63 replies to this topic

[Reann]

braveone2u, on 08 January 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

Hi Reann,

It's all there (without repeating myself). You will either get the voila feeling or you won't.

Thank you again for you reply.

Peace.

Paul

You mentioned the fact that it's written in the bible that he asked John to care for his Mother, right? And all I mentioned to you in return was that his brothers didn't believe in him..To be clear they didn't believe that he was the messiah  and in being even more clear they were ashamed of him....Why  would'nt  he  have said to his mother that John will take care of you? like a son and for her to be treated as a mother should be treated and loved and looked after, especially in that time of what was happening. Sorry but , i don;t know what you mean or what you're getting at . I sort of see the human side of Christ in that particular situation, not only the God head part  of Christ in that situation. He loved his mother and before his death he wanted her to be safe and looked after by the apostle that the bible says Jesus loved. What i  never did get though, and i don't think anyone truly knows why it says that , people may have opinions but  Jesus loved them all.
There's also a part in the bible where Mariam was trying to get to where he was at or something while  Jesus was talking to a crowd and  someone told him that his mother was there or trying to reach a closer spot there near him he began saying who is my mother who is my father.. i think some  were confused too about what he was saying.Often times the parables  he taught were  not so clear to everyone. I mean i can research this out about john and the fact that he was there with his mother during the crucifiction and...cared for her as though she was his own mother, but truly i don;t get what you're saying and you seem to not want to elaborate it .
John the Apostle (Aramaic Yoħanna, Koine Greek Ἰωάννης) (c. AD 6 – c. 100) was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He was the son of Zebedee and Salome and brother of James, son of Zebedee, another of the Twelve Apostles. Christian tradition holds that he outlived the remaining apostles—all of whom suffered martyrdom (except Judas Iscariot)—and ultimately died of natural causes "in great old age in Ephesus" at the beginning of the second century.^[1] The Church Fathers consider him the same person as John the Evangelist, John of Patmos, and the Beloved Disciple
http://en.wikipedia....ohn_the_Apostle

Edited by Reann, 09 January 2013 - 06:54 PM.

[Reann]

dogonstar111, on 09 January 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

I amno expert on either the New or Old testament and so in replying here I am perfectly happy to find myself accused of ignorance but by pure coincidence I just finished a post asking the question about the source of spirituality and whether it was male or female and it seems to me that, in the light of that context, there may be another meaning that has not occurred to anyone. It is just an idea so please do not crucify me for it.

The point of my post was that the God source is female. Everything began with the female including the virgin birth of Jesus. If Jesus is the son of God then surely that makes his mother God. We are all of this earth, formed out of nature. Do we not cal our earth Mother? Do we not call our nature Mother? Jesus gave his Mother to John. Was he giving God to John?

From what I have learned about the bible, I believe that there is a grave danger of interpreting what it says in our own terminology having taken the words too literally. Nothing in the bible seems to be written in plain sight as it were. The true meanings are hidden in allegory and I feel that the suggestion that Jesus was adopting out his Mother may be a modern interpretation and not what was meant. Having said that, such an  interpretation could certainly be taken as an argument in favour of the point of my recent post that the overall attitude of the Old Test at least, was downright sexist, and that Jesus adopting out his Mother reflected his own idea that the female only exists to serve the male. Although I could make good use of this logic I do not believe that it is true. Jesus was a respecter of all life and it was those who failed to do so equally, who were the focus of his anger.

I think woman are more so the nurtures , I'm not saying that men aren't nurtures  because a lot of men are but usually men are more so the hunters, the stronger of the two. I do think that women played a larger role in the church or just in that nature of spiritual essence. And from what i understand God is neither male nor female, God is both in a sense, but not in a transgender manner of it , of course you know though...
As for male and female and God in my personal opinion and feel of it i do believe these are all reflections of Gods identity, a part of God, but still God is so much more greater than nature itself which is a  reflection of  Gods identity...I think it's weird when i hear people talk about reincarnation and that we all were once male or female. I'm a female and it's just so strange for me to consider that if reincarnation is true i could of existed as a male once..that just doesn't feel right to me.
Also the male and female aspects relate to ourselves to our brain... as the male is the doer and the female is the creative side of our brain...our thoughts are thought and that's considered our creative  feminine side and when we put them into motion that considered our masculine side ... anyway it's taught more so in metaphysical  teachings  I like some of their teaching , not everything though but a lot of metaphysical teachings feel like Christ teachings to me...

Edited by Reann, 09 January 2013 - 07:14 PM.

[braveone2u]

Reann, on 09 January 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

You mentioned the fact that it's written in the bible that he asked John to care for his Mother, right?

And all I mentioned to you in return was that his brothers didn't believe in him..

Hi Reann,

I didn't say that "care for his mother" was written in the Bible. It's an assumption...on my part. Big difference. Besides, "caring for his mother" is not my main point, even though the Bible said, "...this disciple took her into his home." My main point is the metaphysical context, why Jesus was able to go beyond his cultural contraints.

But Jesus' brothers did believe in him later on, enough to convert. When did they convert? They PROBABLY converted during the Pentecost period or even before that -- perhaps after they heard of Jesus' resurrection.

Yes, no doubt Jesus loved his mother; therefore, why add to her grief by adopting her out to John, a mere disciple? It went against Jesus' cultural norm.  Again, my take is a metaphysical one. It's just a theory. There are other theories out there.

You have a good day, Reann.

Paul

[braveone2u]

dogonstar111, on 09 January 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

I amno expert on either the New or Old testament and so in replying here I am perfectly happy to find myself accused of ignorance but by pure coincidence I just finished a post asking the question about the source of spirituality and whether it was male or female and it seems to me that, in the light of that context, there may be another meaning that has not occurred to anyone. It is just an idea so please do not crucify me for it.

The point of my post was that the God source is female. Everything began with the female including the virgin birth of Jesus. If Jesus is the son of God then surely that makes his mother God. We are all of this earth, formed out of nature. Do we not cal our earth Mother? Do we not call our nature Mother? Jesus gave his Mother to John. Was he giving God to John?

From what I have learned about the bible, I believe that there is a grave danger of interpreting what it says in our own terminology having taken the words too literally. Nothing in the bible seems to be written in plain sight as it were. The true meanings are hidden in allegory and I feel that the suggestion that Jesus was adopting out his Mother may be a modern interpretation and not what was meant. Having said that, such an  interpretation could certainly be taken as an argument in favour of the point of my recent post that the overall attitude of the Old Test at least, was downright sexist, and that Jesus adopting out his Mother reflected his own idea that the female only exists to serve the male. Although I could make good use of this logic I do not believe that it is true. Jesus was a respecter of all life and it was those who failed to do so equally, who were the focus of his anger.

Well said, dogonstar111. I hear you. My Christian path is a personal one. I'm not in a particular sect. I don't even have a group. I am reaching out, however.

Peace.

Paul

[Reann]

braveone2u, on 09 January 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

Hi Reann,

I didn't say that "care for his mother" was written in the Bible. It's an assumption...on my part. Big difference. Besides, "caring for his mother" is not my main point, even though the Bible said, "...this disciple took her into his home." My main point is the metaphysical context, why Jesus was able to go beyond his cultural contraints.

But Jesus' brothers did believe in him later on, enough to convert. When did they convert? They PROBABLY converted during the Pentecost period or even before that -- perhaps after they heard of Jesus' resurrection.

Yes, no doubt Jesus loved his mother; therefore, why add to her grief by adopting her out to John, a mere disciple? It went against Jesus' cultural norm.  Again, my take is a metaphysical one. It's just a theory. There are other theories out there.

You have a good day, Reann.

Paul

I can't imagine how awful they must of felt after they realized or had had that revelation of who he actually was. Can't even begin to imagine all the pain that Mariam had in her heart about it all . I wonder at times about so many things but once i begin to doubt the authenticity of Christ I'm reminded by somethings that i have personally experienced in my own life.  Christ is and truly existed just as the bible speaks .. but other stories before him are so similar that so many people especially well schooled people feel nothing for Christ and closed the door calling him a myth..but so many myths have truth in them...
Anyway, yes i know you didn't say that he cared for her but that was the main objective wasn't it? Anyone can be adopted and not cared for,right?
You said a mere disciple?  But John wasn't a mere disciple he was one who got it and understood on a higher level..Also Mary knew John because she traveled with them at times. She was there very much , so were other women which was  forbidden  by custom... not to mention  healing on the sabbath day and all or eating grain on the way back in from the desert side or wherever they were coming in from on their journey...
John was no stranger to Mariam . I don't feel he was a  mere disciple either ..I feel that Mariam must of been devastated with her other children at that time though... I know that the Angel said she will be known as blessed amongst all women ....
O.K ...so  being that  just about everything Jesus did seemed to not be o.k with the priest back then according to their  tradition and  culture, not to mention how they  tried to trap him many times  by means of their tradition and culture as someone who they wanted to be looked upon as well a criminal and unworthy...
I'll try and figure out what it is that you're getting at and if and when i do I'll  post it being that you won't tell me. lol

[braveone2u]

Reann, on 09 January 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

I can't imagine how awful they must of felt after they realized or had had that revelation of who he actually was. Can't even begin to imagine all the pain that Mariam had in her heart about it all . I wonder at times about so many things but once i begin to doubt the authenticity of Christ I'm reminded by somethings that i have personally experienced in my own life.  Christ is and truly existed just as the bible speaks .. but other stories before him are so similar that so many people especially well schooled people feel nothing for Christ and closed the door calling him a myth..but so many myths have truth in them...
Anyway, yes i know you didn't say that he cared for her but that was the main objective wasn't it? Anyone can be adopted and not cared for,right?
You said a mere disciple?  But John wasn't a mere disciple he was one who got it and understood on a higher level..Also Mary knew John because she traveled with them at times. She was there very much , so were other women which was  forbidden  by custom... not to mention  healing on the sabbath day and all or eating grain on the way back in from the desert side or wherever they were coming in from on their journey...
John was no stranger to Mariam . I don't feel he was a  mere disciple either ..I feel that Mariam must of been devastated with her other children at that time though... I know that the Angel said she will be known as blessed amongst all women ....
O.K ...so  being that  just about everything Jesus did seemed to not be o.k with the priest back then according to their  tradition and  culture, not to mention how they  tried to trap him many times  by means of their tradition and culture as someone who they wanted to be looked upon as well a criminal and unworthy...
I'll try and figure out what it is that you're getting at and if and when i do I'll  post it being that you won't tell me. lol

Hi,

[Anyone can be adopted and not cared for,right?] Yes, but that's irrelevant to my point. On the other hand, you have to keep in mind that Mary was able to care for herself. She was not a feeble woman. She traveled with John.

[John wasn't a mere disciple] When I said "mere," it's to compare it with "blood" brothers. Yes, John is Jesus' beloved deciple; however, Jesus had "blood" brothers, Mary's sons.

[so  being that  just about everything Jesus did seemed to not be o.k with the priest back then according to their  tradition and  culture, not to mention how they  tried to trap him many times  by means of their tradition and culture as someone who they wanted to be looked upon as well a criminal and unworthy...] Exactly, you've just added to my point, but John 19:26, 19:27 went too far, if you will.

Thanks again for your thoughts, Reann.

Peace.

Paul

Edited by braveone2u, 09 January 2013 - 09:25 PM.

[Jor-el]

braveone2u, on 07 January 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

John 19:26
"When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he said unto his mother, 'Woman, behold your son!'"


John 19:27
"Then said he to the disciple, 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home."


Hi,

Please read John 19:26 and John 19:27.

Is there more to this than what's being conveyed on the surface?

Before answering the first question, was it a Jewish tradition to adopt out your mother before you die? With this in mind, think of the gravity of adopting out your own beloved mother, the woman who brought you into this world. Surely, a simple request would've done it, don't you think?

Jesus is choosing a member of his innermost circle to look after his mother. The choice of wording reminds me a little of someone keeping to an ancient tradition, thereby the use of the words he used are in keeping with the ancient formula, probably used in Jewish circles for centuries.

We know that historically Jesus had other brothers and sisters. These were not merely brothers and sisters in the spirit, but blood relatives They would traditionally have been the people to look after a widow who had lost her husband and her eldest son.

That Jesus chose to sidestep the tradition but kept the ancient wording implies a number of things.

1st that he did not believe his siblings could take better care of his mother than the people who followed him right to the end. He thus chose the people, he believed, possed the greater capacity for caring for his mother.

2nd, that his siblings did not believe in him and his mission and were thus not worthy to take care of his mother, who was herself a believer.

3rd that John was considered not only a brother in spirit but family as well, family enough to take over the responsabilites laid out to the eldest son of a family who had no father.

The wording of the text, as I stated earlier, may be part of an ancient tradition in keeping with the Torah, where the command to help the poor, widows, orphans, travelers, and others in need was very important. Rabbis came to believe that charity could be done only with one's possessions while true compassion required the giving of oneself. Charity could be given only to the poor while compassion could be extended to anyone.

Jesus took this further than tradition required, he gave his mother a son and a to a son he gave a mother.In essence it is not a request but the commisioning of a mission.

Quote

John 19:30
"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit."

And last, what was the "it" when Jesus said, "It is finished"?  Would love to read your replies.

Peace and blessed 2013 to all.

Paul

The it, is a specific reference to his mission on earth, the purpose for having become flesh. It is not a mere reference to the end of his life.

[braveone2u]

Jor-el, on 09 January 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

...

Hi Jor-el,

[1st that he did not believe his siblings could take better care of his mother than the people who followed him right to the end.]
Is that in the Bible?

[2nd, that his siblings did not believe in him and his mission
3rd that John was considered not only a brother in spirit but family as well, family enough to take over the responsabilites laid out to the eldest son of a family who had no father.]
I came from the Old World; therefore, I know the weight of "blood" relations. Jesus' had brothers...

But Jesus' brothers did believe in him later on, enough to convert. When did they convert? They PROBABLY converted during the Pentecost period or even before that -- perhaps after they heard of Jesus' resurrection.

Yes, no doubt Jesus loved his mother; therefore, why add to her grief by adopting her out to John, a disciple? It went against Jesus' cultural norm.  Again, my take is a metaphysical one. It's just a theory. There are other theories out there.

Thank you for you reply, Jorel.

Peace.

Paul

(...back to work.)

Edited by braveone2u, 09 January 2013 - 09:54 PM.

[Reann]

braveone2u, on 09 January 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Hi,

[Anyone can be adopted and not cared for,right?] Yes, but that's irrelevant to my point. On the other hand, you have to keep in mind that Mary was able to care for herself. She was not a feeble woman. She traveled with John.

[John wasn't a mere disciple] When I said "mere," it's to compare it with "blood" brothers. Yes, John is Jesus' beloved deciple; however, Jesus had "blood" brothers, Mary's sons.

[so  being that  just about everything Jesus did seemed to not be o.k with the priest back then according to their  tradition and  culture, not to mention how they  tried to trap him many times  by means of their tradition and culture as someone who they wanted to be looked upon as well a criminal and unworthy...] Exactly, you've just added to my point, but John 19:26, 19:27 went too far, if you will.

Thanks again for your thoughts, Reann.

Peace.

Paul

I have to look at this book later the book of John, I'm actually going to read over the story.It's been a while since I've even opened a bible.  but... I'm interested in understanding this, I'm always open to discovering things.After all i don't know much about anything and when I think i do, i realize i know nothing at all.
But the circumstance of it all always reminded me of the part in the bible when He was somewhere giving a sermon  and a couple of his followers lead his mother  Mariam up  near him or was trying to and somehow making a big deal about her presence there ,I think they  made  their way through the crowd or something like that and to everyone surprise Jesus said who is my Mother,I don't really remember if he then said who is my father or what but I think he went on into this topic  i don't remember so  that's another thing i want to look up again. But i think it had something to do with what is  or what makes a mother and what is or what makes a  father or something... maybe you recall the story... So you think John went too far or the chapter ? lol I think I'm confused about that. Are you saying John went too far? Oh and i knew what you meant about john not being blood but it just didn't feel right to me sorry if i came out too whatever about it. I don;t mean to sound too whatever, you know...

[Jor-el]

braveone2u, on 09 January 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

Hi Jor-el,

[1st that he did not believe his siblings could take better care of his mother than the people who followed him right to the end.]
Is that in the Bible?

[2nd, that his siblings did not believe in him and his mission
3rd that John was considered not only a brother in spirit but family as well, family enough to take over the responsabilites laid out to the eldest son of a family who had no father.]
I came from the Old World; therefore, I know the weight of "blood" relations. Jesus' had brothers...

But Jesus' brothers did believe in him later on, enough to convert. When did they convert? They PROBABLY converted during the Pentecost period or even before that -- perhaps after they heard of Jesus' resurrection.

Yes, no doubt Jesus loved his mother; therefore, why add to her grief by adopting her out to John, a disciple? It went against Jesus' cultural norm.  Again, my take is a metaphysical one. It's just a theory. There are other theories out there.

Thank you for you reply, Jorel.

Peace.

Paul

(...back to work.)

And why do you consider it "grief" for Mary to be taken in by John as family?

Some of his family did convert, later on, we don't know when, we don't even know if it was during the Pentacost, it could have been a number of years later. The bible is silent on the subject, we cannot guess when.

We do know, that Jesus chose this path for Mary, as was his responsability and right as head of the family.

Widows had no protection if family turned away from them. They would have had to rely on charity from strangers. Jesus in my opion merely prevented such a situation. The fact that He did command John to take her in, is enough circumstancial evidence that his family could not be relied upon.

This in itself tells us that his brothers and sisters had turned away from Jesus and Mary, who was his follower. Later on there would have been joy, when they did convert, we only know of James, Joseph (Joses), Judas and Simon, we don't know if any of his sisters converted later on. What we can gather though is at the time of his death, none of them could be counted on by Jesus in looking after his mother.

We can of course be all metaphysical about it, but the actual circumstances according to the text are those laid out for us.

Edited by Jor-el, 09 January 2013 - 10:30 PM.

[braveone2u]

Jor-el, on 09 January 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

And why do you consider it "grief" for Mary to be taken in by John as family?

Some of his family did convert, later on, we don't know when, we don't even know if it was during the Pentacost, it could have been a number of years later. The bible is silent on the subject, we cannot guess when.

We do know, that Jesus chose this path for Mary, as was his responsability and right as head of the family.

Widows had no protection if family turned away from them. They would have had to rely on charity from strangers. Jesus in my opion merely prevented such a situation. The fact that He did command John to take her in, is enough circumstancial evidence that his family could not be relied upon.

This in itself tells us that his brothers and sisters had turned away from Jesus and Mary, who was his follower. Later on there would have been joy, when they did convert, we only know of James, Joseph (Joses), Judas and Simon, we don't know if any of his sisters converted later on. What we can gather though is at the time of his death, none of them could be counted on by Jesus in looking after his mother.

We can of course be all metaphysical about it, but the actual circumstances according to the text are those laid out for us.

Hello Jor-el,

[And why do you consider it "grief" for Mary to be taken in by John as family?] Of course, "widows had no protection if family turned away from them." Therefore, you have to consider "shame" to the family, especially the male line -- so that your brothers/sons DO NOT turn away.

[We can of course be all metaphysical about it, but the actual circumstances according to the text are those laid out for us.So, you have to ask yourself why did Jesus said these words?] Yes, I'm going by the texts "laid out for us," and my theory. After all, God came to the world via Jesus -- playing the ROLE of a human being. If that's not a metaphysical occurence, then my belief in Christ is totally pointless.

[1st that he did not believe his siblings could take better care of his mother than the people who followed him right to the end.]
Again, you still haven't answered my question: "Is this in the Bible?" Where?

Peace.

Paul

Edited by braveone2u, 09 January 2013 - 11:04 PM.

[docyabut2]

Jesus` brothers were his believers, James took over the minstery after Jesus had died. Jesus brothers were much younger then him, and he as the oldest took care of them, I think the reason Jesus gave his consin John Mark the care of his mother, because he was a older male member of the family and was more in a better position to take care of her,and in my opinion John mark was the frist to write of Jesus, the gospel of Mark, who was the only male to be at the cross.


My guess:):

Edited by docyabut2, 10 January 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[braveone2u]

docyabut2, on 10 January 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

Jesus brothers were much younger then him, and he as the oldest took care of them

Hi docyabut2,

How much younger? Also, could you please tell us where to find it in the Bible?

Thank you for posting.

Paul

Edited by braveone2u, 10 January 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[braveone2u]

You may also find these interesting:

[Jor-el]

braveone2u, on 09 January 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

Hello Jor-el,

Of course, "widows had no protection if family turned away from them." Therefore, you have to consider "shame" to the family, especially the male line -- so that your brothers/sons DO NOT turn away.

It depends on the family and what you consider to be shame... I would have to say that the male line would not have refused to take her in, they would just have felt obligated to do so, not because they wanted to do so. To them, Jesus and their mother were considered crazy. They did not accept Jesus ministry, they did not accept that their "mother" had been duped by someone they considered a false prophet. They did not want to associate with her.

To avoid shame, they would have taken her in, but it would have been against their will.

Quote

Yes, I'm going by the texts "laid out for us," and my theory. After all, God came to the world via Jesus -- playing the ROLE of a human being. If that's not a metaphysical occurence, then my belief in Christ is totally pointless.

There is a problem with that perspective. God did not come to the world via Jesus "Playing a Role of a human being". Jesus WAS a human being in every respect. If he weren't then nothing he did on the cross would count for anything. Only the seed of Adam could rightfully take the place of "the Lamb".

Jesus is Jesus, God is God, Jesus is simply the manifestation of the Godhead in the physcial realm. Not of God, but of the Godhead. They are intertwined, but they are also seperate entities in their own right.

Quote

Again, you still haven't answered my question: "Is this in the Bible?" Where?

Peace.

Paul

Word for word? No it isn't in the bible. You won't find a verse citation. but it is implicit in the act and meaning of the verses you quoted, especially when you read other verses regarding Jesus' family and what they thought of him.