Behold your mother

bbbbbbb said:

I see. And we know this simple truth how?

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Why is it that no one who believes these things about Mary can give Scriptural support for them?

Jesus said:

"behold your mother"> in John 19:26-27.

Click to expand...

tadoflamb said:

What do these three simple words from the 19th chapter of John mean to you?

Click to expand...

Well, first, let's see what this says >

"When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, 'Woman, behold your son!' Then He said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home." (John 19:26-27)

To me, this means that Jesus had John and Mary adopt each other, so they would have family sharing and caring with one another. It was not first for her only being kept safe and fed and sheltered, but first for having family love.

I consider how Jesus called His twelve apostles, "that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach" > this is in Mark 3:14. So, He did not only call them to serve Jesus, but "that they might be with Him" > I understand this would be for loving with Jesus. This is in our basic Christian calling, too > how Jesus desires to personally share with each of us, even with each of us "one spirit with Him" >

"But He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

A mother, by the way, speaks personally with her children, all the time. You do not have to say repetitions and do devotions in order to get her attention and get her interested in speaking to you.

Stryder06 said:

Means that John was to take care of Mary. Which he did.

Click to expand...

This was included, but not all there was to it.

John and Mary adopted each other. The Bible says we have all received "the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father.'" This is in Romans 8:15. The Holy "Spirit of adoption" has changed us to be adopted as God's own children. In sin, our father was Satan who cruelly messed us and degraded us by means of his "spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2. But our Heavenly Father has adopted us and now personally shares His own adoptive love with each of us, "in our hearts", by means of the Holy Spirit > Romans 5:5.

And this love is us makes us also more and more lovingly adoptive with one another > "tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you," our Apostle Paul does say in Ephesians 4:32.

Therefore . . . I consider . . . when Jesus gave John and Mary to each other, Jesus was ministering how our New Testament includes family caring and sharing love with one another, in the lovingly adoptive Holy Spirit who has us loving one another more dearly than how as worldly people we were limited to being able to love only certain people of our own families and certain friendships > "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

And we have this adoptive love ready for any evil person, with hope for anyone to join us > love "hopes all things" our Apostle Paul does say in 1 Corinthians 13:7.

MrPolo said:

Wouldn't you have to say it's peculiar that if this is what he meant that Jesus would tell John Mary was his "mother"? Rather than a house guest? "Behold you mother" = "take her to live with you" doesn't sit well with my sensibilities of the written language of Scripture.

Click to expand...

In the Holy Spirit we love all our Christian brothers and sisters as family.

MamaZ said:

We are not John. Jesus did not give Mary to Peter nor Paul nor any one other than John. And John took care of Mary as his own mother.

Click to expand...

I personally understand that at that time John was the one disciple who could relate with Jesus personally and intimately so he knew he was welcome to rest his head on Jesus' bosom >

"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved." (John 13:23)

Oh . . . it does not say only that he was resting his "head", but he was "leaning on Jesus' bosom". Jesus does not want only our heads ! ! ! !

So, I see that Jesus is loving, not afraid of being in physical intimacy with people. And there were ladies who knew they were welcome to touch Jesus. The woman who had been sinful even washed His feet with her tears and kissed His feet (Luke 7:37-38). Jesus is not afraid of women ! ! ! !

A point I am offering, here, is that there were people who had the ability to personally relate with Jesus; and so He did things with them that He did not do with others. John was in a bosom resting relationship with Jesus; so Jesus chose John to be in a mother-son relationship with Mary. They were intimate. They shared personally. Because this is how Jesus wants us all to become able to relate in the New Testament, how His love means and has us sharing. So, we are not relating with Mary as our mother if we are not sharing and caring as family in Jesus with one another.

tadoflamb said:

So that verse is just a nice side note in the bible and has no real implications for us today?

Click to expand...

I think that I have offered a few notes of how it is relevant, today

It shows how Jesus on the cross was loving, including how Jesus on the cross is about family caring and sharing love.

Tangible and Lion Roar said:

Tangible > "I personally believe that it is one of the strongest evidences of PV, although it does not rule out the possibility that Mary was not PV but also did not have any other children besides Jesus."

Lion Roar > "in Jewish culture His supposed brothers and sisters would have had to take care of His mother."

Click to expand...

Well, Jesus wanted to have someone He could trust, to take care of His mother. And John had a relationship of knowing he could rest on Jesus' bosom; so I can see that John knew and understood how Jesus loves; so having him for a son could be like Mary still having Jesus . . . to relate with her how John knew Jesus relates.

Jesus knew how His mother could miss Him; so He gave her His beloved disciple who could be as a loving son to her, like how Jesus was . . . though not perfectly, of course, I would say. Possibly, then, this is the point of what

you Mr Polo said:

a "disciple Jesus loves" takes Mary into home.

Click to expand...

So, this giving John and Mary to one another was not only about status for Mary as our mother, but Jesus was feeling for her and for His beloved disciple who could so miss Jesus; he could have Mary, for love.

But Jesus desires for all of us to be intimate with Him. He is our Groom, for better than only physical closeness >

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

Tangible and MamaZ said:

Tangible > "I think this passage is mostly about Jesus ensuring the welfare of his mother, in effect directing John and Mary to 'adopt' one another as mother and son."

Mama > "Actually it show us how we sould honor our widows. "

Click to expand...

Jesus was multi-tasking, while on the cross

MamaZ said:

But it does not mean that Jesus gave us Mary as our mother. She is not even here on earth anymore..

Click to expand...

Well, our Apostle Paul says that "only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham", in Galatians 3:7. So, by following the example of Abraham's faith, he is our father. Likewise, possibly however we honor and follow the good example of Mary, she is our mother. Of course, this does not mean that Mary is Abraham's wife!! . . . if we are "sons of Abraham" and Mary is our mother

tadoflamb said:

So that verse is just a nice side note in the bible and has no real implications for us today?

Click to expand...

Did he say behold Mary, pray to her? No.

John 19:25-29New King James Version (NKJV)
Behold Your Mother
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

John took her in and treated her like is own mother. This is the example he was giving us to love our older sisters in the Lord as mothers, to care for them. It is also important to note, Mary was a widow at this time, so John was caring for a widow as his own mother.

It is also important to not he called her woman, once again. He clearly was not giving her any special status. He was not instructing her as an intercessor, nor was he telling John to pray to Mary, nor was Mary being elevated in any way.

2Timothy2:15 said:

Did he say behold Mary, pray to her? No.

John 19:25-29New King James Version (NKJV)
Behold Your Mother
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

John took her in and treated her like is own mother. This is the example he was giving us to love our older sisters in the Lord as mothers, to care for them. It is also important to note, Mary was a widow at this time, so John was caring for a widow as his own mother.

It is also important to not he called her woman, once again. He clearly was not giving her any special status. He was not instructing her as an intercessor, nor was he telling John to pray to Mary, nor was Mary being elevated in any way.

Click to expand...

John's Gospel mirrors Genesis. It starts with man in a fallen state and tells the story of how the Divine God of the universe came to earth and undid the fall of man. If you read Genesis carefully, you will notice that Eve is called woman before the fall and was only named Eve after the fall. Eve is called the mother of all humanity. Jesus uses these concepts at the end of his passion to show that man has now been redeemed from his fallen state by calling his mother, woman just like the pristine Eve was called. Then he goes on to call her the mother of the only disciple that stuck by his side. But we don't know if John's biological mother is dead or not. It would make no sense to have Mary adopt John as a biological son if John's real mother is alive. This is why tradition says that Mary became John's spiritual mother, not biological mother. Another odd bit is that Jesus could have foreseen that his brother, James would stay in Jerusalem and become bishop. Why not give Mary over to James? Wouldn't she have felt more comfortable in the Jewish community that she knew than in Ephesus. Wouldn't she have known James better than John? The early church saw this as showing that Mary was made in a spiritual way the mother of all the disciples, not just John. That is my take on this anyway.

2Timothy2:15 said:

Did he say behold Mary, pray to her? No.

John 19:25-29New King James Version (NKJV)
Behold Your Mother
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

John took her in and treated her like is own mother. This is the example he was giving us to love our older sisters in the Lord as mothers, to care for them. It is also important to note, Mary was a widow at this time, so John was caring for a widow as his own mother.

It is also important to not he called her woman, once again. He clearly was not giving her any special status. He was not instructing her as an intercessor, nor was he telling John to pray to Mary, nor was Mary being elevated in any way.

Click to expand...

2Timothy: No amount of back and forth will take this argument anywhere. The faith has been here for too long, for two millennials and there's only one person left to Judge Yeshua HaMashiach. I wish I could say you are on the road to Damascus but you are only putting yourself into more puzzles and mazes. In so many ways, this issue is only debatable on a controversial forum, the catholics have their own faith and whether it makes you want to bite your fingernails off the finger or not, accept this forum is a "hiding place" to practice what they preach. Good Day I promise I'll come with my own reservations on the verse, part. if you picked a title to contest what you would like to contest (just debate on the controversial.

com7fy8 said:

Well, first, let's see what this says >

"When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, 'Woman, behold your son!' Then He said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home." (John 19:26-27)..

Click to expand...

Perhaps because he was a fast runner [John 18:4]?
It seems Peter is mentioned being with the "other disciple" at the trial of Jesus. Interesting

Jhn 18:16
But Peter stood at the door outside.
Then the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to her who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
Jhn 20:
2
Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”

3

Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb.

4

So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first.

Some have speculated it could be Lazarus.....but in the end, does it really matter?

http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.com/fourth-gospel-John-v-Lazarus-authorship/
The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved

A preponderance of the evidence indicates Lazarus was the “other disciple” because:


Here is a thread on that topic:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/who-was-the-disciple-that-jesus-loved.4739706/#post-31510689

BereanTodd said: ↑
Actually, both Lazarus and James the Lord's brother would be precluded because the author of the Gospel clearly was an eye-witness to the Last Supper, and the only people there were Jesus and the twelve.

Click to expand...

Margim said:

That's not what it says in John's gospel. As I mentioned above, there is no concept of the 12 in John... just 'the disciples'. It is not limited in number or gender.

I'll also mention that while the other gospels mention 'the 12', there is no evidence that others weren't there, just that the 12 are specifically mentioned as being present. For example, two disciples prepare for the passover, and then Jesus arrives with the 12

Click to expand...

.

"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 he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."

Maybe its been discussed and I missed it, but why is the unnamed disciple assumed to be John?

rstrats said:

"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 he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."

Maybe its been discussed and I missed it, but why is the unnamed disciple assumed to be John?

Click to expand...

That's is truly a point that has been hotly debated in academic circles. Traditionally, it was assumed that the Apostle John was too modest to put his own name into the narrative, so he used the circumlocution of calling himself, 'the beloved disciple'. If you look up 'beloved disciple' on the net you will see some of these arguments. Another candidate for who is the beloved disciple is Lazarus.

tz620q,
re: " Traditionally, it was assumed that the Apostle John was too modest to put his own name into the narrative..."



And with regard to that, why is it assumed that John wrote the narrative? I know, I know, that issue has also been hotly debated in academic circles.

rstrats said:

tz620q,
re: " Traditionally, it was assumed that the Apostle John was too modest to put his own name into the narrative..."



And with regard to that, why is it assumed that John wrote the narrative? I know, I know, that issue has also been hotly debated in academic circles.

Click to expand...

I am not a biblical scholar, so I will point you to Wiki to get an overview of how people have thought about the authorship of the Gospel of John.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

rstrats said:

"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 he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."

Maybe its been discussed and I missed it, but why is the unnamed disciple assumed to be John?

Click to expand...

"The disciple whom Jesus loved" is a technical term used in St. John's gospel. Some of the incidents where St. John uses that phrase are also mentioned in other gospels. Those gospels typically name St. John himself as the other participant.

If this disciple isn't St. John, one wonders how he would have known about this incident with Our Lady since it isn't mentioned in the other gospels.

Tangible said:

This is actually a very interesting passage. I personally believe that it is one of the strongest evidences of PV, although it does not rule out the possibility that Mary was not PV but also did not have any other children besides Jesus.

I think this passage is mostly about Jesus ensuring the welfare of his mother, in effect directing John and Mary to 'adopt' one another as mother and son. These kind of historical narratives lend credence to the validity of the gospel accounts. It also demonstrates one way that God kept his promise made to Mary prophetically that all generations would call her blessed.

Click to expand...

Jesus placed Mary in the care of Jesus because His brothers did not believe He was the Christ ... He placed His Mother with a believer

rnmomof7 said:

Jesus placed Mary in the care of Jesus because His brothers did not believe He was the Christ ... He placed His Mother with a believer

Click to expand...

Precisely!

rnmomof7
re: "Jesus placed Mary in the care of Jesus..."

Huh?

rnmomof7 said:

Jesus placed Mary in the care of Jesus because His brothers did not believe He was the Christ ... He placed His Mother with a believer

Click to expand...

There's a problem with this interpretation. Evangelicals believe that Jesus' brothers came to believe in him after his resurrection and ascension into heaven (See Acts 1:14). If that's the case, Jesus would have known and placed his mother in their care in keeping with the moral prescriptions of Mosaic Law. Jesus himself claimed that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).

rstrats said:

rnmomof7
re: "Jesus placed Mary in the care of Jesus..."

Huh?

Click to expand...

I'm sure the person means John. But what actually happened was that Jesus placed the Disciple in his mother's care. Our Lord refers to Mary as a mother when addressing the Disciple, but when he speaks to her, he calls her "Woman", which is what Adam called Eve before the fall. So, it wasn't until Jesus established Mary to be the new Eve - the spiritual mother of all the living - that he addressed his words to the Disciple, who "took her to his own", viz., into his heart. John already had a biological mother, so he didn't have to adopt one.

rnmomof7 said:

Jesus placed Mary in the care of Jesus because His brothers did not believe He was the Christ ... He placed His Mother with a believer

Click to expand...

Except that they all subsequently became believers after the Resurrection. You don't believe Christ forsaw that?

amariselle said:

Exactly.

Why is it that no one who believes these things about Mary can give Scriptural support for them?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's because those who don't believe these things about Mary see no Scriptural support for them. And that could be because they are blinded by their own fixed preconceptions or have nothing but a tabula rasa to start from. Another reason could be because they don't read the Scriptures in a spiritual (analogical, anagogical, or moral) sense, as the Bible must often be read in, since it proceeds from Tradition: the unwritten word of God (John 16:12-13; Acts 8:26-40).

amariselle said:

Why is it that no one who believes these things about Mary can give Scriptural support for them?

Click to expand...

Because there isn't any. But there is no Scriptural support AGAINST them either. They are pious opinions based on Tradition.

That's why consciences should not be bound either way. Let each be fully assured in their own mind.

justinangel,
re: "I'm sure the person means John."

Why do you think that the disciple in question is someone named John?




re: "Our Lord refers to Mary as a mother when addressing the Disciple..."

What reason do you have for requiring you to believe that she wasn't the disciple's biological mother?