It is cited when asked for text showing Mary is the mother of anyone else.
SD, it’s obvious that every story told, and every point made in scripture, have meanings that were meant for them at the time it was written, and for every age up to the present day. Do you agree?
You seem to believe that the accounts in Matthew and Mark, are only there to show us that the chief priest and religious leaders questioned Jesus authority, because He was considered just another local boy, with no credentials.
If this is all that we are to learn from these two accounts, why did they bother with all the names and relationships to each other? What did this add to the fact Jesus had no credentials?
Is it that important for the Christian of all eras, to know that Jesus was just a local boy everyone knew, who had worked with his father and learned a trade, and now was suddenly speaking as one with authority?
Why was this dealt with so clearly and vividly, going so far as to even mention He had sisters? This wouldn’t have been necessary just to make the point He had no credentials.
Mt 13:55-56, Please explain why all these facts are given concerning Jesus and His family. That He had four brothers, and gave all their names, that his father was a carpenter, and so was Jesus, that His mothers name was Mary, and that He had at least two sisters, if the only point of this scripture is show that the Jewish leaders, didn’t believe He had credentials or the background to speak with such authority.
The scripture was written for us, and for all those who didn’t know Jesus at that time, or what became of His mother during His lifetime.
Concerning the word “till”, remember this wasn’t recorded for over 30 years after the death of Christ. When Matthew and Mark, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, they knew at that time whether or not Jesus was the only child Mary had.
Now, by their saying Joseph knew her not until after Jesus was born, if they knew Mary and Joseph had no other children afterwards, would Mt 1:25 have been the proper way to word it?
Isn’t it more likely they would have said, And he knew her not, and their only son was born, and he named Him Jesus?
And if the writers knew Mary had other children later on to Joseph, isn’t it more likely they would have written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS?
The fact remains that nowhere in the Bible is Mary, the mother of Jesus called anyone else's mother. Nor is any other person identified as a child (son or daughter) of Mary. That is the point. That Mary having only one child, Jesus, is not contradicted by Scripture.
Your wrong, Matthew 27: 56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
Mary, the mother of Jesus was the mother of James and Joses at the cross, or are you going to claim that His own mother left him at the cross and went home, leaving it to his followers to take care of things, and none of his family stayed there?
Are you going to show me in the scripture where there are four names in the same family, other then that of Jesus family, [1] Jesus, [2] Mary, [3] James, [4] Joses? Show me another family with these four names in it.
What would you say the odds are, of two family’s having these four names in it, and to make it even more interesting, the father has to be a carpenter.
Unless you believe that Jesus mother was no where to be found between Matthew 27:61 until Acts 1:14, then you must show me another Mary with two sons named James and Joses.
The truth is, Mary was there every time. The first time identified as the mother of Jesus, then as the mother of James and Joses, then as the other Mary, and finally in Acts again as the mother of Jesus, who was then risen.
Why is it that after Jesus died, Mary was no longer referred to as the mother of Jesus?
Why did Mary Magdalene take precedence over her for a while in scripture?
Why was she referred to as the other Mary, I don’t know, and probably won’t until God answers all these mysteries, but it could have been a custom, that when someone died as a common criminal hung on a tree, the mother no longer was mentioned as having a son, or whether it had to do with writing protocol, as to who and how people were mentioned, but I’m sure when we find out, the answer will be found in the scriptures, and not in the traditions of man.
Won’t that be an exciting time, when all these questions will be answered by God, and there won’t be any “yes butts”. Lol
JH :-)
This is the problem. You think that everything has to come from Scripture. It is not clear at all that there was never another family with these names. You must look to history, not Scripture.
What would you say the odds are, of two family’s having these four names in it, and to make it even more interesting, the father has to be a carpenter.
Who said the father was a carpenter?
The truth is, Mary was there every time. The first time identified as the mother of Jesus, then as the mother of James and Joses, then as the other Mary, and finally in Acts again as the mother of Jesus, who was then risen.
This is simply insane to believe that a character is referred to in this way. Sorry.
Why is it that after Jesus died, Mary was no longer referred to as the mother of Jesus?
Because it's a different Mary.
Why did Mary Magdalene take precedence over her for a while in scripture?
She didn't.
You are so intent to downgrade Mary, the Mother of God, that you assign her this schizophrenic name-shifting role. What other character in Scripture is referred to in this haphazard and contradictory manner? Where else in Scripture or in Jewish tradition is a person's mother no longer his mother after he dies?
Why do you strive so hard to believe that the mother of Jesus (her firstborn, by all accounts) is referred to as the mother of her (presumably) 2nd and 3rd children only?
SD