Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

---

You're reading this passage very plainly, but the Bible is full of inferences that require the reader to look beyond the words directly on the page.

The fact that the passage doesn't contain the exact sentence "Mary is the mother of all Christians" doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Scripture frequently teaches truths through symbolism and inference rather than stating every doctrine plainly.

The same goes with your inference that the Woman in Revelation is Israel. It's not plainly stated but you infer that.

John is a writer, in which his writing style deliberately leaves room for a representative theological meaning. He doesn't name himself because he is presenting a model disciple who remains with Christ at the cross, receives Mary as his mother, believes at the empty tomb, and recognizes the risen Christ.

And you need to pay attention, Jesus establishes the relationship but John then acts upon it. Jesus says, "Behold, your mother," and only afterward does John tell us that the disciple took her into his own home. But he doesn't say, "care for my mother". John's action explains what he did with the relationship Jesus established

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Actually, I laid out two passages that point toward that very thing but understanding it requires something higher than a third grade reading level.

But hey, I'll tap you in if we start talking about SpongeBob and superheroes.

Fyi, there's no scripture to back your views on the modern state of Israel

Scriptures might infer various things but there is no reason they infer what you think they do.

historian said:

---

Scriptures might infer various things but there is no reason they infer what you think they do.

---

Lmao, no reason? These aren't my own interpretations; try St Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury, Aquinas, Bonaventure… the list goes on

Roman Catholics promoting the RC position.

Imagine that.

Now, if Our Lord Jesus had actually taught what you claim, you'd have something, but He set a different lesson before us.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Roman Catholics promoting the RC position.

Imagine that.

Now, if Our Lord Jesus had actually taught what you claim, you'd have something, but He set a different lesson before us.

---

And the Protestant is promoting the Protestant position… imagine that? Now go back to your Late Night with Sean Hannity and please stop replying to me

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Roman Catholics promoting the RC position.

Imagine that.

Now, if Our Lord Jesus had actually taught what you claim, you'd have something, but He set a different lesson before us.

---

And the Protestant is promoting the Protestant position… imagine that? Now go back to your Late Night with Sean Hannity and please stop replying to me

---

1. This is not your board, you don't get to tell people they are not allowed to post.

2. I don't watch or listen to Hannity, so strike 2 for you.

3. You get awfully testy when someone points out RC is not Scripture-faithful. If you get mad so easily, what does that say about your confidence in your claims?

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Is she boiling in human excrement along w/ her son?

Isnt that what the Talmud teaches you?

Oldbear83 said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Roman Catholics promoting the RC position.

Imagine that.

Now, if Our Lord Jesus had actually taught what you claim, you'd have something, but He set a different lesson before us.

---

And the Protestant is promoting the Protestant position… imagine that? Now go back to your Late Night with Sean Hannity and please stop replying to me

---

1. This is not your board, you don't get to tell people they are not allowed to post.

2. I don't watch or listen to Hannity, so strike 2 for you.

3. You get awfully testy when someone points out RC is not Scripture-faithful. If you get mad so easily, what does that say about your confidence in your claims?

---

Oh RC is indeed Scripture faithful, you just don't understand literature. At least Mothra will debate his claims, you just come in after the fact and say nonsense like "RC defend RC positions". Thank you for your wonderful observation!

I notice you just ducked my first point, and reconfirmed my third.

You might find Anger Management helpful.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

---

You're reading this passage very plainly, but the Bible is full of inferences that require the reader to look beyond the words directly on the page.

The fact that the passage doesn't contain the exact sentence "Mary is the mother of all Christians" doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Scripture frequently teaches truths through symbolism and inference rather than stating every doctrine plainly.

The same goes with your inference that the Woman in Revelation is Israel. It's not plainly stated but you infer that.

John is a writer, in which his writing style deliberately leaves room for a representative theological meaning. He doesn't name himself because he is presenting a model disciple who remains with Christ at the cross, receives Mary as his mother, believes at the empty tomb, and recognizes the risen Christ.

And you need to pay attention, Jesus establishes the relationship but John then acts upon it. Jesus says, "Behold, your mother," and only afterward does John tell us that the disciple took her into his own home. But he doesn't say, "care for my mother". John's action explains what he did with the relationship Jesus established

---

I didn't argue that doctrines can never be based on inference. Of course they can. I asked for evidence that John in this passage represents all Christians and that Mary is therefore the mother of all Christians. You've repeated that conclusion several times, but you haven't actually demonstrated it from the text - nor any text for that matter. Now, you may think your inferences are correct, but simply asserting that Scripture contains symbolism doesn't prove this particular symbolism.

As for Revelation 12, I never claimed my interpretation was self-evident or beyond dispute. The difference is that I acknowledge it as an inference. You keep presenting your conclusion as though it is what the text plainly teaches, when it actually depends on several unstated assumptions.

Most importantly, you still haven't provided any evidentiary support whatsoever for your conclusion that John intended "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be a representative figure for all Christians. Where does John say that? Where does Jesus say that? Where does any New Testament author say that? The answer? Nowhere.

Without that premise, your entire argument collapses.

historian said:

---

Scriptures might infer various things but there is no reason they infer what you think they do.

---

Yup.

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Is she boiling in human excrement along w/ her son?

Isnt that what the Talmud teaches you?

---

Rent free...

The only authority on any of this is God's word. Any doctrine or teaching from some teacher since then that contradicts or adds to biblical teaching is false.

Christ's warning in Revelation 22 is still binding.

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Tucker Carlson Spends 380th Consecutive Episode Criticizing Country Nobody Is Allowed To Criticize https://t.co/t1b5Rh4koL

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) August 29, 2026

---

pic.twitter.com/ltc1aqMPNX

— Zod (@Riley94510202) August 30, 2026

---

Look at that - mad at the Babylon Bee for nailing it as usual.

"Mother Mary." LOL.

---

Yes, the proper term is "the Blessed Mother".

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Is she boiling in human excrement along w/ her son?

Isnt that what the Talmud teaches you?

---

Rent free...

---

At least i'm honest about being an atheist and dont larp as a fake Christian like you & historian do.

You replace Jesus with Paul and God with the secular state of Israel.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

---

You're reading this passage very plainly, but the Bible is full of inferences that require the reader to look beyond the words directly on the page.

The fact that the passage doesn't contain the exact sentence "Mary is the mother of all Christians" doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Scripture frequently teaches truths through symbolism and inference rather than stating every doctrine plainly.

The same goes with your inference that the Woman in Revelation is Israel. It's not plainly stated but you infer that.

John is a writer, in which his writing style deliberately leaves room for a representative theological meaning. He doesn't name himself because he is presenting a model disciple who remains with Christ at the cross, receives Mary as his mother, believes at the empty tomb, and recognizes the risen Christ.

And you need to pay attention, Jesus establishes the relationship but John then acts upon it. Jesus says, "Behold, your mother," and only afterward does John tell us that the disciple took her into his own home. But he doesn't say, "care for my mother". John's action explains what he did with the relationship Jesus established

---

I didn't argue that doctrines can never be based on inference. Of course they can. I asked for evidence that John in this passage represents all Christians and that Mary is therefore the mother of all Christians. You've repeated that conclusion several times, but you haven't actually demonstrated it from the text - nor any text for that matter. Now, you may think your inferences are correct, but simply asserting that Scripture contains symbolism doesn't prove this particular symbolism.

As for Revelation 12, I never claimed my interpretation was self-evident or beyond dispute. The difference is that I acknowledge it as an inference. You keep presenting your conclusion as though it is what the text plainly teaches, when it actually depends on several unstated assumptions.

Most importantly, you still haven't provided any evidentiary support whatsoever for your conclusion that John intended "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be a representative figure for all Christians. Where does John say that? Where does Jesus say that? Where does any New Testament author say that? The answer? Nowhere.

Without that premise, your entire argument collapses.

---

You won't understand if you're interpreting the Bible from face value. It's not a simple book of instruction, it's a complex work of literature. Many truths aren't plainly stated. If we do that, now many biblical truths that are commonly accepted begin to collapse, including the nature of the Trinity.

And for what it's worth, I have also acknowledged that this John passage is an inference, I just happen to believe it leads to the truth.

But I feel like you're spending more time looking at John than Revelation 12, which I personally believe to be the best biblical evidence here. You believe the passage refers to Israel, but going off of the text alone it seems far more likely to be the mother of Christ.

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Tucker Carlson Spends 380th Consecutive Episode Criticizing Country Nobody Is Allowed To Criticize https://t.co/t1b5Rh4koL

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) August 29, 2026

---

pic.twitter.com/ltc1aqMPNX

— Zod (@Riley94510202) August 30, 2026

---

Look at that - mad at the Babylon Bee for nailing it as usual.

"Mother Mary." LOL.

---

Yes, the proper term is "the Blessed Mother".

---

There's nothing proper about that. It's certainly not scriptural.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus said that from the cross. Context matters.

Also, Mary is no one's spiritual mother. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she or anyone else holds such a position. God is our spiritual Father because He is God and no other reason. There is no divine mother. Such thinking is pagan polytheism and idolatry.

---

Is she boiling in human excrement along w/ her son?

Isnt that what the Talmud teaches you?

---

Rent free...

---

You replace Jesus with Paul and God with the secular state of Israel.

---

Support your position, if you are able. Specifically:

1) How do I replace Jesus with Paul;
2) How are Paul and Jesus incompatible (your position implies they are);
3) How have I replaced God with Israel?

I'll hang up and listen.

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Tucker Carlson Spends 380th Consecutive Episode Criticizing Country Nobody Is Allowed To Criticize https://t.co/t1b5Rh4koL

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) August 29, 2026

---

pic.twitter.com/ltc1aqMPNX

— Zod (@Riley94510202) August 30, 2026

---

Look at that - mad at the Babylon Bee for nailing it as usual.

"Mother Mary." LOL.

---

Yes, the proper term is "the Blessed Mother".

---

There's nothing proper about that. It's certainly not scriptural.

---

Well, its common amongst Catholics and Anglicans.

Biblical Roots: The term "blessed" comes from Luke 1:42, where Elizabeth greets Mary with the words, "Blessed are you among women," reflecting divine favor. In Luke 1:48, Mary herself prophesies that "all generations will call me blessed"

Spiritual Motherhood: Christians view her as a spiritual mother to all believers because Jesus entrusted her to the disciple Johnand by extension, all humanitywhile on the cross (John 19:2627

These are good enough for me since this is what my church teaches. Catholics also believe she was without sin, which I am sure you would reject but that is a Catholic belief and it does make sense the blessed mother of God would be made sinless.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

---

You're reading this passage very plainly, but the Bible is full of inferences that require the reader to look beyond the words directly on the page.

The fact that the passage doesn't contain the exact sentence "Mary is the mother of all Christians" doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Scripture frequently teaches truths through symbolism and inference rather than stating every doctrine plainly.

The same goes with your inference that the Woman in Revelation is Israel. It's not plainly stated but you infer that.

John is a writer, in which his writing style deliberately leaves room for a representative theological meaning. He doesn't name himself because he is presenting a model disciple who remains with Christ at the cross, receives Mary as his mother, believes at the empty tomb, and recognizes the risen Christ.

And you need to pay attention, Jesus establishes the relationship but John then acts upon it. Jesus says, "Behold, your mother," and only afterward does John tell us that the disciple took her into his own home. But he doesn't say, "care for my mother". John's action explains what he did with the relationship Jesus established

---

I didn't argue that doctrines can never be based on inference. Of course they can. I asked for evidence that John in this passage represents all Christians and that Mary is therefore the mother of all Christians. You've repeated that conclusion several times, but you haven't actually demonstrated it from the text - nor any text for that matter. Now, you may think your inferences are correct, but simply asserting that Scripture contains symbolism doesn't prove this particular symbolism.

As for Revelation 12, I never claimed my interpretation was self-evident or beyond dispute. The difference is that I acknowledge it as an inference. You keep presenting your conclusion as though it is what the text plainly teaches, when it actually depends on several unstated assumptions.

Most importantly, you still haven't provided any evidentiary support whatsoever for your conclusion that John intended "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be a representative figure for all Christians. Where does John say that? Where does Jesus say that? Where does any New Testament author say that? The answer? Nowhere.

Without that premise, your entire argument collapses.

---

You won't understand if you're interpreting the Bible from face value. It's not a simple book of instruction, it's a complex work of literature. Many truths aren't plainly stated. If we do that, now many biblical truths that are commonly accepted begin to collapse, including the nature of the Trinity.

And for what it's worth, I have also acknowledged that this John passage is an inference, I just happen to believe it leads to the truth.

But I feel like you're spending more time looking at John than Revelation 12, which I personally believe to be the best biblical evidence here. You believe the passage refers to Israel, but going off of the text alone it seems far more likely to be the mother of Christ.

---

I would submit that the more a doctrine depends on inference, the stronger the textual support needs to be. And there just isn't any textual support for your position in the verses in John. Simply calling it an inference doesn't answer the criticism. Plenty of inferences are wrong. The question is whether the inference is warranted.

With respect to Revelation 12, again, I don't think "the woman gave birth to Christ, therefore the woman is Mary" follows nearly as easily as you're suggesting. The woman is a highly symbolic figure: clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, crowned with twelve stars, giving birth to the Messiah, and having other offspring. That's much different than the description of Mary in previous passages.

And that's really my issue. You keep presenting your interpretation as though it's the obvious reading of the text, when Revelation 12 is one of the most symbolically rich passages in Scripture. I can understand why someone sees Mary in it. What I don't understand is the confidence that the symbol must refer primarily or exclusively to Mary, especially when the text never actually names her.

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Tucker Carlson Spends 380th Consecutive Episode Criticizing Country Nobody Is Allowed To Criticize https://t.co/t1b5Rh4koL

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) August 29, 2026

---

pic.twitter.com/ltc1aqMPNX

— Zod (@Riley94510202) August 30, 2026

---

Look at that - mad at the Babylon Bee for nailing it as usual.

"Mother Mary." LOL.

---

Yes, the proper term is "the Blessed Mother".

---

There's nothing proper about that. It's certainly not scriptural.

---

Well, its common amongst Catholics and Anglicans.

Biblical Roots: The term "blessed" comes from Luke 1:42, where Elizabeth greets Mary with the words, "Blessed are you among women," reflecting divine favor. In Luke 1:48, Mary herself prophesies that "all generations will call me blessed"

Spiritual Motherhood: Christians view her as a spiritual mother to all believers because Jesus entrusted her to the disciple Johnand by extension, all humanitywhile on the cross (John 19:2627

These are good enough for me since this is what my church teaches. Catholics also believe she was without sin, which I am sure you would reject but that is a Catholic belief and it does make sense the

---

I agree it is a common (erroneous) belief among Catholics, some Anglicans, and some Orthodox. My objection has never been that the doctrine is uncommon. It's that the doctrine isn't actually taught in Scripture.

Yes, Mary is described as "blessed" in Scripture. Elizabeth calls her "blessed among women," and Mary says all generations will call her blessed. But "blessed" and "Blessed Spiritual Mother of all Christians" are not the same thing. The former is stated in Scripture. The latter is not.

Likewise, saying Mary was sinless because it seems fitting that the mother of Jesus would be sinless is just not supported by Scripture. In fact, Scripture repeatedly presents Christ as uniquely sinless. If you're going to claim that Mary also lived a completely sinless life, I think the burden is on you to point to a passage that actually teaches it.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

---

You're reading this passage very plainly, but the Bible is full of inferences that require the reader to look beyond the words directly on the page.

The fact that the passage doesn't contain the exact sentence "Mary is the mother of all Christians" doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Scripture frequently teaches truths through symbolism and inference rather than stating every doctrine plainly.

The same goes with your inference that the Woman in Revelation is Israel. It's not plainly stated but you infer that.

John is a writer, in which his writing style deliberately leaves room for a representative theological meaning. He doesn't name himself because he is presenting a model disciple who remains with Christ at the cross, receives Mary as his mother, believes at the empty tomb, and recognizes the risen Christ.

And you need to pay attention, Jesus establishes the relationship but John then acts upon it. Jesus says, "Behold, your mother," and only afterward does John tell us that the disciple took her into his own home. But he doesn't say, "care for my mother". John's action explains what he did with the relationship Jesus established

---

I didn't argue that doctrines can never be based on inference. Of course they can. I asked for evidence that John in this passage represents all Christians and that Mary is therefore the mother of all Christians. You've repeated that conclusion several times, but you haven't actually demonstrated it from the text - nor any text for that matter. Now, you may think your inferences are correct, but simply asserting that Scripture contains symbolism doesn't prove this particular symbolism.

As for Revelation 12, I never claimed my interpretation was self-evident or beyond dispute. The difference is that I acknowledge it as an inference. You keep presenting your conclusion as though it is what the text plainly teaches, when it actually depends on several unstated assumptions.

Most importantly, you still haven't provided any evidentiary support whatsoever for your conclusion that John intended "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be a representative figure for all Christians. Where does John say that? Where does Jesus say that? Where does any New Testament author say that? The answer? Nowhere.

Without that premise, your entire argument collapses.

---

You won't understand if you're interpreting the Bible from face value. It's not a simple book of instruction, it's a complex work of literature. Many truths aren't plainly stated. If we do that, now many biblical truths that are commonly accepted begin to collapse, including the nature of the Trinity.

And for what it's worth, I have also acknowledged that this John passage is an inference, I just happen to believe it leads to the truth.

But I feel like you're spending more time looking at John than Revelation 12, which I personally believe to be the best biblical evidence here. You believe the passage refers to Israel, but going off of the text alone it seems far more likely to be the mother of Christ.

---

I would submit that the more a doctrine depends on inference, the stronger the textual support needs to be. And there just isn't any textual support for your position in the verses in John. Simply calling it an inference doesn't answer the criticism. Plenty of inferences are wrong. The question is whether the inference is warranted.

With respect to Revelation 12, again, I don't think "the woman gave birth to Christ, therefore the woman is Mary" follows nearly as easily as you're suggesting. The woman is a highly symbolic figure: clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, crowned with twelve stars, giving birth to the Messiah, and having other offspring. That's much different than the description of Mary in previous passages.

And that's really my issue. You keep presenting your interpretation as though it's the obvious reading of the text, when Revelation 12 is one of the most symbolically rich passages in Scripture. I can understand why someone sees Mary in it. What I don't understand is the confidence that the symbol must refer primarily or exclusively to Mary, especially when the text never actually names her.

---

The two most common interpretations are Mary and Israel, you may be surprised that I would submit that it's symbolic of both in a way… but that's a can of worms for a later conversation.

Basically, this woman has to be Mary or Israel, people think she represents Israel because this scene references the Old Testament in which Joseph has a dream depicting similar imagery. My main problem with that is the author of Revelation already references Israel, and he doesn't do it by using a woman. Therefore this woman must be someone else. She's described as giving birth to the messiah, well that can only be one person, Our Lady. She's later described as being a mother to all Christians.

We know our author is a John, but it's debated whether it's John the Apostle or a different John. It would make sense if this wasn't John the Apostle as he would have recognized Mary in these visions.

But even if it is John the Apostle, I don't think it's far fetched for him to use these symbolic representations once again.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

---

You're reading this passage very plainly, but the Bible is full of inferences that require the reader to look beyond the words directly on the page.

The fact that the passage doesn't contain the exact sentence "Mary is the mother of all Christians" doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Scripture frequently teaches truths through symbolism and inference rather than stating every doctrine plainly.

The same goes with your inference that the Woman in Revelation is Israel. It's not plainly stated but you infer that.

John is a writer, in which his writing style deliberately leaves room for a representative theological meaning. He doesn't name himself because he is presenting a model disciple who remains with Christ at the cross, receives Mary as his mother, believes at the empty tomb, and recognizes the risen Christ.

And you need to pay attention, Jesus establishes the relationship but John then acts upon it. Jesus says, "Behold, your mother," and only afterward does John tell us that the disciple took her into his own home. But he doesn't say, "care for my mother". John's action explains what he did with the relationship Jesus established

---

I didn't argue that doctrines can never be based on inference. Of course they can. I asked for evidence that John in this passage represents all Christians and that Mary is therefore the mother of all Christians. You've repeated that conclusion several times, but you haven't actually demonstrated it from the text - nor any text for that matter. Now, you may think your inferences are correct, but simply asserting that Scripture contains symbolism doesn't prove this particular symbolism.

As for Revelation 12, I never claimed my interpretation was self-evident or beyond dispute. The difference is that I acknowledge it as an inference. You keep presenting your conclusion as though it is what the text plainly teaches, when it actually depends on several unstated assumptions.

Most importantly, you still haven't provided any evidentiary support whatsoever for your conclusion that John intended "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be a representative figure for all Christians. Where does John say that? Where does Jesus say that? Where does any New Testament author say that? The answer? Nowhere.

Without that premise, your entire argument collapses.

---

You won't understand if you're interpreting the Bible from face value. It's not a simple book of instruction, it's a complex work of literature. Many truths aren't plainly stated. If we do that, now many biblical truths that are commonly accepted begin to collapse, including the nature of the Trinity.

And for what it's worth, I have also acknowledged that this John passage is an inference, I just happen to believe it leads to the truth.

But I feel like you're spending more time looking at John than Revelation 12, which I personally believe to be the best biblical evidence here. You believe the passage refers to Israel, but going off of the text alone it seems far more likely to be the mother of Christ.

---

I would submit that the more a doctrine depends on inference, the stronger the textual support needs to be. And there just isn't any textual support for your position in the verses in John. Simply calling it an inference doesn't answer the criticism. Plenty of inferences are wrong. The question is whether the inference is warranted.

With respect to Revelation 12, again, I don't think "the woman gave birth to Christ, therefore the woman is Mary" follows nearly as easily as you're suggesting. The woman is a highly symbolic figure: clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, crowned with twelve stars, giving birth to the Messiah, and having other offspring. That's much different than the description of Mary in previous passages.

And that's really my issue. You keep presenting your interpretation as though it's the obvious reading of the text, when Revelation 12 is one of the most symbolically rich passages in Scripture. I can understand why someone sees Mary in it. What I don't understand is the confidence that the symbol must refer primarily or exclusively to Mary, especially when the text never actually names her.

---

The two most common interpretations are Mary and Israel, you may be surprised that I would submit that it's symbolic of both in a way… but that's a can of worms for a later conversation.

Basically, this woman has to be Mary or Israel, people think she represents Israel because this scene references the Old Testament in which Joseph has a dream depicting similar imagery. My main problem with that is the author of Revelation already references Israel, and he doesn't do it by using a woman. Therefore this woman must be someone else. She's described as giving birth to the messiah, well that can only be one person, Our Lady. She's later described as being a mother to all Christians.

We know our author is a John, but it's debated whether it's John the Apostle or a different John. It would make sense if this wasn't John the Apostle as he would have recognized Mary in these visions.

But even if it is John the Apostle, I don't think it's far fetched for him to use these symbolic representations once again.

---

I think you're making several leaps that the text itself never makes. Even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that Mary is represented in Revelation 12, where does the chapter ever say she is the mother of all Christians? The woman is never called the spiritual mother of believers. She is never called the mother of the Church. Christians are never instructed to regard her as their mother.

That's the problem I keep running into with the Catholic/Orthodox interpretation. While there are things about them I respect, too often the text says one thing, and then a chain of inferences is used to reach a much broader doctrine. The further the doctrine gets from the actual words of the text, the more cautious I become. That's why I remain Protestant. I prefer to anchor doctrine in what Scripture actually teaches rather than in conclusions that require multiple interpretive leaps.

https://babylonbee.com/news/tucker-carlson-spends-380th-consecutive-episode-criticizing-country-nobody-is-allowed-to-criticize

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Well, she is a mother and her name is Mary. Not sure what's funny?

---

She's not my mother.

---

Oof! John 26:27 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

---

Oof indeed! Christ is telling His disciple John to take care of his mother after his passing. He's not telling you, me or anyone else we have a new spiritual mother. Such an interpretation would be pretty tortured (though I know that won't stop the Catholics).

SMH.

---

That verse is widely accepted as establishing a spiritual family in the Catholic and (to a lesser extent) Orthodox traditions, but not among the Protestants. It's not a mistranslation either, the Greek meaning is consistent.

It's a shame you reject your Mother but embrace Bibi as your daddy

---

FIFY.

I would be happy to debate your position, but so far, you've done nothing to support it, other than claiming some faith traditions claim that it means Mary is now our spiritual mother.

But let's take a look at the plain language of the verses, shall we?

First, nobody said it was a mistranslation. The question isn't what the Greek says. The question is what the text actually teaches. And the text says Jesus told John (i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved) to take care of His mother and told Mary to accept John's care. That's it. It's a private instruction to two specific people standing at the foot of the cross. There is nothing else suggested in the plain language of the text.

Feel free to point to evidence that is not what the text says or means, and that it instead creates some sort of "spiritual family," or was an instruction to ALL Christianity - concepts unmentioned in the text.

Mary is a mortal that was blessed among women. She's not my mama, nor yours for that matter.

As for Bibi, my dad will be surprised to hear it.

---

Speak for yourself. I'm a Christian and she's my spiritual Mother.

Christ tells John, "Behold, your mother", and tells Mary, "Woman, behold your son". John represents all of the disciples. Thus, Jesus is establishing the spiritual family.

Revelation 12:17 "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspringthose who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

The offspring of this unnamed woman, are followers of Christ, aka Christians.

Earlier in the chapter, this same woman is mentioned giving birth to Jesus.

Revelation 12:5 "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."

This woman is Mary, and her children are Christians.

The author of Revelation is believed to be John the Apostle.

---

"John represents all disciples" is not in the text. It's the bridge your argument requires, but simply asserting it doesn't prove it. John 19 says Jesus spoke to Mary and John. It then says John took her into his home. Nothing about that passage tells the reader that John is a stand-in for all future Christians.

Likewise, Revelation 12 is heavily symbolic and has been understood by many Christians as referring to Israel, God's people, or the covenant community, not merely Mary as an individual. Citing a disputed interpretation of Revelation to prove a disputed interpretation of John doesn't really advance the argument.

You're certainly free to believe Mary is your spiritual mother. But that's different from showing that Scripture clearly teaches it. The texts you've certainly don't state as such. The conclusion is theological, not the plain meaning of the passages themselves.

---

You say "the woman" refers to Israel but the text does not say that. That's the bridge your argument requires. Not to mention, the writer, John, already refers to Israel by name in Revelation, yet he never refers to the unnamed woman as Israel.

Jesus could've told John to simply take care of Mary, but he never explicitly said that. He only says "behold, your mother" and "Woman, behold, your son" Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship.

And John doesn't use his own name, he refers to himself as "The Disciple whom he loved", symbolic for all Christians.

Jesus makes Mary the mother to the disciple.

---

Here is the problem. The text does not say:

• John represents all Christians.
• Mary is the mother of all believers.
• Jesus is establishing a universal spiritual motherhood.

While those are theological conclusions you draw from the passage, they are not actually in the passage.

As for "behold your mother" and "behold your son," of course Jesus is establishing a mother-son relationship between Mary and John. The question is whether He is establishing that relationship only between Mary and John or between Mary and every Christian who will ever live. You are inferring the latter, because it isn't in the text.

And saying John calls himself "the disciple whom Jesus loved" does not show he symbolizes all Christians. It shows he avoids using his own name, something he does throughout the Gospel.

The plain reading is simple: Jesus entrusts His mother to John, and John receives her as his mother. The text then immediately explains the practical result: "from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." That sounds much more like provision and care than the announcement of a new doctrine.

---

You're reading this passage very plainly, but the Bible is full of inferences that require the reader to look beyond the words directly on the page.

The fact that the passage doesn't contain the exact sentence "Mary is the mother of all Christians" doesn't invalidate the conclusion. Scripture frequently teaches truths through symbolism and inference rather than stating every doctrine plainly.

The same goes with your inference that the Woman in Revelation is Israel. It's not plainly stated but you infer that.

John is a writer, in which his writing style deliberately leaves room for a representative theological meaning. He doesn't name himself because he is presenting a model disciple who remains with Christ at the cross, receives Mary as his mother, believes at the empty tomb, and recognizes the risen Christ.

And you need to pay attention, Jesus establishes the relationship but John then acts upon it. Jesus says, "Behold, your mother," and only afterward does John tell us that the disciple took her into his own home. But he doesn't say, "care for my mother". John's action explains what he did with the relationship Jesus established

---

I didn't argue that doctrines can never be based on inference. Of course they can. I asked for evidence that John in this passage represents all Christians and that Mary is therefore the mother of all Christians. You've repeated that conclusion several times, but you haven't actually demonstrated it from the text - nor any text for that matter. Now, you may think your inferences are correct, but simply asserting that Scripture contains symbolism doesn't prove this particular symbolism.

As for Revelation 12, I never claimed my interpretation was self-evident or beyond dispute. The difference is that I acknowledge it as an inference. You keep presenting your conclusion as though it is what the text plainly teaches, when it actually depends on several unstated assumptions.

Most importantly, you still haven't provided any evidentiary support whatsoever for your conclusion that John intended "the disciple whom Jesus loved" to be a representative figure for all Christians. Where does John say that? Where does Jesus say that? Where does any New Testament author say that? The answer? Nowhere.

Without that premise, your entire argument collapses.

---

You won't understand if you're interpreting the Bible from face value. It's not a simple book of instruction, it's a complex work of literature. Many truths aren't plainly stated. If we do that, now many biblical truths that are commonly accepted begin to collapse, including the nature of the Trinity.

And for what it's worth, I have also acknowledged that this John passage is an inference, I just happen to believe it leads to the truth.

But I feel like you're spending more time looking at John than Revelation 12, which I personally believe to be the best biblical evidence here. You believe the passage refers to Israel, but going off of the text alone it seems far more likely to be the mother of Christ.

---

I would submit that the more a doctrine depends on inference, the stronger the textual support needs to be. And there just isn't any textual support for your position in the verses in John. Simply calling it an inference doesn't answer the criticism. Plenty of inferences are wrong. The question is whether the inference is warranted.

With respect to Revelation 12, again, I don't think "the woman gave birth to Christ, therefore the woman is Mary" follows nearly as easily as you're suggesting. The woman is a highly symbolic figure: clothed with the sun, standing on the moon, crowned with twelve stars, giving birth to the Messiah, and having other offspring. That's much different than the description of Mary in previous passages.

And that's really my issue. You keep presenting your interpretation as though it's the obvious reading of the text, when Revelation 12 is one of the most symbolically rich passages in Scripture. I can understand why someone sees Mary in it. What I don't understand is the confidence that the symbol must refer primarily or exclusively to Mary, especially when the text never actually names her.

---

The two most common interpretations are Mary and Israel, you may be surprised that I would submit that it's symbolic of both in a way… but that's a can of worms for a later conversation.

Basically, this woman has to be Mary or Israel, people think she represents Israel because this scene references the Old Testament in which Joseph has a dream depicting similar imagery. My main problem with that is the author of Revelation already references Israel, and he doesn't do it by using a woman. Therefore this woman must be someone else. She's described as giving birth to the messiah, well that can only be one person, Our Lady. She's later described as being a mother to all Christians.

We know our author is a John, but it's debated whether it's John the Apostle or a different John. It would make sense if this wasn't John the Apostle as he would have recognized Mary in these visions.

But even if it is John the Apostle, I don't think it's far fetched for him to use these symbolic representations once again.

---

I think you're making several leaps that the text itself never makes. Even if I grant, for the sake of argument, that Mary is represented in Revelation 12, where does the chapter ever say she is the mother of all Christians? The woman is never called the spiritual mother of believers. She is never called the mother of the Church. Christians are never instructed to regard her as their mother.

That's the problem I keep running into with the Catholic/Orthodox interpretation. While there are things about them I respect, too often the text says one thing, and then a chain of inferences is used to reach a much broader doctrine. The further the doctrine gets from the actual words of the text, the more cautious I become. That's why I remain Protestant. I prefer to anchor doctrine in what Scripture actually teaches rather than in conclusions that require multiple interpretive leaps.

---

The last sentence of the chapter: "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus."

Her offspring are those who keeps Gods commands and believe in Jesus. Those are Christians.

This isn't a leap and it's clear biblical phrasing. Regardless of who the woman is, these off-spring are undoubtedly Christians, and nearly every major denomination agrees.

No matter who you vote for, you're getting Miriam Adelson and Co. https://t.co/a1nFz6891U pic.twitter.com/VXb927EVWq

— Henri Fjord (@henri_fjord) September 2, 2026

This week, Congress will vote on censorship bill H.R. 4795, introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx and cosponsored by Rep. Josh Gottheimer.

The "Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026" is an effort to deny federal funding to universities that boycott Israel, Israeli… pic.twitter.com/47rgUCDnuU

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) September 1, 2026