Biblical Mary!

[Bible]

so you are saying joseph had sex with mary after Jesus was born and she never had anymore children in all the years she was joseph's wife?

No sex ever Lk 1:34

 

[Bible]

Someone had to replace Diana.

Not Mary the mother of God is not divine not an idol no worship no adoration

 

[jaybo]

Oh yes sorry
Behold thy mother!

What does Behold in scripture mean?

A marvelous thing!
A miraculous action!
A wonder!
An awe inspiring declaration!

Behold thy mother!

John 19:26-27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith has he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

Jesus is not asking John to care for His mother, if so He would have said so, he is not even speaking to John, scripture says He is addressing the disciple, therefore it applies to all disciples.

Jesus is making Mary spiritual mother to all disciples! And all disciples take Her into thier home, And if the apostle John needs a spiritual mother so do we!

What is the family of God without a mother? The mother is the heart of the family! Jesus said I will not leave you orphans! Jn 14:18 He gave Mary to be the mother of one disciple then He does so for all disciples!

As eve was the mother of all the living in the first creation, gen 3:20 so Mary is the mother of all those who live in Christ and the new creation! Behold, I make all things new!

Rev 12:17 our spiritual mother!

Rachel is spiritual mother of Israel!
A type of Mary as spiritual mother of Christians!

The 12 sons of Jacob have 4 biological mothers, but Rachel is the spiritual mother of all Israel!

Matt 2:18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are no more.

Really?? Here is what the Bible clearly says...

"Now standing beside Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, look, here is your son!” He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time the disciple took her into his own home." John 19:25-27

There is one disciple mentioned here. Period.

Your statement that "Jesus is not asking John to care for His mother, if so He would have said so, he is not even speaking to John, scripture says He is addressing the disciple, therefore it applies to all disciples" is totally wrong.

By using this term Jesus distanced himself from Mary so the beloved disciple could take his place as her earthly son. [NET translator's note]

 

[Truthfrees]

Scripture does say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. As I stated in previous posts here, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling. Furthermore, Scripture calls Jesus THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.

Scripture does say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers.

not at all - if this were the case then virgin does not mean virgin and wife does not mean wife andnothing means anything

we either take it at face value or we take it all as allegory and everyone can allegorize anything into anything they wish

there was a show about being as smart as a 5th grader - what this means is use simple logic unless there is compelling proof to do otherwise and i see no reason to turn mother and brothers and sisters into some strange configuration

but i do now understand how those who believe in a perpetual virginity come to that belief - so thank you very much for explaining - i will have to disagree with your process and conclusion - because no where does God or Jesus speak a blessing over mary and no where does it state she is a perpetual virgin - an no where does it stae joseph had other wives i will not be able to accept anything you are using for your conclusion

 

[Truthfrees]

No sex ever Lk 1:34

that does not say never - that is present tense in greek - at that time that was true - and it says joseph did not know her until after Jesus was born Matthew 1:25 - meaning after Jesus was born mary and joseph had sex

 

[jaybo]

not at all - if this were the case then virgin does not mean virgin and wife does not mean wife andnothing means anything

we either take it at face value or we take it all as allegory and everyone can allegorize anything into anything they wish

there was a show about being as smart as a 5th grader - what this means is use simple logic unless there is compelling proof to do otherwise and i see no reason to turn mother and brothers and sisters into some strange configuration

but i do now understand how those who believe in a perpetual virginity come to that belief - so thank you very much for explaining - i will have to disagree with your process and conclusion - because no where does God or Jesus speak a blessing over mary and no where does it state she is a perpetual virgin - an no where does it stae joseph had other wives i will not be able to accept anything you are using for your conclusion

Great post!

 

[Walpole]

not at all - if this were the case then virgin does not mean virgin and wife does not mean wife andnothing means anything

we either take it at face value or we take it all as allegory and everyone can allegorize anything into anything they wish

there was a show about being as smart as a 5th grader - what this means is use simple logic unless there is compelling proof to do otherwise and i see no reason to turn mother and brothers and sisters into some strange configuration

but i do now understand how those who believe in a perpetual virginity come to that belief - so thank you very much for explaining - i will have to disagree with your process and conclusion - because no where does God or Jesus speak a blessing over mary and no where does it state she is a perpetual virgin - an no where does it stae joseph had other wives i will not be able to accept anything you are using for your conclusion

And Scripture never mentions any subsequent maternities of Mary so I can ask how you reached that conclusion.

Mary’s perpetual virginity has always been part of the regula fidei. It was even held by the progenitors of Protestantism. The idea of Mary having multiple materninites has become nearly a dogma in modern Evangelical Protestantism.

 

[Truthfrees]

Still says disciple so John represents all disciples

not at all - Jesus was giving mary into john's care because john had been with Jesus since the beginning - his brothers did not believe anything Jesus had been talking about - Jesus did not want his mother inthe care of unbelievers

 

[jaybo]

And Scripture never mentions any subsequent maternity’s of Mary so I can ask how you reached that conclusion.

Mary’s perpetual virginity has always been part of the regula fidei. It was even held by the progenitors of Protestantism. The idea of Mary having multiple materninites has becoming nearly a dogma in modern Evangelical Protestantism.

The Bible says what it says. Jesus had brothers, and there is no indication in Scripture that they weren't Mary's progeny. Sola scriptura!

 

[Truthfrees]

And Scripture never mentions any subsequent maternity’s of Mary so I can ask how you reached that conclusion.

Mary’s perpetual virginity has always been part of the regula fidei. It was even held by the progenitors of Protestantism. The idea of Mary having multiple materninites has becoming nearly a dogma in modern Evangelical Protestantism.

i guess for me what scripture says is more important than what one group or the other says - but i understand the allegiance to man-made dogmas and the men who made them - i just don't agree with it or live my life by anything but the plain words of God - i find if a person reads or hears the bible cover to cover repeatedly - 50x or more they get a clear understanding of what God says without studying the words of man

the people i know who are off-track learn the dogmas of man and have actually never read/heard the bible cover to cover 1x never mind 50 times

iow if we love God enough to pour His words into our hearts and minds continously He will bless us with a sound mind and clear knowledge of truth - following man is a very unsafe way to to conducts one's life and secure one's eternity

 

[jaybo]

i guess for me what scripture says is more important than what one group or the other says - but i understand the allegiance to man-made dogmas and the men who made them - i just don't agree with it or live my life by anything but the plain words of God - i find if a person reads or hears the bible cover to cover repeatedly - 50x or more they get a clear understanding of what God says without studying the words of man

the people i know who are off-track learn the dogmas of man and have actually never read/heard the bible cover to cover 1x never mind 50 times

iow if we love God enough to pour His words into our hearts and minds continously He will bless us with a sound mind and clear knowledge of truth - following man is a very unsafe way to to conducts one's life and secure one's eternity

Great post! It should be required reading by all.

 

[Walpole]

The Bible says what it says. Jesus had brothers, and there is no indication in Scripture that they weren't Mary's progeny.

Scripture does indeed say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. As I stated in previous posts here, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling.

Furthermore, Scripture calls Jesus THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.

Sola scriptura!

Oh the irony. (Scripture nowhere teaches sola Scriptura!)

 

[Consecrated Life]

you would have a distorted view of christ

My " view " that the Cross of the holy Jesus Christ, who took the stroke of God's wrath that we deserve is the only solution for my sin and your sin, is unshakeable .
There is no error or distortion in this "view" and you cannot point to one ?

So not being able to point to any distortion in my " view " of this Jesus who is the Christ , my question stands .

What impact, if any, would not believing that Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth have on the eternal estate of the person converted in Christ ?

" But God commandeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us ." ( Romans 5:8 )

 

[jaybo]

My " view " that the Cross of the holy Jesus Christ, who took the stroke of God's wrath that we deserve is the only solution for my sin and your sin, is unshakeable .
There is no error or distortion in this "view" and you cannot point to one ?

So not being able to point to any distortion in my " view " of this Jesus who is the Christ , my question stands .

What impact, if any, would not believing that Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth have on the eternal estate of the person converted in Christ ?

" But God commandeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us ." ( Romans 5:8 )

It wouldn't have the slightest impact. This elevation of Mary into something that she clearly wasn't (according to Scripture) detracts from the unalterable truth that there is one Godhead, comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Diluting this prime Biblical truth is blasphemy!

 

[Truthfrees]

Scripture does indeed say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. As I stated in previous posts here, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling.

Furthermore, Scripture calls Jesus THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.

Oh the irony. (Scripture nowhere teaches sola Scriptura!)

God says differently: man does not live by bread alone but by every word of God - better than leaning on man's understanding - Proverbs 3:5-6 - Matthew 4:4 - Deuteronomy 8:3

 

[jaybo]

Scripture does indeed say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. As I stated in previous posts here, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling.

Furthermore, Scripture calls Jesus THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.

Oh the irony. (Scripture nowhere teaches sola Scriptura!)

Can you show me anywhere in Scripture where it says that they were not uterine brothers? Of course not, since it doesn't say that anywhere. If it does, please show us where...

I don't really pay any attention to your private interpretation of Scripture; I believe what Scripture clearly says (and don't believe what it doesn't say).

I am the son of my mother (and father), but I have siblings. So your statement that "Jesus is THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary" is meaningless. I am both the son of my mother and a son of my mother.

Your (trite) expression that Scripture nowhere teaches sola Scriptura is meaningless. Have you ever read, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart." It doesn't say that the extra-Biblical teachings of men are living and active that divide soul from spirit, and joints from marrow -- because they don't!

If you want to live by something other than God's Word -- the Bible -- then you are following false teaching. Sola scriptura.

 

[Bible]

Really?? Here is what the Bible clearly says...

"Now standing beside Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, look, here is your son!” He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time the disciple took her into his own home." John 19:25-27

There is one disciple mentioned here. Period.

Thank you it refers to disciple so it must apply to all disciples
Other wise it would use his personal name and only apply to John

Your statement that "Jesus is not asking John to care for His mother, if so He would have said so, he is not even speaking to John, scripture says He is addressing the disciple, therefore it applies to all disciples" is totally wrong.

By using this term Jesus distanced himself from Mary so the beloved disciple could take his place as her earthly son. [NET translator's note]

 

[Bible]

not at all - Jesus was giving mary into john's care because john had been with Jesus since the beginning - his brothers did not believe anything Jesus had been talking about - Jesus did not want his mother inthe care of unbelievers

then it would read John please care for my mother!

why does she need to be his mother to care for her
Also rev 12:17 spiritual mother

 

[GodsGrace]

View attachment 12516

This can't be real.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you it refers to disciple so it must apply to all disciples
Other wise it would use his personal name and only apply to John

Sometimes you go too far Bible.
The disciple that Jesus loved IS John.