I Love My Jewish Mother

[Jimbob]

Broach, I gave you the title of the document, if you care to read it in its entirety, knock yourself out.  As for me, that statement is quite clear, and hardly ambiguous at all.

That was my point, context does not dilute error.

Exactly, and sometimes crying "foul" over context is just a distraction from the content of the quote.  Note the content of the quote has been avoided.

[Catholic Crusader]

Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS  24, 1891, 196.

... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us--for 'grace and truth came through Jesus Christ' [Jn 1.17]--nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.

Thank you for the citation. That is not an Ex Cathedra statement on Faith & Morals, which is to say it is not an infallible document. It can be accepted as true, but is not a Dogmatic definition of doctrine.

I see what it means though. An analogy would be this: If a small Muslim boy dies at gae five, never hearing about Jesus in his dusty desert village, he can go to heaven as long as he acted in good conscience according to whatever light God gave him. HE WOULD STILL BE SAVED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, even though he would not know it.

In that spiritual sense, we do all come to Christ through his mother. She brought Christ to us through her obedience (..let it be done unto my according to thy will..), and she makes intercession eternally for us, sitting near to Jesus, as all jewish mothers sat next to the King:

1 Kings 2:19 : "....So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right...."

The vision of the queen mother, mother of the King. In this context, Pope Leo's staement is perfectly acceptable.

[Charles Sloan]

Not hard to figure out, unless, of course, one is blinded by bigotry.

You cannot call people bigots here.

[Catholic Crusader]

Not hard to figure out, unless, of course, one is blinded by bigotry.

You cannot call people bigots here.

I didn't. Read it carefully. Nice try though.

[Charles Sloan]

Not hard to figure out, unless, of course, one is blinded by bigotry.

You cannot call people bigots here.

I didn't. Read it carefully. Nice try though.

Calling people bigots is a rule violation and will result in you getting banned.

I don't really care how its worded, your calling him a bigot.

[Catholic Crusader]

Mary can't hear you, cant see what is going down here, and certainly cannot mediate for us....

Hebrews 12: 22-24 says that as we approach God, Jesus and the angels, we also approach "the spirits of righteous men made perfect". In other words, THE SAINTS. "But they can't hear us" you say. Wrong. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. For example, in Revelation 5:8, John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

[Catholic Crusader]

Not hard to figure out, unless, of course, one is blinded by bigotry.

You cannot call people bigots here.

I didn't. Read it carefully. Nice try though.

Calling people bigots is a rule violation and will result in you getting banned.

I don't really care how its worded, your calling him a bigot.

I didn't call anyone a bigot. Saying that I did over and over does not make it true. However, YOU are calling ME a liar by saying I did something that I didn't do. The sword cuts both ways, so I suggest returning it to its sheath..

[broach972]

969
"This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

Good enough for you?

Yup. Its good enough for me. And it is all true. The key here is "...in the order of grace". By grace, if I bring a person to the Word and to Christ, I have assisted in a small way in their salvation. That does not make me equal to The Savior. And, if by her prayers, Mary assists in mediation - as we all can by our prayers too - that does not make her (or us) equal to the One Mediator. Not hard to figure out, unless, of course, one is blinded by bigotry.

Wow, I never quite looked at it that way.  Nice CC...very nice.

[Tantor]

You cannot make something like Revelation (equivalent to a political cartoon of its day) the basis for present day doctrine.

And I doubt very highly that Mary is a saint... and Heaven cannot be bound by some edict of a usurper pope in rome.

And Hebrews states

22But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

It says nothing about God's appointed saints hearing our prayers.

[Catholic Crusader]

Not hard to figure out, unless, of course, one is blinded by bigotry.

You cannot call people bigots here.

I didn't. Read it carefully. Nice try though.

Calling people bigots is a rule violation and will result in you getting banned.

I don't really care how its worded, your calling him a bigot.

I tell you what: To show I live by the Goplden Rule, since it bothers you, I shall edit it out. Fair enough?

Peace unto you.

[broach972]

You cannot make something like Revelation (equivalent to a political cartoon of its day) the basis for present day doctrine.

And I doubt very highly that Mary is a saint... and Heaven cannot be bound by some edict of a usurper pope in rome.

You doubt that Mary is a saint?  Wow...okay.

[Catholic Crusader]

You cannot make something like Revelation (equivalent to a political cartoon of its day) the basis for present day doctrine.

And I doubt very highly that Mary is a saint... and Heaven cannot be bound by some edict of a usurper pope in rome.

Ah, so now Holy Scripture is "equivalent to a political cartoon of its day". Very nice.

And you doubt very highly that Mary is a saint? Okay. You roll with that. But if SHE isn't a saint, we all don't have a snowballs chance in hell.

[Tantor]

You cannot make something like Revelation (equivalent to a political cartoon of its day) the basis for present day doctrine.

And I doubt very highly that Mary is a saint... and Heaven cannot be bound by some edict of a usurper pope in rome.

You doubt that Mary is a saint?  Wow...okay.

The only person that knows who the real saints are God.. that is his right alone.  I can pretty miuch say with certainty that she does not meet the criteria for 'saint' that has been revealed in scripture.. her elevation is nothing more then a figure of some poor popes deluded imagination in ages past.

[Tantor]

You cannot make something like Revelation (equivalent to a political cartoon of its day) the basis for present day doctrine.

And I doubt very highly that Mary is a saint... and Heaven cannot be bound by some edict of a usurper pope in rome.

Ah, so now Holy Scripture is "equivalent to a political cartoon of its day". Very nice.

No.. just the writing style of Revelations lends itself to being interpreted this way.  Context and Culture is everything when it comes to understanding the scriptures.

[Catholic Crusader]

....Context and Culture is everything when it comes to understanding the scriptures....

Hey, I can live with that. That is why, in this context, and in this culture, Jews understood the mother of the King to be queen:

1 Kings 2:19 : "....So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right...."

The vision of the queen mother, mother of the King. The Jews knew Jesus was "son of Davivd" and King, and in their culture, they knew Mary was queen. Thanks for the assist !!!

[Tantor]

....Context and Culture is everything when it comes to understanding the scriptures....

Hey, I can live with that. That is why, in this context, and in this culture, Jews understood the mother of the King to be queen:

1 Kings 2:19 : "....So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right...."

The vision of the queen mother, mother of the King. The Jews knew Jesus was "son of Davivd" and King, and in their culture, they knew Mary was queen. Thanks for the assist !!!

But she is not a mother of a king... only a vessel require due to prophesy.  Heck, as I pointed out before, technically she shared no DNA with christ and was nothing more then a surrogate mother for God.

And no where in scripture is she refered to as a queen.

[Catholic Crusader]

...I can pretty miuch say with certainty that she does not meet the criteria for 'saint' that has been revealed in scripture..

So, the woman who the Bible says "all generations shall call me blessed" - you can prove that this woman, the mother of the messiah, the bearer of God in her womb, doesn't meet the Biblical standards for a saint? Oh, this is gonna be good. Please, demonstrate this ... ...I am waiting with baited breath....

[Tantor]

...I can pretty miuch say with certainty that she does not meet the criteria for 'saint' that has been revealed in scripture..

So, the woman who the Bible says "all generations shall call me blessed" - you can prove that this woman, the mother of the messiah, the bearer of God in her womb, doesn't meet the Biblical standards for a saint? Oh, this is gonna be good. Please, demonstrate this ... ...I am waiting with baited breath....

And she was blessed.. and I call her blessed.. she was incredibily blessed to allow herself to be used by God.

Nothing more then that.. and being 'blessed' in and of itself does not prove that she is a saint.

Saints are those that tirelessly labor for the harvest that God has set before them... they work the time apponted to them to do God's will in their life.. they bear persecution and forsake earthly rewards..  the true laborers of the word.

[Sherman Nobles]

A dear friend of mine who was a Catholic shared with me an experience that he had.  He had recently been filled with, baptized in the Holy Spirit in a Charismatic Catholic service.  One day after that, he was praying to Mary when He had a vision/apperance of Mary.  He said a Palestinian looking young woman appeared to him and said, "I'm sorry, but I believe you have me mistaken with my Son.  You should pray to him."  Of course, this event significantly changed his prayer life, and eventually led to him leaving the Catholic church and becoming involved in interdenominational churches.  

Thankfully, salvation is not dependant upon us having perfect theology/doctrine; rather, salvation is dependant upon the finished work of Christ.  If our hearts are turned to the Lord, he'll correct our theology/doctrine in His time.  Such is very much dependant upon the timing of the Lord and our attitudes.  If we are open to correction and seeking the Lord then He can correct us in many different ways, including visions and dreams.  But it's also likely that visions and dreams, such awesome encounters with the Lord are needed especially to break us out of our traditions.  Because of our traditions (and we all have them) we are hardened to the word of God and often dismiss concepts that disagree with our traditions - kinda like the hard-ground in the parable of the sower.  So I encourage us all to have tender hearts towards the Lord and one another.

Blessings,
Sherman

[Catholic Crusader]

And she was blessed.. and I call her blessed.. she was incredibily blessed to allow herself to be used by God.

Nothing more then that.. and being 'blessed' in and of itself does not prove that she is a saint.

Saints are those that tirelessly labor for the harvest that God has set before them... they work the time apponted to them to do God's will in their life.. they bear persecution and forsake earthly rewards..  the true laborers of the word.

And you can prove Mary did not do this?

[Tantor]

We know she was not a disciple.. we know she had other children to raise and no where do any of the apostles indicate that she was ever involved in the ministry of the Gospel.

And I prefer to believe what is written down in text rather then what has been dreamed up by others.

I also believe she died just like everyone else.

[Catholic Crusader]

A dear friend of mine who was a Catholic shared with me an experience that he had.  He had recently been filled with, baptized in the Holy Spirit in a Charismatic Catholic service.  One day after that, he was praying to Mary when He had a vision/apperance of Mary.  He said a Palestinian looking young woman appeared to him and said, "I'm sorry, but I believe you have me mistaken with my Son.  You should pray to him."....

Well I do appreciate the non-polemic tone of your post. It is refreshing. But, please forgive me, and please do not be offended, if I say I don't believe a word of what your friend said. No faithful Catholic would imagine something like that then hot-foot it out the Church door. There are so many apparitions of Mary that demonstrate just the opposite of that one, and I don't mean the goofy apparitions that are obvious hoaxes, I mean ones like the one prtrayed in "The Song Of Bernadette" starring Vincent Price, and other famous events.

[Charles Sloan]

Not hard to figure out, unless, of course, one is blinded by bigotry.

You cannot call people bigots here.

I didn't. Read it carefully. Nice try though.

Calling people bigots is a rule violation and will result in you getting banned.

I don't really care how its worded, your calling him a bigot.

I tell you what: To show I live by the Goplden Rule, since it bothers you, I shall edit it out. Fair enough?

Peace unto you.

Personally it doesn't bother me and there are many things I am inclined to say to you that might result in me getting banned. But due to the long suffering of my brothers in Christ and their patient explanations to me, I have found such words are not only unnecessary to be said but hurtful to the message I would convey.

I am simply trying to tell you that some words are against the forum policy and could result in your temporary suspension or getting banned. But you can do whatever you wish, I am no mod or authority here. Just don't say you weren't warned.

[Catholic Crusader]

We know she was not a disciple..

How do you figure that? She was in the room on Pentecost, with the apostles, when the Holy Spirit descended on them. Holy Moley man.

...we know she had other children to raise...

Sorry, Charlie. Wrong again. She had no other children, And before you start talking about "the brothers" of Jesus, I suggest you read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

...and no where do any of the apostles indicate that she was ever involved in the ministry of the Gospel....

Except that she brought the savior into the world. But, aw heck, that's no big deal. And besides, not EVERY Christian today is in ministry either. Does that mean they can't become saints? There is nowhere in the Bible that says "Only those invloved in ministry will become saints". Is there?

...And I prefer to believe what is written down in text rather then what has been dreamed up by others....

...Says the man who just dreamed up a bunch of prerequisites for becoming a saint

...I also believe she died just like everyone else.

Who is everone else? The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics combined account for almost 75% of all Christians, and we don't believe that. You have a strange notion of who "everybody else" is.

[Charles Sloan]

Sorry, Charlie. Wrong again. She had no other children, And before you start talking about "the brothers" of Jesus, I suggest you read this:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Really, since I don't visit roman indoctrination sites why don't you explain why you believe Mary didn't have other children when the Bible says she did. Not only that, but James is specifically named as the Lord brother, something that is never ascribed to another Apostle.

And if this was just colloquialism, which is highly unlikely in the case of a inspired text; why isn't this title given to other Jewish people who would have been considered brethren?

[Catholic Crusader]

....Context and Culture is everything when it comes to understanding the scriptures....

Hey, I can live with that. That is why, in this context, and in this culture, Jews understood the mother of the King to be queen:

1 Kings 2:19 : "....So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right...."

The vision of the queen mother, mother of the King. The Jews knew Jesus was "son of Davivd" and King, and in their culture, they knew Mary was queen. Thanks for the assist !!!

But she is not a mother of a king... only a vessel require due to prophesy.  Heck, as I pointed out before, technically she shared no DNA with christ and was nothing more then a surrogate mother for God.

And no where in scripture is she refered to as a queen.

She was Jesus' mother. How can you say "she is not a mother of a king", when Jesus is King of Kings in the line of David. And how can you say she is "only a vessel". Do you know how rude that sounds? Would you say that to your OWN mother? "Hey mom, you're nothing special. You're just a vessal that I needed to come into the world". Ouch! If you would not say that to your OWN mom, how can you say that about the Mother of Christ who "all generations" shall call "blessed"?

[broach972]

Really, since I don't visit roman indoctrination sites why don't you explain why you believe Mary didn't have other children when the Bible says she did.

Well, this explains a good bit.  You need to visit some Catholic sites to get an idea of what the Church truly teaches.  Frankly, why should CC waste his time.  He knows what the Church truly teaches on these matters.  Maybe you should make the effort to do the same.

[Catholic Crusader]

...but James is specifically named as the Lord brother, something that is never ascribed to another Apostle....

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). If James was an actual brother, it is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if he was also her son.

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus' cousins. Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger's mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it's probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph's nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph's putative son.

[broach972]

...but James is specifically named as the Lord brother, something that is never ascribed to another Apostle....

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). If James was an actual brother, it is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if he was also her son.

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus' cousins. Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger's mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it's probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph's nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph's putative son.

Wow...now that is pretty impressive.  If I could give you multiple manna, I would.  Well done!!

And that is just scratching the surface....

[Tantor]

....Context and Culture is everything when it comes to understanding the scriptures....

Hey, I can live with that. That is why, in this context, and in this culture, Jews understood the mother of the King to be queen:

1 Kings 2:19 : "....So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right...."

The vision of the queen mother, mother of the King. The Jews knew Jesus was "son of Davivd" and King, and in their culture, they knew Mary was queen. Thanks for the assist !!!

But she is not a mother of a king... only a vessel require due to prophesy.  Heck, as I pointed out before, technically she shared no DNA with christ and was nothing more then a surrogate mother for God.

And no where in scripture is she refered to as a queen.

She was Jesus' mother. How can you say "she is not a mother of a king", when Jesus is King of Kings in the line of David. And how can you say she is "only a vessel". Do you know how rude that sounds? Would you say that to your OWN mother? "Hey mom, you're nothing special. You're just a vessal that I needed to come into the world". Ouch! If you would not say that to your OWN mom, how can you say that about the Mother of Christ who "all generations" shall call "blessed"?

I can say that because Jesus existed at the beginning of time... the Father, Son and Holy Spirit existed at creation and didnt need the help of anyone to 'create' themselves... or need a mother of any sort.

Ya know.. In the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the Word was with God.

Mother infers creation.. and Mary created nothing.

And it may sound rude to you but it's the truth laid down in scripture... and it should be credited to Mary for her submission to the purpose that God assigned her to.

I think its also interesting that Mary twice refered to herself as 'bond-servant' to Jesus... just like every other elect Christian is a 'bond-servant'.  Mary did not hold for herself any special place in the kingdom or in the Gospel.. she was given an honor and was humble about it.

[Charles Sloan]

...but James is specifically named as the Lord brother, something that is never ascribed to another Apostle....

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). If James was an actual brother, it is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if he was also her son.

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus' cousins. Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger's mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas. So far, so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it's probable that James the younger is the son of Mary and Clopas. The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph's nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph's putative son.

Talk about wresting some Scripture.

First off Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him, (cf. Mat 13:57, Mar 6:4) which would explain why Jesus chose a disciple over an unbeliever. As for your gymnastics to explain away Gal 1:19 and similar passages, you should give up on debate and enter the Olympics.

[broach972]

First off Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him, (cf. Mat 13:57, Mar 6:4) which would explain why Jesus chose a disciple over an unbeliever.

Historically and culturally, you are wrong.  That would not have factored in the equation.  Surviving parents were taken care of by their children, not by strangers or people outside of the family.  This was certainly true of that time and culture.

[kensington]

First off Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him, (cf. Mat 13:57, Mar 6:4) which would explain why Jesus chose a disciple over an unbeliever.

Historically and culturally, you are wrong.  That would not have factored in the equation.  Surviving parents were taken care of by their children, not by strangers or people outside of the family.  This was certainly true of that time and culture.

You seem to ignore that Jesus changed history and culture at the cross, and Jesus would have left His mother to the care of John. If his brothers were not present at the foot... they may have been in the huge crowd, but not allowed to the foot of the cross.

It's no different really than the practice of "God Parents" in the Catholic church actually, there are those who leave the raising of their children to their parents, but there are those who choose to leave the raising to the God Parents...

Jesus chose John, even though He had earthly brothers, He trusted John to do things the way He wanted it done.  It was a charge given to him, instantly and quietly at the foot of the cross.

Now, John went on to see and do more in the body of Christ after Christ's death and ressurection, but he does not go on to mention the lifting up of Mary to the "Queen" or to co-redeemer ever.  He did not mention that we could or should either.  I personally believe if Mary was to have such a larger role in the body due to being cared for by John, it would be more evident in the WORD. THE WORD... and it is not.

Mary died, he body is in a grave, and she will be resurected to Heaven just like my grandmother and mother and all others who are waiting for that. 

Jesus was simply saying to John, care for my mother, as you would your own. That does not mean she lived with him rather than her own family, or that he was to lift her up to be part of the Godhead... because she is not.

She was blesssed to be the mother of Jesus, She is my sister in the LORD...  She is not my mother.

[Charles Sloan]

Amen kensington, very well said.

[kensington]

In Fact, as a matter of reference... When John saw and wrote of the Revelation of Christ while on the isle of Patmos... He didn't mention a queen in Heaven at all... nor did He mention Mary as part of the Throne room scene or the judgment or even being any where near anything that was going on with Christ Himself... such as intersession or mediation or giving out graces...

I think this is very pertinent in the FACT that she is not a participant in any of that at all.