Is there salvation without Mary?

[ViaCrucis]

The Apocrypha was in the Bible Jesus read, and was actually in the Bible close to 2000 years and was only removed in the last century. How is it that God wanted these writings as a part of His book and just recently they were removed. Did God say " Oh those were a mistake and should be omitted?

Questions over the Deuterocanonical books is a large topic. The point I was making is that the Bible consists of books which have been preserved and passed down by tradition in the Christian Church. The Bible exists because of the Church.

And I am not wrong about Christmas. Christmas Day did not start off as Jesus birthday and we know He was not born December 25.

Christmas did start off as the celebration of Jesus' birth, that's what it is. And no, we don't know that He wasn't born on December 25th. There is nearly a 1/365 chance that He was born on any day of the calendar year, and so there is at least a 1/365 chance of Him having been born on December 25th.

There are historical and biblical arguments for a winter birth for the Lord. Does that mean He absolutely was born on December 25th? No. But the claim that He couldn't have been is simply not true.

And most importantly: Christmas is not Jesus' birthday. Christmas is the celebration of Jesus' birth. That is a very important distinction here. Even if Jesus was born on a June 14th or a February 3rd, that wouldn't change anything about Christmas. Christmas would still be on December 25th. Because Christmas isn't about celebrating Jesus' birthday--the anniversary of His birth on the day of His birth--it's about celebrating His birth, the event itself.

CBS news said "Christmas is really about bringing out your inner pagan," historian Kenneth C. Davis told "CBS This Morning." According to Davis, Christmas was celebrated as early as the fourth century, suggesting that it had almost nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

With all due respect to this Kenneth Davis fellow, he's wrong. Yes, the earliest mention of Christmas celebrated on December 25th dates to the 4th century, specifically it dates to 354 AD, that's the earliest mention of Christmas on December 25th on official calendars.

The Council of Nicea met together in 325 AD, in the fourth century, and the Nicene Creed is very much absolutely about Jesus.

Just because a part of the Christian calendar is late doesn't make it wrong.

We celebrate the Lord's birth out of our voluntary freedom in Jesus Christ. As St. Paul says, that one man esteems one day over another. We have the freedom in Jesus to worship Jesus, and in that freedom we voluntarily have set aside days of the year for special observance.

That's not wrong, that's biblical.

In ancient Rome there was a feast called Saturnalia that celebrated the solstice. What is the solstice? It's the day that the sun starts coming back, the days start getting longer. And most of the traditions that we have that relate to Christmas relate to the solstice, which was celebrated in ancient Rome on December 25.

That's wrong. The Saturnalia NEVER FELL ON DECEMBER 25th. The Saturnalia began on December 17th and lasted until December 23rd at its longest. I say at its longest, because depending on the time period in Roman history, the Saturnalia lasted from as few as three days to as many as seven days. At its maximum length of seven days, it lasted from December 17th until December 23rd.

Therefore it never occurred on December 25th.

From Wikipedia:
"Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival and holiday in honour of the god Saturn, held on 17 December of the Julian calendar and later expanded with festivities through to 23 December. The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn, in the Roman Forum, and a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, continual partying, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms: gambling was permitted, and masters provided table service for their slaves as it was seen as a time of liberty for both slaves and freedmen alike.[1] A common custom was the election of a "King of the Saturnalia", who would give orders to people, which were to be followed and preside over the merrymaking. The gifts exchanged were usually gag gifts or small figurines made of wax or pottery known as sigillaria. The poet Catullus called it "the best of days".[2]"

I can only find the Latin here, and I am relying on machine translation (and trying to then edit it to make it readable) to help me out--so I invite those who actually know Latin to correct where I almost certainly am mistaken. At any rate, here is the text from Macrobius' Saturnalia, Book I, Chapter X, 23

"Abunde iam probasse nos aestimo Saturnalia uno tantum die, id est quarto decimo Kalendas, solita celebrari: sed post in triduum propagata, primum ex adiectis a Caesare huic mensi diebus, deinde ex edicto Augusti quo trium dierum ferias Saturnalibus addixit: a sexto decimo igitur coepta in quartum decimum desinunt, quo solo fieri ante consueverant"

"I have already demonstrated that we esteem the Saturnalia on a single day, that is, on the fourteenth before the Kalend(?) in the usual manner, but first after the addition of three days to the calendar by [Julius] Caesar, then Augustus decreed that the Saturnalia should be a three-day celebration; beginning on the 16th and terminating on the 14th of the usual custom(?)."

That is to say, originally the Saturnalia was held on the 14th day before the Kalends of January, which under the pre-Julian calendar was December 19th. Under Julius Caesar the Roman calendar underwent reform, and two days were added to December (Rome used inclusive counting) and as such this shifted the date of the Saturnalia to the 16th day before the Kalends of January, or December 17th. Julius Caesar's successor, Augustus made a decree which expanded the Saturnalia from a single day, to a three day festival, from December 17th until December 19th. Thus lasting from the 16th before the Kalends of January to the 14th day before the Kalends of January. So that both the traditional date and the new date were included in the celebration.

So when Christianity became the official religion in a sense, in Rome, they were able to fix this date. ... There's a little discrepancy about it but there's no question that the fact that it was celebrated in Rome as an important day with gift giving, candle lighting, and singing and decorating houses really cemented Christmas as December 25."

And most of those things weren't "Christmas" things at the time. The giving of gifts, decorations, etc are all much later customs. Yes, some of those customs are vestigial from pre-Christian Pagan wintery customs. The giving of gifts in wintertime does have precedence in the Saturnalia, but the idea of giving presents on Christmas comes much later in history. Gift-giving wasn't part of the original Christmas. Neither was tree decorating. Those are much later, and in some cases, extremely modern practices that are totally non-essential to the celebration of Christmas.

Or, just so there's no confusion, this is Christmas:

This is not Christmas, this is just cultural fluff that is how some people celebrate Christmas:

Another custom we can thank the pagans for? Christmas trees. Davis explained that the evergreen trees signaled the "return of life" and "light" as the winter solstice meant the days were starting to get longer.

"They started to hang an apple on it, so little red balls on green trees — get the picture here? ... So all of these things celebrate the idea that life and light are coming back into the world, which is essentially what Christmas means to Christians around the world."
Davis also pointed out that the very first instance of a "war on Christmas" actually dates back to the Puritans in the mid-17th century.

The origins of the Christmas tree date to the middle ages, chiefly in places like Germany. Where it was popular for Christians to put on Mystery Plays. A popular one involved a mystery play about the Garden of Eden and the Fall, and part of that was the decorating of trees with apples representing the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As it so happens, Church authorities didn't much care for this, as they believed it was celebrating man's fall from grace. And so such Mystery Trees were forbidden by Church leaders.

The people, rather than giving it up altogether, instead began to have Christ Trees, and towns would set up trees around Christmas time to celebrate Christ's birth. For in the Incarnation the Light of the World had come. At some point in the 16th century some German Christians began to bring trees inside of their homes, decorated with candles to further emphasize the symbolism of the light of Christ in the dark of the world. This practice became especially popular among Lutherans and other Protestants.

The Puritans forbid Christmas because the Puritans were anti-Catholic moralizers who also burned innocent people of witchcraft. I'm not sure why so many people think we should emulate the Puritans--they were intolerant, violent religious fantastic who were far worse than the oppressors in England they were escaping.

"They knew all of these things, the date, the traditions, were pagan ideas. The Puritans banned Christmas for 20 years in America before the celebration became just too popular."

They forbid Christmas because they hated Catholicism. The whole reason of their existence was their belief that the English Church was still "too Catholic", and so they wanted to purge anything they deemed "too Catholic" or "popish" from their religious practice. As such, Christmas was forbidden.

They didn't reject it because it was "Pagan" they rejected Christmas because Catholics celebrated Christmas and they hated Catholicism.

Davis should know better if he's a historian.

Christmas is not Biblical. Many Roman traditions are not Biblical. Many American customs are not Biblical. We just need to be careful that we know what we are doing and why. What are the origins of our traditions and are they what we stand for? If we don't we are just the blind leading the blind. People can do whatever they want. It is their business, their traditions, whatever but at the end of our lives, we are going to have to answer for why we were celebrating on Pagan holidays, and what made us think God wanted us to do certain things that He never told us. God is pretty clear about what He wants celebrated in the Bible. That is all I am saying.

Having a printed Bible in your hands to read in English isn't Biblical either.

So "not biblical" in the sense of "the Bible does not command something" does not mean it's bad.

The Bible doesn't say anything about sitting in pews at church, but there's nothing wrong with having seating at church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[prodromos]

With all due respect to this Kenneth Davis fellow, he's wrong.

As it turns out, he never completed his university studies. Not someone I would be relying on.

 

[prodromos]

And most importantly: Christmas is not Jesus' birthday. Christmas is the celebration of Jesus' birth. That is a very important distinction here. Even if Jesus was born on a June 14th or a February 3rd, that wouldn't change anything about Christmas. Christmas would still be on December 25th. Because Christmas isn't about celebrating Jesus' birthday--the anniversary of His birth on the day of His birth--it's about celebrating His birth, the event itself.

Quoted for truth!

 

[The Liturgist]

Questions over the Deuterocanonical books is a large topic. The point I was making is that the Bible consists of books which have been preserved and passed down by tradition in the Christian Church. The Bible exists because of the Church.



Christmas did start off as the celebration of Jesus' birth, that's what it is. And no, we don't know that He wasn't born on December 25th. There is nearly a 1/365 chance that He was born on any day of the calendar year, and so there is at least a 1/365 chance of Him having been born on December 25th.

There are historical and biblical arguments for a winter birth for the Lord. Does that mean He absolutely was born on December 25th? No. But the claim that He couldn't have been is simply not true.

And most importantly: Christmas is not Jesus' birthday. Christmas is the celebration of Jesus' birth. That is a very important distinction here. Even if Jesus was born on a June 14th or a February 3rd, that wouldn't change anything about Christmas. Christmas would still be on December 25th. Because Christmas isn't about celebrating Jesus' birthday--the anniversary of His birth on the day of His birth--it's about celebrating His birth, the event itself.



With all due respect to this Kenneth Davis fellow, he's wrong. Yes, the earliest mention of Christmas celebrated on December 25th dates to the 4th century, specifically it dates to 354 AD, that's the earliest mention of Christmas on December 25th on official calendars.

The Council of Nicea met together in 325 AD, in the fourth century, and the Nicene Creed is very much absolutely about Jesus.

Just because a part of the Christian calendar is late doesn't make it wrong.

We celebrate the Lord's birth out of our voluntary freedom in Jesus Christ. As St. Paul says, that one man esteems one day over another. We have the freedom in Jesus to worship Jesus, and in that freedom we voluntarily have set aside days of the year for special observance.

That's not wrong, that's biblical.



That's wrong. The Saturnalia NEVER FELL ON DECEMBER 25th. The Saturnalia began on December 17th and lasted until December 23rd at its longest. I say at its longest, because depending on the time period in Roman history, the Saturnalia lasted from as few as three days to as many as seven days. At its maximum length of seven days, it lasted from December 17th until December 23rd.

Therefore it never occurred on December 25th.

From Wikipedia:
"Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival and holiday in honour of the god Saturn, held on 17 December of the Julian calendar and later expanded with festivities through to 23 December. The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn, in the Roman Forum, and a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, continual partying, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms: gambling was permitted, and masters provided table service for their slaves as it was seen as a time of liberty for both slaves and freedmen alike.[1] A common custom was the election of a "King of the Saturnalia", who would give orders to people, which were to be followed and preside over the merrymaking. The gifts exchanged were usually gag gifts or small figurines made of wax or pottery known as sigillaria. The poet Catullus called it "the best of days".[2]"

I can only find the Latin here, and I am relying on machine translation (and trying to then edit it to make it readable) to help me out--so I invite those who actually know Latin to correct where I almost certainly am mistaken. At any rate, here is the text from Macrobius' Saturnalia, Book I, Chapter X, 23

"Abunde iam probasse nos aestimo Saturnalia uno tantum die, id est quarto decimo Kalendas, solita celebrari: sed post in triduum propagata, primum ex adiectis a Caesare huic mensi diebus, deinde ex edicto Augusti quo trium dierum ferias Saturnalibus addixit: a sexto decimo igitur coepta in quartum decimum desinunt, quo solo fieri ante consueverant"

"I have already demonstrated that we esteem the Saturnalia on a single day, that is, on the fourteenth before the Kalend(?) in the usual manner, but first after the addition of three days to the calendar by [Julius] Caesar, then Augustus decreed that the Saturnalia should be a three-day celebration; beginning on the 16th and terminating on the 14th of the usual custom(?)."

That is to say, originally the Saturnalia was held on the 14th day before the Kalends of January, which under the pre-Julian calendar was December 19th. Under Julius Caesar the Roman calendar underwent reform, and two days were added to December (Rome used inclusive counting) and as such this shifted the date of the Saturnalia to the 16th day before the Kalends of January, or December 17th. Julius Caesar's successor, Augustus made a decree which expanded the Saturnalia from a single day, to a three day festival, from December 17th until December 19th. Thus lasting from the 16th before the Kalends of January to the 14th day before the Kalends of January. So that both the traditional date and the new date were included in the celebration.



And most of those things weren't "Christmas" things at the time. The giving of gifts, decorations, etc are all much later customs. Yes, some of those customs are vestigial from pre-Christian Pagan wintery customs. The giving of gifts in wintertime does have precedence in the Saturnalia, but the idea of giving presents on Christmas comes much later in history. Gift-giving wasn't part of the original Christmas. Neither was tree decorating. Those are much later, and in some cases, extremely modern practices that are totally non-essential to the celebration of Christmas.

Or, just so there's no confusion, this is Christmas:

This is not Christmas, this is just cultural fluff that is how some people celebrate Christmas:

The origins of the Christmas tree date to the middle ages, chiefly in places like Germany. Where it was popular for Christians to put on Mystery Plays. A popular one involved a mystery play about the Garden of Eden and the Fall, and part of that was the decorating of trees with apples representing the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. As it so happens, Church authorities didn't much care for this, as they believed it was celebrating man's fall from grace. And so such Mystery Trees were forbidden by Church leaders.

The people, rather than giving it up altogether, instead began to have Christ Trees, and towns would set up trees around Christmas time to celebrate Christ's birth. For in the Incarnation the Light of the World had come. At some point in the 16th century some German Christians began to bring trees inside of their homes, decorated with candles to further emphasize the symbolism of the light of Christ in the dark of the world. This practice became especially popular among Lutherans and other Protestants.

The Puritans forbid Christmas because the Puritans were anti-Catholic moralizers who also burned innocent people of witchcraft. I'm not sure why so many people think we should emulate the Puritans--they were intolerant, violent religious fantastic who were far worse than the oppressors in England they were escaping.



They forbid Christmas because they hated Catholicism. The whole reason of their existence was their belief that the English Church was still "too Catholic", and so they wanted to purge anything they deemed "too Catholic" or "popish" from their religious practice. As such, Christmas was forbidden.

They didn't reject it because it was "Pagan" they rejected Christmas because Catholics celebrated Christmas and they hated Catholicism.

Davis should know better if he's a historian.



Having a printed Bible in your hands to read in English isn't Biblical either.

So "not biblical" in the sense of "the Bible does not command something" does not mean it's bad.

The Bible doesn't say anything about sitting in pews at church, but there's nothing wrong with having seating at church.

-CryptoLutheran

As a pastor in the Congregationalist tradition, which hails from Puritanism, I heartily agree with your criticism of it and am proud to say the Congregationalist churches had by the 19th century fully embraced Christmas.

 

[bbbbbbb]

As a pastor in the Congregationalist tradition, which hails from Puritanism, I heartily agree with your criticism of it and am proud to say the Congregationalist churches had by the 19th century fully embraced Christmas.

Not quite. Not everywhere. When I was growing up in the 1950's the three Congregational churches in town did not set up a Christmas tree in the auditorium. In our Presbyterian church they were taking timid steps toward Christmas decorations by having a Christmas tree for the Sunday School and, later, evergreen decorations upstairs. Even today there are undecorated evergreen trees used at Christmas, but not lighted or ornamented.

In one of the Lutheran churches a member who had emigrated from Germany after WWII was completely incensed when he discovered that his church did not light the candles on the Christmas tree at the Christmas Eve service because of fire regulations.

 

[Thomas White]

Not quite. Not everywhere. When I was growing up in the 1950's the three Congregational churches in town did not set up a Christmas tree in the auditorium. In our Presbyterian church they were taking timid steps toward Christmas decorations by having a Christmas tree for the Sunday School and, later, evergreen decorations upstairs. Even today there are undecorated evergreen trees used at Christmas, but not lighted or ornamented.

In one of the Lutheran churches a member who had emigrated from Germany after WWII was completely incensed when he discovered that his church did not light the candles on the Christmas tree at the Christmas Eve service because of fire regulations.

That is very true. I did not think of it like that. That is not even my issue. I am not hostile be and I know I appear to be- I am just so worried about fellow Christians falling prey to what has become tradition but is possibly false doctrine because the notion of what HAS been placed on Mary is not Biblical. It is like the idea of Christmas-I celebrated Christmas my entire life before I realized it is a tradition of men- nowhere does the Bible tell us to celebrate Jesus birth, not does it give us His birthday but it gives enough clues to tell us it is not in December. So since days matter to the Lord, it is important to know what Dec. 25th actually was celebrated for, and about the Christmas Tree. Not only did Saturnalia use fir trees, it was actually celebrated around the end of December! A festival for feasting, celebration and helping those less fortunate, gifts were exchanged and lots of food was consumed. People even dressed up in their nicest clothes and drank lots of wine…Saturnalia was Pagan. So with the commercialization and Santa, and everything I decided my Lord is not going to celebrate His birthday by competing with Santa and elves, and reindeer and Snowmen and Rudolph and tradition. Satan does not love us on Christmas and if we think that he is going to let us have our perfect little holiday and take the day off we are mistaken. The more I looked in the Bible the more I found warnings of celebrating Christmas so last year I stopped. It was hard, but Christmas is not Biblical. We have to be careful. What worries me is satan has had 2000 years to get this right. He knows what works to get men into hell compared to our what 50-60 " know it all" years? We can rationalize and justify whatever but who is to say the wrong priest got some different info and made it a tradition with Mary to do certain things even though they are not Biblical and now the masses think a certain way but it is not Biblical! If it is not in the Bible then who is it of? We need to be careful and test everything we know and not just take some man's word for it because he is wearing a funny hat or robes. The scandals in the churches should remind us, these men could be wolves in sheep's clothing. What does the Bible say? I only hope that people search for whatever they have believed up until this point and try to find it in the Bible to make sure it is Biblical. I'm sorry if I come off too intense. I will chill out!

No need to "chill out." We are one Body, one Church, one Family. Sisters and brothers argue sometimes. We have to be honest, or we do not learn from one another. At the end of the day, we are still family, and I, for one, love you, my sister.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Is there salvation without Mary?

is she the mother of our salvation?

our hope?

Beautiful question. Worth asking.

Yes, she’s the Mother of our Salvation, and our Hope.

 

[Jaxxi]

No need to "chill out." We are one Body, one Church, one Family. Sisters and brothers argue sometimes. We have to be honest, or we do not learn from one another. At the end of the day, we are still family, and I, for one, love you, my sister.

Thank you so much! I love you as well and never mean any disrespect in my responses. I don't think any of us have all the answers, but together through faith and an open mind with the help of The Holy Spirit hopefully we can come close to understanding what it is that God wanted us to know.

 

[BobRyan]

Is there salvation without Mary?

is she the mother of our salvation?

our hope?

1. Is there any Christian denomination that claims Mary did not exist?
2. Is there any Bible writer making statements about "Mary our hope? no not one.
3. Is there any Bible write making statements about "Mary mother of our salvation? no not one.
4. Is there any Bible writer saying things like "Mary mother of God"? no not one.

Why is it that the first century Christians do not make such statements? Do you really think those kinds of statements are so inconsequential that nobody thought to mention it?

There is in fact one case in the Bible where someone starts off with "Blessed be Mary the mother of Jesus" and Jesus' response was "on the contrary..." Luke 11:27-28

 

[Ramon]

No man comes to the Father except trough me and my mother? Sorry it's not what it says.

 

[BobRyan]

No man comes to the Father except trough me and my mother? Sorry it's not what it says.

Luke 11:
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.”
28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”


Matt 12
46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 [Someone said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.”] 48 But Jesus replied to the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” 49 And extending His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold: My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.”

 

[prodromos]

Luke 11:
27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.”
28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

Luke 1:38

And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.​

Matt 12
46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 [Someone said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You.”] 48 But Jesus replied to the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” 49 And extending His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold: My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.”

Luke 1:38

And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.​

 

[The Liturgist]

The Catholic Church since the beginning (Pentecost) has always recognized a unique role that Mary has/had in Salvation. It is only recently that novel ideas like
have come into existence.

Gen: 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Seems like she has a role.

Actually, Epiphanios in his encylopedic reference book of heresies profiles two groups, Collyridians, who worshipped Mary and believed she was in the Eucharist (kind of like the Palmerian Catholics of today), and anti-dicomariaism, which refused any veneration to the Theotokos. I reject both extremes and instead follow the Orthodox practice of venerating Mary. As a Protestant, I feel so blessed that God has populated Heaven with so many saints, and their champion leader is a humble Galilean mother, who loves us and who was, along with the three Zoroastrian mobeds, one of the first people to understand how special our Savior is.

Mary lives in Heaven, with the saints, known and unknown. Many of our closest relatives might be in Heaven, but until that is confirmed, we should pray for their soul, and when praying for anything, I think asking for the intercession is good thing.

 

[2BeholdHisGlory]

Luke 1:38

And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.​

Luke 1:38

And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.​

There were many handmaids of the Lord, how does this verse contradict the ones with Jesus speaking?

Joel 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

 

[prodromos]

There were many handmaids of the Lord, how does this verse contradict the ones with Jesus speaking?

Joel 2:29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

Mary heard the Word of God and observed it, and she did the will of the Father.

 

[2BeholdHisGlory]

Mary heard the Word of God and observed it, and she did the will of the Father.

I wouldn't doubt that but what did she supposedly do here that I missed?

 

[prodromos]

I wouldn't doubt that but what did she supposedly do here that I missed?

Mary fulfilled both the verses that BobRyan had quoted, so whatever point he was trying to make was moot.

 

[2BeholdHisGlory]

Mary fulfilled both the verses that BobRyan had quoted, so whatever point he was trying to make was moot.

I believe she heard the word of God and would perform the same just as every one of his discples which sat around him would do equally who he likewise equates as his mother and brethren equally. Jesus was not making a distinction between "thy mother and brethren" (outside) and the THEY which are equally his mother and brethren in his disciples (sitting around him) Both would do so. Jesus keeps correcting peoples mindsets. Same with the woman blessing the womb that bare him and the paps that gave him suck (That would be his mother again) and Jesus redirects her away from the singuar (mother) and to THEY (in the plural) who are equally regarded as the same (but not for the reason that woman stated) but for the reasons Jesus stated (who hear the words of God and do it) . In both places and its so obvious Jesus keeps doing this and a little strange to watch some people swat Jesus words away while propping up Mary over and over again (with what appears to come off as womb worship) as it might relate to her. It happens everytime anyone points out that in both places Jesus goes from singular (mom) to plural (disciples) in both pictures and push away womb and paps (literally) and redirect the same to doing the will of God. And then at the end it just come full circle to Mary did the will of God too (lol) I would think so.

 

[fide]

3. Is there any Bible write making statements about "Mary mother of our salvation? no not one.

Two or three passages, taken together, can lead you to a "yes" to this question.
1) - Rom 13:11 Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed;
(i.e. salvation is not absolutely "possessed" now, but has a conception, a growth, and is ordered to a maturity and a fruitfulness.)

2)
John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
John 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
[literally, "his own" - the word "home" is not in the verse (see 1 Tim 5:8 where "home" IS explicitly included)]. The implication here is, he took Mary into his own self/being/person/family as his mother. This new "family" relationship is emphasized in the preceding verse to Mary: the beloved disciple is her son.

So the question for the faithful reader is, am I, or am I not, a disciple beloved by Jesus? Am I remaining on His path to salvation - the path to salvation nearer now than when I first believed?

How do I become and remain a disciple beloved by Jesus? I do all He commands.
3) John14:21 - Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.

 

[Albion]

Two or three passages, taken together, can lead you to a "yes" to this question.

2)
John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
John 19:27 Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home...

So the question for the faithful reader is, am I, or am I not, a disciple beloved by Jesus? Am I remaining on His path to salvation - the path to salvation nearer now than when I first believed?..

Actually, it is remarkable how little fondness Jesus shows his mother and how little he makes of her importance to him. That isn't to say, absolutely, that he feels none of it, but what do the Gospels show us? Well, much less than the average person shows towards his own mother.

He leaves her worried about him being lost while he engages in confounding the elders in the Temple, and when he is found, he actually rebukes her for interfering.

When he turns water into wine for the wedding feast at Cana, he complies with his mother's request but, again, he sounds almost irritated to have to do it.

Mary, we know, accompanied her son on his journeys during the years of his public ministry, but there is no mention of him introducing her to the crowds, praising her for her steadfastness or counsel or anything else. Not at the Sermon on the Mount or any other time.

She was also with the disciples at the time of the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and subsequent events but, once more, the Gospels record nothing special about her presence except for her attendance.

Yet the church, over the centuries, made Mary the Queen of Heaven, mother of us all, co-redeemer of mankind, dispenser of all graces, guarantor of a peaceful and blessed death, etc. and made a dogma out of the legend of her having been taken bodily into heaven. And that's just for starters.