Why Mary is Our Mother.

[JesusLovesOurLady]

In my Sola Scriptura debate, someone stated that Sola Scripture isn't about interpreting Scripture, and I responded that, that's exactly what happened to me, that I pulled up a Catholic proof-text, and someone immediately responded, not these exact words, but to the effect of:

No, no, no, it can't mean that, you're just taking that passage and running with it that! It can't mean that because, Sola Scriptura!

Again, not in those direct words, but that's what I got from it. I've decided to bring up the proof-text in question, and see if it determine what this passage really means, and whether or not Protestants are hiding behind Sola Scriptura when it comes to this passage.

The passage in question, comes from the Holy Gospel according to St. John Chapter 19, in that chapter, we see the greatest event in history, Our Lord's Passion. Our Lord is scourged; crowned with thorns; condemned; forced to carry His Cross; is nailed to the Cross and left to die. Our Lord is on Calvary, sacrificing Himself for the sins of the world, undeniably the most holy act in a history, when all of sudden, seemingly out of nowhere, the following happens:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.
- The Holy Gospel according to St. John 19:25-28 Douay-Rheims Version
​

Why would Our Lord, in the middle of His Most Holy Sacrifice on the Cross, suddenly just, again, seemingly out of nowhere, give His Mother to St. John? And speaking of St. John, this happens in his Gospel, and his Gospel the most theologically exalted of all the Gospels! The only logical explanation, for this seemingly sudden exchange in the middle of Our Lord's sacrifice, is that it has to be something important! Judging by what Our Lord says in the text itself, the most logical explanation of this passage, is that Our Lord, in giving His Mother to St. John, and saying, "Behold thy Mother," is giving Mary to all Christians to be Our Mother. I can't think of any other logical implication other than this, I didn't even quote a Church Father, it's the only logical explanation to this passage! So tell me Protestants, how is it that this passage doesn't mean what it logically implies?


Once again, my activity here will be very slow, due to College work, so I call on my fellow-Catholics to help me out here, with this very easy dogma. I'm currently working big assignment, hopefully after this week, things will speed up a bit, and I can be more active in these threads.

I'll be back later the evening.

Ave Maria!!!

 

[Hammster]

Could it not just be that He was concerned for His mother?

 

[PeterDona]

Interesting viewpoint, there might be a point.

Or is it that Jesus since his father is dead (which we know not at all anything about from scripture) as the firstborn passes his responsibility for his mother on to a disciple rather than his next younger brother James? Such would seem consistent with the conclusion "And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own".

After all, Jesus did not call together all the disciples and said to Mary, "behold your sons". Also he did address her as "woman" and not as "mother".

I have a theology about the relation between Jesus and his earthly mother. I do not know if it is standard protestant theology, but taking note that after the death on the cross Mary is referenced as Mary the mother of James and Joses (Matt 27:56) I get the idea that scripture does an exercise to avoid Mary-worship. But I am aware that some/many will take the viewpoint that that Mary is some other Mary, either a sister of Jesus earthly mother, or some other. But my counterargument there is, why would suddenly scripture introduce a person who was completely without reference earlier in the gospel? Is it just like "oh, by the way there was a woman named Mary who had two sons named James and Joses" or is not the point that Jesus is no longer to be considered her son when he has died on the cross?

Another possible point of the passage John 19:25-28 could be to include an event to show the special affection Jesus had for John, who called himself the disciple that Jesus loved. The fact that Jesus commits his mother in his hands is certainly a sign of special trust.

I generally believe that everything in scripture has a point. Will be interesting to see what others can bring to the table here.

 

[RC1970]

The only logical explanation that I see is that a dying man is asking one of his dearest friends to take care of his mother after he is gone. Anything else is just pure speculation (i.e. legend, myth or fable).

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Matt 12:46-50 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” We are our brothers keeper so to speak and besides, we don't know what has happened to Joseph and besides that, they were in Jerusalem and the family did not live there as they were from Nazareth.
Matt 13:53-58 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed from there. 54 When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” 57 So they were offended at Him. 58 Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief. We are told this inActs 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. We are not really told why and no one can say absolutely why Jesus did this. But we do know this, Mary declared Him to be her Savior. And no where is anything ever mentioned about Mary other than she would be spoken highly of as the Mother of her Lord.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Could it not just be that He was concerned for His mother?

Interesting viewpoint, there might be a point.

Or is it that Jesus since his father is dead (which we know not at all anything about from scripture) as the firstborn passes his responsibility for his mother on to a disciple rather than his next younger brother James? Such would seem consistent with the conclusion "And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own".

Another possible point of the passage John 19:25-28 could be to include an event to show the special affection Jesus had for John, who called himself the disciple that Jesus loved. The fact that Jesus commits his mother in his hands is certainly a sign of special trust.

The only logical explanation that I see is that a dying man is asking one of his dearest friends to take care of his mother after he is gone.

But when and where did this happen? On Calvary, where Our Lord was Sacrificing Himself on the Cross for the sins of the world. Why would Jesus, in the middle of the most important event in all of time, do something so earthly and temporal? If all Jesus was doing was having St. John take care of Mary once He was gone, why didn't He do that earlier, like at the last supper? Why did He wait until His most holy Sacrifice on the Cross to do this?

 

[Hammster]

But when and where did this happen? On Calvary, where Our Lord was Sacrificing Himself on the Cross for the sins of the world. Why would Jesus, in the middle of the most important event in all of time, do something so earthly and temporal? If all Jesus was doing was having St. John take care of Mary once He was gone, why didn't He do that earlier, like at the last supper? Why did He wait until His most holy Sacrifice on the Cross to do this?

We don’t know. But what it doesn’t say is “and He said this so that Mary would be Mother to all”.

 

[RC1970]

But when and where did this happen? On Calvary, where Our Lord was Sacrificing Himself on the Cross for the sins of the world. Why would Jesus, in the middle of the most important event in all of time, do something so earthly and temporal? If all Jesus was doing was having St. John take care of Mary once He was gone, why didn't He do that earlier, like at the last supper? Why did He wait until His most holy Sacrifice on the Cross to do this?

What good does it do to speculate about it? The Scriptures do not deal with it any further than what is actually said in John 19:25-28.

“Where God closes His holy mouth, I will desist from inquiry.” ~ John Calvin

I think Calvin gives good advice.

 

[PeterDona]

If all Jesus was doing was having St. John take care of Mary once He was gone, why didn't He do that earlier, like at the last supper? Why did He wait until His most holy Sacrifice on the Cross to do this?

Well I think Mary was not there at his last supper or in the garden of Gethsemane. I think Jesus was there only with his 11-12 disciples. However that is not a strong point since I believe that the man fleeing naked in Mark is Mark's selfportrait. (Mark 14:52) and Mark was not one of the 12.

Would it make sense that Jesus started finalising the burial before the people had gone through with the execution? Could you then really say that the people sacrificed Jesus or did he rather put himself on the cross?

Yes, Jesus did talk about that he had the power to give his life and to take it back, but I still think it is a great point that the sacrifice should be performed by someone else. It has always been a point of my background understanding how it was that Jesus sacrifice could count for us.

 

[Phil 1:21]

The only logical explanation, for this seemingly sudden exchange in the middle of Our Lord's sacrifice, is that it has to be something important!

All scripture is important, even seemingly benign lists of names. (2 Timothy 3:16)

Judging by what Our Lord says in the text itself, the most logical explanation of this passage, is that Our Lord, in giving His Mother to St. John, and saying, "Behold thy Mother," is giving Mary to all Christians to be Our Mother. I can't think of any other logical implication other than this, I didn't even quote a Church Father, it's the only logical explanation to this passage! So tell me Protestants, how is it that this passage doesn't mean what it logically implies?

What you're actually doing is called eisegesis -- trying to make scripture fit your already held belief. What you (really, all of us) should do is look to scripture to form our beliefs (exegesis), not confirm them.

As for why Christ chose that moment to reaffirm concern for his mother, what is the first commandment God gave us concerning our relationships with others? "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." (Exodus 20:12) This isn't by accident.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

We don’t know. But what it doesn’t say is “and He said this so that Mary would be Mother to all”.

What good does it do to speculate about it? The Scriptures do not deal with it any further than what is actually said in John 19:25-28.

“Where God closes His holy mouth, I will desist from inquiry.” ~ John Calvin

I think Calvin gives good advice.

Really you won't do exegesis in regards to this strange passage? No where in the Bible is the Trinity spelled out to us, and even the very obvious passages, the Bible doesn't "and this is how we know that God is a Trinity."

The only alternative to this logical exegesis, is to say that, in the middle of Our Lord giving Himself up completely for our sake, Jesus suddenly concerns Himself with His own, personal affairs!

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

Well I think Mary was not there at his last supper or in the garden of Gethsemane. I think Jesus was there only with his 11-12 disciples. However that is not a strong point since I believe that the man fleeing naked in Mark is Mark's selfportrait. (Mark 14:52) and Mark was not one of the 12.

Would it make sense that Jesus started finalising the burial before the people had gone through with the execution? Could you then really say that the people sacrificed Jesus or did he rather put himself on the cross?

Yes, Jesus did talk about that he had the power to give his life and to take it back, but I still think it is a great point that the sacrifice should be performed by someone else. It has always been a point of my background understanding how it was that Jesus sacrifice could count for us.

Our Lord, predicted plenty of times in the Bible, His own Crucifixion. Having someone else care for His own Mother while He was gone, would not have changed who sacrificed Our Lord, anymore than any of His predictions of His own Crucifixion.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

All scripture is important, even seemingly benign lists of names. (2 Timothy 3:16)

What you're actually doing is called eisegesis -- trying to make scripture fit your already held belief. What you (really, all of us) should do is look to scripture to form our beliefs (exegesis), not confirm them.

As for why Christ chose that moment to reaffirm concern for his mother, what is the first commandment God gave us concerning our relationships with others? "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." (Exodus 20:12) This isn't by accident.

No it's not eisegesis, it is a perfectly rational exegesis of this passage, due to the fact that none of the other interpretations make sense, including your's.

You mean to tell me, that after all the passages that you and other Protestants interpret as Our Lord dissing His Mother, Jesus is going to make-up for all of this by this one act? Sounds kind of legalistic to me!

On top of that, consider this passage:

He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.
- St. Matthew 10:37-39 DR
​

If there ever was time Our Lord would Love His Father, more than His Mother, it would be here on Calvary. Yet you claim that after years of being indifferent to His Mother, all of sudden, here on Calvary, Jesus suddenly does a complete 180 and places His own Human (Perfectly Human, New Eve to be exact. But that's another topic for another time.) Mother above God Himself!?!

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Almost everyone would agree that Jesus indeed loved His whole family and others, but He never exalted any of them over others, but He Himself did make this statement in Luke 11:27-28 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Kind of like this He had already made to those who were sent out to proclaim the good news, again, He shows the greater issue: Luke 10:19-20 Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.”

 

[Phil 1:21]

Almost everyone would agree that Jesus indeed loved His whole family and others, but He never exalted any of them over others...

That is absolutely correct. We know Jesus led a sinless life, so to accuse Him of such a thing is to deny that perfection and instead label Him a sinner. That is no trivial matter, a violation of the first and greatest commandment.

Furthermore, I fail to see the logic in stating that because Jesus saw to it to care for the future of His mother that He placed her in a position above God the Father. Jesus repeated tells us in the Gospel that He serves the will of the Father. And no place is this more poignant than in Matthew 26:39 at Gethsemane.

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

If Christ was going to put His mother above God the Father, why would He allow Mary to witness him being mocked, spit upon, beaten, paraded through the streets naked, scourged within an inch of His life, forced to carry a wooden beam to His place of death, and nailed to a cross, left to writhe in pain for hours until He ultimately died? As a parent, I cannot begin to imagine the pain and anguish Mary felt as she watched her oldest son meet such a fate. But it was the will of the Father, and so Jesus submitted to it.

Now back to the original topic, the belief that Jesus gave Mary to all of us as our mother at the foot of the cross. The fact is that’s not what scripture says. Scripture says that Jesus addressed that statement to one particular disciple. This conclusion requires no special interpretation at all, just simple exegesis from reading the text itself. Christ frequently gave commands and made statements to individuals, specific groups of people, and humanity as a whole. In this case He specifically called out one individual, John the apostle. To go beyond that is eisegesis.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I've decided to take break from debating today. I'll continue defending the truths about Our Lady tomorrow.

 

[Radagast]

Why would Our Lord, in the middle of His Most Holy Sacrifice on the Cross, suddenly just, again, seemingly out of nowhere, give His Mother to St. John?

Because Joseph was dead by then, and there was nobody else to look after her. John was, of course, her nephew, and Jesus' cousin.

Judging by what Our Lord says in the text itself, the most logical explanation of this passage, is that Our Lord, in giving His Mother to St. John, and saying, "Behold thy Mother," is giving Mary to all Christians to be Our Mother.

No, that is not logical at all. If Jesus had meant that, he would not have addressed his words to John only.

 

[disciple1]

In my Sola Scriptura debate, someone stated that Sola Scripture isn't about interpreting Scripture, and I responded that, that's exactly what happened to me, that I pulled up a Catholic proof-text, and someone immediately responded, not these exact words, but to the effect of:

No, no, no, it can't mean that, you're just taking that passage and running with it that! It can't mean that because, Sola Scriptura!

Again, not in those direct words, but that's what I got from it. I've decided to bring up the proof-text in question, and see if it determine what this passage really means, and whether or not Protestants are hiding behind Sola Scriptura when it comes to this passage.

The passage in question, comes from the Holy Gospel according to St. John Chapter 19, in that chapter, we see the greatest event in history, Our Lord's Passion. Our Lord is scourged; crowned with thorns; condemned; forced to carry His Cross; is nailed to the Cross and left to die. Our Lord is on Calvary, sacrificing Himself for the sins of the world, undeniably the most holy act in a history, when all of sudden, seemingly out of nowhere, the following happens:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.
- The Holy Gospel according to St. John 19:25-28 Douay-Rheims Version
​

Why would Our Lord, in the middle of His Most Holy Sacrifice on the Cross, suddenly just, again, seemingly out of nowhere, give His Mother to St. John? And speaking of St. John, this happens in his Gospel, and his Gospel the most theologically exalted of all the Gospels! The only logical explanation, for this seemingly sudden exchange in the middle of Our Lord's sacrifice, is that it has to be something important! Judging by what Our Lord says in the text itself, the most logical explanation of this passage, is that Our Lord, in giving His Mother to St. John, and saying, "Behold thy Mother," is giving Mary to all Christians to be Our Mother. I can't think of any other logical implication other than this, I didn't even quote a Church Father, it's the only logical explanation to this passage! So tell me Protestants, how is it that this passage doesn't mean what it logically implies?


Once again, my activity here will be very slow, due to College work, so I call on my fellow-Catholics to help me out here, with this very easy dogma. I'm currently working big assignment, hopefully after this week, things will speed up a bit, and I can be more active in these threads.

I'll be back later the evening.

Ave Maria!!!

Luke chapter 1 verse 42
In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!

Luke chapter 1 verse 43
But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?


That is what Elizabeth said when Mary came to John the Baptists mother.

And look what is said in verse 42 about Mary ("Blessed are you among women)
she was a lucky women but that's it.

 

[One Of The Elect]

In my Sola Scriptura debate, someone stated that Sola Scripture isn't about interpreting Scripture, and I responded that, that's exactly what happened to me, that I pulled up a Catholic proof-text, and someone immediately responded, not these exact words, but to the effect of:

No, no, no, it can't mean that, you're just taking that passage and running with it that! It can't mean that because, Sola Scriptura!

Again, not in those direct words, but that's what I got from it. I've decided to bring up the proof-text in question, and see if it determine what this passage really means, and whether or not Protestants are hiding behind Sola Scriptura when it comes to this passage.

The passage in question, comes from the Holy Gospel according to St. John Chapter 19, in that chapter, we see the greatest event in history, Our Lord's Passion. Our Lord is scourged; crowned with thorns; condemned; forced to carry His Cross; is nailed to the Cross and left to die. Our Lord is on Calvary, sacrificing Himself for the sins of the world, undeniably the most holy act in a history, when all of sudden, seemingly out of nowhere, the following happens:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.
- The Holy Gospel according to St. John 19:25-28 Douay-Rheims Version
​

Why would Our Lord, in the middle of His Most Holy Sacrifice on the Cross, suddenly just, again, seemingly out of nowhere, give His Mother to St. John? And speaking of St. John, this happens in his Gospel, and his Gospel the most theologically exalted of all the Gospels! The only logical explanation, for this seemingly sudden exchange in the middle of Our Lord's sacrifice, is that it has to be something important! Judging by what Our Lord says in the text itself, the most logical explanation of this passage, is that Our Lord, in giving His Mother to St. John, and saying, "Behold thy Mother," is giving Mary to all Christians to be Our Mother. I can't think of any other logical implication other than this, I didn't even quote a Church Father, it's the only logical explanation to this passage! So tell me Protestants, how is it that this passage doesn't mean what it logically implies?


Once again, my activity here will be very slow, due to College work, so I call on my fellow-Catholics to help me out here, with this very easy dogma. I'm currently working big assignment, hopefully after this week, things will speed up a bit, and I can be more active in these threads.

I'll be back later the evening.

Ave Maria!!!

I agree with your understanding concerning the Mother of our Lord. I have read other post by you. I do not agree that Pope John Paul II is a saint as you invoked at the end of one of your prayer threads. I say this based on the lie and concealment of the true final message of Fatima. The lie that he was the Bishop in white in the message. When the message clearly states the Bishop of white would be killed. The Bishop in white is our present Pope. The 2000 appearance of the supposed "St. Lucia" was a fraud and many RC's who are well aware of the secret agree. Plus PJP2 is the one who began the false doctrine of all religions lead to God, and he promoted dissolution of the faith. Anyone can look up the heresies of PJP2,they are undeniable. Ratzinger too upheld his false teaching and Pope Francis continues his legacy 7 fold.

The message of Fatima is true. Fatima is a true apparition, the Masonic Vatican and its heretic Popes are not. Look up pictures of the TRUE St. Lucia, there is no denying the Vatican has covered up not only the last message but the murder of the true St. Lucia.

But the secret is also revealed in Revelation 17-18. And is at hand. St. Lucia died a martyr at the hand of Masonic persons of the Vatican. Mary said the Dogma of Faith will always be preserved in Portugal. Which means: In the Fatima Portugal message is the Dogma of faith and in the message it will always be preserved. So, I stand by your support of Mary, not fallible heretic Popes.

I needed to make that clear before throwing my hat into the ring. I am non denominational. I know what apparitions are true and know there are true believers preserved by Mary in the RCC which her messages were to do for this hour, the Last Hour. The sign in the heavens over Israel Sept.23 2017 is the signal to the Elect that we are soon to be entering a different season. Mary's messages have protected true believers in the RCC from the Masonic. And the care of our salvation was given to her. As it was on the onset of Christianity it will be in its close. Nothing has changed since is inception. We who love her are too highly favored of the Lord. God Bless!

 

[Devin P]

In my Sola Scriptura debate, someone stated that Sola Scripture isn't about interpreting Scripture, and I responded that, that's exactly what happened to me, that I pulled up a Catholic proof-text, and someone immediately responded, not these exact words, but to the effect of:

No, no, no, it can't mean that, you're just taking that passage and running with it that! It can't mean that because, Sola Scriptura!

Again, not in those direct words, but that's what I got from it. I've decided to bring up the proof-text in question, and see if it determine what this passage really means, and whether or not Protestants are hiding behind Sola Scriptura when it comes to this passage.

The passage in question, comes from the Holy Gospel according to St. John Chapter 19, in that chapter, we see the greatest event in history, Our Lord's Passion. Our Lord is scourged; crowned with thorns; condemned; forced to carry His Cross; is nailed to the Cross and left to die. Our Lord is on Calvary, sacrificing Himself for the sins of the world, undeniably the most holy act in a history, when all of sudden, seemingly out of nowhere, the following happens:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.
- The Holy Gospel according to St. John 19:25-28 Douay-Rheims Version
​

Why would Our Lord, in the middle of His Most Holy Sacrifice on the Cross, suddenly just, again, seemingly out of nowhere, give His Mother to St. John? And speaking of St. John, this happens in his Gospel, and his Gospel the most theologically exalted of all the Gospels! The only logical explanation, for this seemingly sudden exchange in the middle of Our Lord's sacrifice, is that it has to be something important! Judging by what Our Lord says in the text itself, the most logical explanation of this passage, is that Our Lord, in giving His Mother to St. John, and saying, "Behold thy Mother," is giving Mary to all Christians to be Our Mother. I can't think of any other logical implication other than this, I didn't even quote a Church Father, it's the only logical explanation to this passage! So tell me Protestants, how is it that this passage doesn't mean what it logically implies?


Once again, my activity here will be very slow, due to College work, so I call on my fellow-Catholics to help me out here, with this very easy dogma. I'm currently working big assignment, hopefully after this week, things will speed up a bit, and I can be more active in these threads.

I'll be back later the evening.

Ave Maria!!!

All I think He was saying, was that she believed on Him at that moment.

Back in Mark 3:34, (some context of what's happening in this verse) Jesus' mother, and family tried to get Him to come back home, because they thought He was off of His rocker. They thought He was crazy, and lacked faith in Him, and those He was teaching basically were like "Jesus, your mom and brothers are outside, go to them." And He's like No, she isn't my mother, and they aren't my brothers. Then in Mark 3:34

Mark 3:34 - 34And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

He looked around the room, and said that about a woman, and about the men He saw, because they believed on Him, and did the will of His Father.

I think He said behold your mother, because at this point in time, she finally saw and realized, she finally understood and knew who He was. The Messiah.