I haven’t slept with a man.”
She isn’t saying she is going to remain a virgin the rest of her life, just that right now I haven’t had sexual relations with a man so its impossible to be pregnant but later in life I would want to have children.

What you are not addressing or considering in your answer is that Mary was married to Joseph. It is a strange response for a woman who has a husband. Her response wasn’t Joseph and I do not live together but a general response of not knowing man? Factor in her state at the time the angel came which was that she was in the betrothal stage of her marriage and your statement makes no sense. The more reasonable response would be Joseph and I will have a son isn’t that wonderful.

 

[rev_kevin]

What you are not addressing or considering in your answer is that Mary was married to Joseph. It is a strange response for a woman who has a husband. Her response wasn’t Joseph and I do not live together but a general response of not knowing man? Factor in her state at the time the angel came which was that she was in the betrothal stage of her marriage and your statement makes no sense. The more reasonable response would be Joseph and I will have a son isn’t that wonderful.

Sorry but you are incorect. Matthew 1:18-19 “Now this how Jesus the Messiah was born, His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin , she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph, her fiance, being a just man, decided to break the engagement quietly, so as not to disgrace her publicly.”
Why would she say that her and Joseph were going to have a son, she hasn’t slept with him yet.

 

[KathleenGee]

In old Jewish times, older chaste men became guardians of temple virgins. But we do not know.

But we do have tradition…the way of understanding going way back to the beginning at Pentecost…and it is the Holy Spirit Who sustains the truth of Jesus Christ and all that of Him, including His mother.

I would think that Mary would be single minded in mission. She was overshadowed, not given a charismatic, Holy Spirit-filled, chaste man to have the Christ child. Jesus always was in the beatific vision…His Spirit could always ‘see’ God…

It is also assumed through tradition, that the Holy Family was poor and lived in a very small home; may be it was shared with animals. Who knows…

Jesus was always the Son of God to Mary. We cannot imagine what it would be like being in the physical presence of the Lord…except when we visit a Catholic/Orthodox chapel where the Body and Blood of Jesus reside…and it is a place not conducive to having desires to have sex.

Living with the presence of God in a small home, Holy Mother Mary and St. Joseph was akin to being near the tabernacle…the presence of angels with them…and they no strangers to suffering…but always waiting for the call of ministry…always aware of their great responsibility before God to care for Christ in His humanity every hour of the day…and seeing how the apostles themselves took on the celibate life with the demands of mission, knowing that in those days in marriage…the sex act led to more children…it is a matter of faith to believe the Holy Family was in themselves the sacred dwelling of God on earth.

 

[rev_kevin]

Rev Kevin,

Mary was a virgin, consecrated…vowed…God respected her vow…He could have created for her a carnate spouse, but instead the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, and her virginity remaining intact.

When Christ was brought to the temple to be consecrated to God as First Born…and this term was used even if the Jewish family had only one child…Simeon prophesized that a sword would pierce the soul of Mary…that He would be the rise and fall of many.

This is a great mission, and for Mary’s soul to be pierced, showed that she would partake in Christ’s mission and suffer. The suffering of the soul is more acutely painful than that of the physical body…not that Christ suffered less…of course, more.

Surely the event of breaking the power of death and linear time as Jesus did, would require a pretty encompassing focus for His mother as well. He had relatives but their concerns for him were more of man than of God. As I shared earlier, raising other children who did not have the constitution as Christ did would be like having two households under one roof. Mary would deal with the the Christ child one way, and then completely re-orientate her perspective and mission in the raising of ordinary and sinful children. She would be constantly juggling and this would dissipate her own spirituality.

Notice in Matthew 1:18 where it says. "But while she was still a virgin. With this statement its clear that Mary didn’t stay a virgin all her life.
No I think Mary woul have raised all her children the same way. I don’t think she would give special attention to Jesus and not the others. Being a normal mother, which she was, she would treat her children, love her children, take care of her children the way a mother should. I’m sure she had to disipline her children, including Jesus, but this would in no way affect her spirituality. That is a mother’s/parents duty. I think Mary is a better person then to treat children in different way.

 

[KathleenGee]

Still a virgin…depends on translation…she was not given a carnal spouse…her virginity was intact.

Why would she go off in a direction to then conceive…as feral children…those who sin…don’t you think she would have to bend quite a bit in her little house…treating Christ one way, and then her others another…

I would think her sinful children would take her focus away from her good child…

Can you imagine them growing up to say their brother is God?..

And if they were so close to Him, why in the world did they take off and not be there to have their own mother not entrusted to them?

Why is it …in our contraceptive society…it is unfathomable for Christians to believe in a singular mission…without conjugal relations? If we have married, but celibate couples in the Catholic Church,wouldn’t you think it would be that much more possible for Mother Mary and St. Joseph?

I mean, as Christ told Peter…when Peter tried to save Him…who was worried about Him…Christ said Peter’s opinion was more of men than of God.

To say that Mary was both the Mother of Christ and savior of the world…and then on the other to say she also had a separate life under the same roof with another ordinary family just doesn’t add up to real life. To think she had to have sex…a temple virgin who gave herself totally to God…her virginity intact at the birth of Christ…is a thought of men, and not the working of minds dwelling more on the reality of God and the kingdom of Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Notice in Matthew 1:18 where it says. "But while she was still a virgin. With this statement its clear that Mary didn’t stay a virgin all her life.
No I think Mary woul have raised all her children the same way. I don’t think she would give special attention to Jesus and not the others. Being a normal mother, which she was, she would treat her children, love her children, take care of her children the way a mother should. I’m sure she had to disipline her children, including Jesus, but this would in no way affect her spirituality. That is a mother’s/parents duty. I think Mary is a better person then to treat children in different way.

What children? Where are they in the BIble, what verse is that?

Is their a BIble verse I missed about this?

What version Bible do you have where this is stated in Matthew 1:18? “While she was still a virgin”. New LIving Translation? Is this the only BIble on the market this is stated in?

Little help please

 

[rev_kevin]

What children? Where are they in the BIble, what verse is that?

Is their a BIble verse I missed about this?

What version Bible do you have where this is stated in Matthew 1:18? “While she was still a virgin”.

Little help please

John 7:3-5 “…and Jesus’ brothers urged him to go to Judea…For even his brothers didn’t believe in him.”

Matthew 12:46-47 “As Jesus was speaking to the crowd, his mother and brothers were outside…Someone told Jesus, Your mother and your brothers are outside, and they want to speak to you.”

Matthew 13:55 “He’s just a carpenters son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers–James, Joseph,Simon, and Judas. All his sisters live right here among us.”

New Living Translation "While she was still a virgin.

The NIV and King James says “Before they came together.” Same meaning, Before they had marital relations together.

 

[rev_kevin]

Still a virgin…depends on translation…she was not given a carnal spouse…her virginity was intact.

Why would she go off in a direction to then conceive…as feral children…those who sin…don’t you think she would have to bend quite a bit in her little house…treating Christ one way, and then her others another…

I would think her sinful children would take her focus away from her good child…

Can you imagine them growing up to say their brother is God?..

And if they were so close to Him, why in the world did they take off and not be there to have their own mother not entrusted to them?

Why is it …in our contraceptive society…it is unfathomable for Christians to believe in a singular mission…without conjugal relations? If we have married, but celibate couples in the Catholic Church,wouldn’t you think it would be that much more possible for Mother Mary and St. Joseph?

I mean, as Christ told Peter…when Peter tried to save Him…who was worried about Him…Christ said Peter’s opinion was more of men than of God.

To say that Mary was both the Mother of Christ and savior of the world…and then on the other to say she also had a separate life under the same roof with another ordinary family just doesn’t add up to real life. To think she had to have sex…a temple virgin who gave herself totally to God…her virginity intact at the birth of Christ…is a thought of men, and not the working of minds dwelling more on the reality of God and the kingdom of Christ.

Where do you see that she wasn’t given a carnal spouse?

I disagree with the statement “feral children” that would make all of us feral children.

No she would not have to bend in her little house. I believe Mary is a woman who would treat all her children the same.

No I don’t think her “sinful” children would take her focus away from her “good child.” A good parent would focus on all her children the same way.

They wouldn’t because they did not believe who he claimed to be.

So you admit Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary. Good.
I don’t see anywhere where it says they were close.

I don’t believe you know what my view on contracptive is.
First there is no solid evidence that Mary and Joseph didn’t have a normal marriage with normal relations with eachother.
Second God wants married couples to be fruitful and mutiply, ie have children.
But there arn’t or there are very few that are celebate in the Catholic Church. I have never heard of any. As far as Mary and Joseph, it possible but highly unlikely the remained celebate.

What does Peter trying to save Jesus have to do with this?

She wouldn’t have to have a seperate life. Real life isn’t like that, thats why it don’t add up. You are making it not add up, I make it add up.

What is so wrong with sex? God intended for us to have sex with our spouse. You make is seem as though Mary would be committing a sin if she had sex with her husband which is God’s intent for a married couple.
So if you give yourself totally to God he don’t allow you to have relations with your spouse?
Wouldn’t it make more sence not to get married if you give yourself totally to God?
Thought of man. When do you have to be celebate inorder to dwell on the reallity of God and his Kingdom?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Kevin this interpretation is how “you” chose to interpret. And with the only Bible ever written in the world which states this. And if you read what the author of that particular BIble said in translation of 1:18 he doesn’t reach the same conlusion as you either,

And how in the world you jump to that conclusion in King James and NIV is beyond me. “Before they came together” has no relation to the topic we are talking about?

As for brothers? Some contend these were Josephs children though a previous marriage. Others contend this is to coin a phrase of followers other that Disciples. Other speculate the actual meaning of Christ brother through Joseph and Mary, others relatives.

Yet the BIble never specifically states this?

And to the OP by Jewish law, why wasn’t Mary and this responsbilty left to Brothers as Law states. Yet we have the Bible specifically mentioning John?

So we don’t actually know do we?

 

[adrift]

Sorry but you are incorect. Matthew 1:18-19 “Now this how Jesus the Messiah was born, His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But while she was still a virgin , she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph, her fiance, being a just man, decided to break the engagement quietly, so as not to disgrace her publicly.”
Why would she say that her and Joseph were going to have a son, she hasn’t slept with him yet.

I am afraid that your knowledge is lacking here. You have used one translations other translations use the term betrothal. The engagement or betrothal of the time is NOT the modern understanding of engagement. Marriage took place in two stages. In the first stage the ceremony took place and they were married but did not live together for about a year. The second part is when the man took the women to his house.

That is why we see in the following verse that occurs right after the statement of being “engaged”.

Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly.

A woman in such a position would naturally think that the pregnancy would be with her husband. She would naturally believe that she would have relations with him. The question is odd. You didn’t address the fact that she doesn’t say "Joseph and I aren’t living together yet but I “know not man” Not just Joseph but man. Since she was married, the question is odd.

 

[adrift]

The mention of “brothers” does not mean uterine brothers. Lot is called the brother of Abraham when he was his nephew which demonstrates the diverse usage.

Besides the identification of brother what evidence is there?

The brothers give advice to Jesus which would go against the custom of the day if they were younger. The versus show that Jesus was the younger. They could not be Mary’s children

Mark 3:21 demonstrates for that society the relatives are older otherwise it would go against the customs of the society.

Mary is never identified as a mother of anyone but Jesus.

No children are mentioned at the temple when Jesus was lost.

Jesus provides for Mary at the cross. Only necessary if Jesus was an only child.

 

[rev_kevin]

I am afraid that your knowledge is lacking here. You have used one translations other translations use the term betrothal. The engagement or betrothal of the time is NOT the modern understanding of engagement. Marriage took place in two stages. In the first stage the ceremony took place and they were married but did not live together for about a year. The second part is when the man took the women to his house.

That is why we see in the following verse that occurs right after the statement of being “engaged”.

A woman in such a position would naturally think that the pregnancy would be with her husband. She would naturally believe that she would have relations with him. The question is odd. You didn’t address the fact that she doesn’t say "Joseph and I aren’t living together yet but I “know not man” Not just Joseph but man. Since she was married, the question is odd.

There are 3 steps in a Jewish marriage.
First, the 2 families agreed to the union
Second, a public announcement was made. At this point, the couple was “engaged.” This was similar to engagement today except that their relationship could be broken only through death or divorce.{even though sexual relations were not yet permitted}.
Third, the couple was married and began living together.
Lack of knowledge, I don’t think so. There are 3 stages not 2 stages.

They were not married yet.
Read verse 24, “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.”
This only makes my point correct, They were not married when the angel came to Mary.

Now seeing that having sexual relation were not permitted during the engagement, your husband thing is not in play here yet. Yes she would have relations with him once they were married but that had not occured yet.
Why would she have to say to the angel that they were not living together yet, its a given because the 3rd stage has not yet happened, so they did not live together until they were married.

Not a odd question because they were not married yet.