a moment with His mother / Jesus changes everything  

It's not people hate reverence to mary but catholic women turn vain thinking i do more recitatiin so i am better. I have seen Him; rosary transforms catholic men but somehow make catholic women vain. Maybe hermit nun are only who even after reciting rosary bear Lord's countenance. The church holding jezebel in revelation is none other than catholic church. Infact God has reward for those who being in congregation saved themselves from false deception. Mary isn't bad ; but people using mary as a tool to climb up ladders are truly home to jezebels. My heart breaks because holy mother always protected me but what they have made out of her in their vanity is heart breaking. Church is involved with the sin of cananites, now heading towards sodomy. If church is blessed how would you explain the persecution of children and chaste women? None are protected. But looked down upon. Run from sin of cananites before it's too late.

The gospels note occasions when Mary traveled with Jesus as he preached, such as at the wedding at Cana. And we know she followed his passion all the way to the foot of the cross, where she stayed until the bitter end. Meanwhile, all the men who were his followers had run for their lives and had denied him, except John the Beloved. And have you forgotten that Jesus told John while he was on the cross - 'Woman, behold your son. John, behold your mother.' He made sure someone would take care of Mary after he died even as he was breathing his last. Your claim that Jesus not calling Mary 'mother' was "no accident" is not supported by the Scriptures themselves, and frankly, despite many years studying theology, I have never heard anyone of note claim that Jesus did not consider Mary to be his mother. Even Martin Luther never went that far. What's more, it is not important that the Gospels don't have him calling her 'mother'. In those days, the familiar name for mothers (Eema) was not used in formal conversation, but only in personal address. The identifier 'woman' was not considered to be a cold or negative form of address. It was regularly used by men to address a female adult. All men of the time spoke this way. I'm puzzled by the point you seek to make. Are you suggesting that Jesus lived his whole life and never called his mother ''Eema'? Was Jesus heartless as a baby and a child and a young man? Did he not love his mother and his earthly father? The Gospels don't say he did, but only a sociopath would fail to love such parents. Because Jesus the man was clearly not a sociopath, I think we can assume that he did love them. He is fully divine, true, but he is also fully human.

There is a scroll in the Vatican which is the report sent to Caesar concerning the events surrounding Jesus. In that document, both Joseph and Mary were interviewed by a Pharisee named Gameliel sent by the Sanhedrin. Mary herself said that Jesus never called he mother. Mary also said that Jesus was alloof to both Joseph and she. As far as on the cross 3 of the gospels, do not mention any conversation between Jesus and either John or Mary. The catholic version of Mary's relationship is not the truth. Much of catholic doctrine was added to not only to falsely embellish Mary , but to build the catholic church narrative among those ignorant of the truth. These are actions of the great harlot of Revelation chapter 17.

@@francissweeney7318 This is complete nonsense. There is no such scroll. Since Joseph was already dead by the time Jesus died, I fail to understand how he could possibly be interviewed after Jesus's death, unless he resurrected too? And Mary lived with John the Beloved after Jesus died, and he took care of her until she died. John the Beloved lived on the run and in hiding, so he wasn't entertaining pharisees in his front parlor at the time. So - no - there was no 'interview' for Caesar, as if Caesar even cared. I dare you to produce evidence of such a 'scroll.' Your overwrought anti-Catholicism is showing. I think you need to spend time actually reading the Gospels and the Book of Acts instead of listening to so-called 'ministers' on RU-vid from obscure sects who make stuff up as they go along.

Jesus was still alive when Joseph and Mary were interviewed by Gameliel sent from the Sanhedrin.

@@francissweeney7318 There is no such scroll. Are you referring to the "Gospel of Gamaleil', which is apocryphal? There were two historians from the early 1900's who believed a gospel of Gamaleil existed, but were unable to prove that it was real, and the vast and overwhelming number of biblical historians of all denominations reject their findings and believe the 'book' was derived from an ancient forgery. It is not even part of the Protestant Bible. You who claim to base things on the scriptures appear to be relying on a non-scriptural source for your claim that Jesus did not love his parents. Your claim is non-Scriptural for many other reasons. Joseph, father of Jesus, died before Jesus died, so he couldn't have been interviewed after Jesus's death, unless he resurrected too. (Joke.) Mary lived with John the Beloved after Jesus died, and John lived on the run from persecution, so he wasn't interviewing pharisees in his front parlor at the time. (Another joke.) If Mary - a widow and uneducated - had been interviewed by the Sanhedrin, you can be assured she wouldn't have said much in Jesus's favor, as she would not want to be persecuted. They were killing Christ's followers at the time, in case you didn't know. Finally, the apostle Paul was a student and follower of Rabbi Gamaleil for much of his life. Indeed, according to The Acts, Gamaleil urged the Sanhedrin not to persecute Jesus's Jewish believers because he believed it would cause unnecessary unrest and division. So why would he be acting as an errand boy to Caesar? From Wikipedia: "The "Gospel of Gamaliel" is a hypothetical book speculated to exist by some scholars, perhaps a part of Pilate apocrypha. While no ancient sources directly refer to such a gospel, Paulin Ladeuze and Carl Anton Baumstark first proposed that such a book existed in 1906. Scholars who believe such a book once existed have reconstructed it from a homily, the "Lament of Mary" (Laha Maryam) by a bishop named Cyriacus. They believe Laha Maryam extensively quotes the Gospel of Gamaliel; the Lament includes a section that leads with "I, Gamaliel" which caused the speculation that these sections were actually quoting an existing gospel. Other scholars believe that such inference that the author was "plagiarizing" a lost gospel is unwarranted, and these sections are simply written by Cyriacus from the perspective of Gamaliel.[17]".