Mary

[Chris†opher Paul]

Mary had no other children, which is why Jesus didn't look towards one of them to care for her.  He asked John, not one of his supposed "siblings"

Or, if you want to imagine that He really did have siblings, then Jesus telling John to look after her can only be taken as a symbolic gesture giving his mother to the world.

So, pick one.  Either way, the Catholic Church is correct!

Either she was always a virgin, or she is the mother of the world, given to us by Jesus from the cross.

 

 

[VOW]

Or even......both!


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Avila]

Mary had no other children, which is why Jesus didn't look towards one of them to care for her. He asked John, not one of his supposed "siblings"

My thinkings exactly!!! It wouldn't have been necessary for him to give her to John if she had other children (not in my opinion), and it does dovetail nicely with giving her to the world....

 

[Nilhil Obstat]

Yep, and we shall take good care of her as well.

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Mary had no other children, which is why Jesus didn't look towards one of them to care for her.  He asked John, not one of his supposed "siblings"

I don't think that's necessarily true, though John 19:26-27 implies it

Or, if you want to imagine that He really did have siblings, then Jesus telling John to look after her can only be taken as a symbolic gesture giving his mother to the world.

So, pick one.  Either way, the Catholic Church is correct!

Either she was always a virgin, or she is the mother of the world, given to us by Jesus from the cross.

 

Uhm....I wouldn't say 'mother of the world', but rather mother of God's children

In anycase, it's interesting how either one, or both explanations depict Mary as a virgin

-Jason