For those who deny Mary's perpetual virginity...

Why did Jesus say this:

John 19
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

Chester, this topic has no relevancy on defining the size of Mary’s family

Put these facts together:
*]Jesus was about to die
*]Jesus loved his mother very much
*]John was the only male disciple present
*]All the other disciples (brothers?) had deserted Mary & Jesus

What Jesus did was an extreme expression of love (considering his condition), but it was not required - who could not love Mary as their own mother?

Since we know mary did have relatives, I state that Jesus had no fear for her future:

  • Who could not love Mary as their own mother?
  • If she had step children, they would love and adore her
  • If she had cousins, they would love and adore her

What Jesus said on the cross, was a supreme expression of selfless love, thinking of his Mother over his current situation. This was an act of love by Jesus and proves nothing else.

There’s already another thread like this. :stuck_out_tongue: Also, I dunno why I never noticed this before, but Jesus was ditched by all his friends, but his mother was with him to the end. That makes me like her more- not that I had anything against her before.

That’s a stretch. I think it highly unlikely that Mary would have gone to live with John if she had other children.

Well, if the children were off teaching in foreign lands, she might stay with John.

I still stand by my assertation that any of Mary’s relatives would have taken care of her without hesitation.

I don’t deny your assertion but I think it is irrelevant to my question. :slight_smile:

And the Lord Jesus gave His Mother to His beloved disciple because of the great holiness of St John, a perpetual virgin himself. Perhaps He felt that He was placing His Ever-Virgin Mother in good hands.


Why is it a STRETCH that Jesus would express his concern and love for his mother while on the cross?

You’ve already agreed that Mary had no real concerns for her welfare, any of her relatives would love and care for her as their own mother (Jesus knew that)

You did not comment on my statement - if her children were off teaching in foreign lands, they could not care for her.

There are several choices here:

  1. Mary had other children and went to live with what is believed to be her nephew according to Catholics.
  2. Mary had step-children and still went to live with what is believed to be her nephew according to Catholics.
  3. Mary had other nephews, the brothers of Jesus that she travelled with and still went to live with her nephew she did not travel with (John was with Christ).

All of those seem to be better choices but yet Christ did what he did.
I would say information about why is not available.

It’s a stretch to think that Jesus would hand over his mother’s care to John if he had other brothers and sisters.

John is not believed to be Mary’s nephew by Catholics.(at least not by any Catholics I’m familiar with)

And now you are familiar with this.


(2) One of the holy women present at the Crucifixion, and who visited the tomb on the morning of the Resurrection (Mark 15:40; 16:1). In Mark 15:40, we read: “And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the Mother of James the Less and of Joseph, and Salome.” The parallel passage of Matthew reads thus: “Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matthew 27:56). Comparison of the two gives a well-grounded probability that the Salome of the former is identical with the mother of the sons of Zebedee in the latter, who is mentioned also in Matthew 20:20 sq., in connection with the petition in favour of her sons. Beyond these references in the Gospel narrative and what may be inferred from them nothing is known of Salome, though some writers conjecture more or less plausibly that she is the sister of the Blessed Virgin mentioned in John 19:25.

Catholic encyclopedia

If all you say here is true and she had multitudes clamoring to care for her, that gives even more weight to that Catholic belief that Jesus gave his Blessed Mother to all of us.

Why did you purposely ignore my explanation - that they were disciples who would be off teaching the gospel in foreign lands. This is a viable explanation on why the purported brothers of Jesus could not care for her.

Any close blood relative who would care for Mary would also do nicely in place of John, so I repeat what Jesus did was not essential except to show is love for his mother.

That’s says nothing about John the apostle being the nephew of Mary the Mother of Jesus other than “some conjecture”. It is clearly not Catholic teaching.

Your explanation was pure conjecture with no basis in scripture or tradition.

You may as well say that they were kidnapped by aliens. Why are they never even mentioned by the apostles if they are teaching the gospel in foreign lands?

Key word: assertion. Assertions hold little to no weight,especially with no empirical historical,tradition or bibilical support.

How dare you! :mad: :mad:

The purported brothers of Jesues are disciples named in the bible.
These disciples are known to have spent the remainder of their lives spreading the gospel.
We don’t dispute the people or what they did, only whether they were cousins or brothers of Jesus.

So, it’s obvious Jesus could not depend on these cousins/brothers to look out for his mother

There is a difference between cousins and brothers. You are avoiding the point for some reason.

Why would Mary go live with John if she had other children?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit