WWJD Did Jesus Pray to Mary?

[concretecamper]

Really - how do you explain Jesus having brothers in other passages ?

Cousins. The understanding of language is critical.

 

[concretecamper]

Not at all. To start with, His brothers didn't believe in Him. Jesus gave Mary into John's care to ensure that she was in the care of a Christian believer. Only later do we read of some of His brothers, James for instance, believing in Him:

“But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.” (Ga 1:19 NKJV)

Thank you for proving nothing since Paul himself references his brothers (fellow Christians ) who are not blood brothers. Next!

 

[Jipsah]

Cousins. The understanding of language is critical.

Easier to understand for those of us who are bicultural, I think. My Korean elder cousins are always addressed as "older brother" (they're both male).

 

[trophy33]

No one. Why would you assume she wasn't with Him?

I do not assume anything. I just wonder how much about Mary we really know and how much we simply guess. Why do you assume she wast not in Rome, preaching, right? Or in heaven. We can invent many things. But the New Testament focuses so little on Mary that the silence speaks too.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It seems like you don't understand the basics of Trinitarianism if you think Mary being the Mother of God due to having borne the Son implies she's the mother of the Father.

Sorry friend you misunderstand my comment and why I made it.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Cousins. The understanding of language is critical.

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

 

[concretecamper]

I do not assume anything.

You assumed Mary was not with Jesus when He was preaching for 3 years. I just asked why you would ASSUME that.

 

[concretecamper]

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

Never once did the scriptures refer to Jesus' Mother Mary as the mother of these other brothers. You are just assuming.

As for me, I'll follow the close to 2,000 years of interpretation from His Church that these "brothers" were not Mary's children.

Next

 

[trophy33]

You assumed Mary was not with Jesus when He was preaching for 3 years. I just asked why you would ASSUME that.

What evidence do you have she was with Jesus?

 

[concretecamper]

What evidence do you have she was with Jesus?

I didn't say one way or the other, you are the one who made an assumption. I guess since you don't have a good reason, you try to flip it. Got it.

 

[trophy33]

I didn't say one way or the other, you are the one who made an assumption. I guess since you don't have a good reason, you try to flip it. Got it.

You said Mary was entrusted to no one before Jesus's death. Then you asked how I know that she was not with Jesus the whole time. This seems like quite a lot of assuming on your side, rather.

 

[concretecamper]

You said Mary was entrusted to no one before Jesus's death.

Where?

 

[jas3]

Sorry friend you misunderstand my comment and why I made it.

Maybe so, which is why I said "seems." Maybe you could elaborate on your thought process.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Maybe so, which is why I said "seems." Maybe you could elaborate on your thought process.

In post #913 Trophy said the creeds only included the important and maybe not the controversial.

So I responded by asking if he considered the idea of Mary being the 'mother of God' important.

What I was getting at was that such a claim must be very important because it challenges the very fabric of the trinity.

So if it were true it would have been included in the Creeds.

It seems to have emerged from 400AD on after the Nicene Creed was formed so it wasn't an early belief being also absent from the Apostles Creed.

From this reasoning it was not held by the early church but postulated by some church fathers way later.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Never once did the scriptures refer to Jesus' Mother Mary as the mother of these other brothers. You are just assuming.

As for me, I'll follow the close to 2,000 years of interpretation from His Church that these "brothers" were not Mary's children.

Next

Exactly - we part company when you elevate the postulations of your church over scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

Exactly - we part company when you elevate the postulations of your church over scripture.

I don't assume, like you and another has done. Assuming isn't good practice.

 

[jas3]

So I responded by asking if he considered the idea of Mary being the 'mother of God' important.

No, you responded by asking if he considered the idea of Mary being the "mother of God the Father" important.

 

[Carl Emerson]

No, you responded by asking if he considered the idea of Mary being the "mother of God the Father" important.

Yes... I added reference to the Father to emphasise the point.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I don't assume, like you and another has done. Assuming isn't good practice.

Attempting to disprove the obvious in scripture by hanging onto Postulations made 400 years after the birth of Christianity is hardly solid ground.

 

[jas3]

Yes... I added reference to the Father to emphasise the point.

But there is no reference to the Father in the title "Mother of God." Is your thought that because something is said in relation to God, it must also be said in relation to the Father?