Jesus Is My Homeboy/Mary Is My Homegirl?
552801
I 100% AGGREE WITH YOU!!!!!
108967
God / Jesus\nthe pregnancy and birth of a baby
1084031
All well and fine but I think you may be getting your Marys mixed up.  I believe that there may be two separate Marys.  Mary Magdalene: the forgiven prostitute and Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus of whom Jesus was a close friend. Cross reference various commentaries and see if this may be correct.
419259
That's easy: Jesus himself
836033
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the mother of God. \nFundamentalists are sometimes horrified when the Virgin Mary is referred to as the Mother of God. However, their reaction often rests upon a misapprehension of not only what this particular title of Mary signifies but also who Jesus was, and what their own theological forebears, the Protestant Reformers, had to say regarding this doctrine. \n\nA woman is a man’s mother either if she carried him in her womb or if she was the woman contributing half of his genetic matter or both. Mary was the mother of Jesus in both of these senses; because she not only carried Jesus in her womb but also supplied all of the genetic matter for his human body, since it was through her—not Joseph—that Jesus "was descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3). \n\nSince Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ. \n\nAlthough Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ. \n\nTo avoid this conclusion, Fundamentalists often assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This assertion reinvents a heresy from the fifth century known as Nestorianism, which runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. Rather, she carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary thus carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, and the person she gave birth to was God. \n\nThe Nestorian claim that Mary did not give birth to the unified person of Jesus Christ attempts to separate Christ’s human nature from his divine nature, creating two separate and distinct persons—one divine and one human—united in a loose affiliation. It is therefore a Christological heresy, which even the Protestant Reformers recognized. Both Martin Luther and John Calvin insisted on Mary’s divine maternity. In fact, it even appears that Nestorius himself may not have believed the heresy named after him. Further, the church he founded has now signed a joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and recognizes Mary’s divine maternity, just as other Christians do. \n\nSince denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God\n\n\nTHE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION\n\nRegarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it . The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem. \n\nThe belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the boo
1098925
SURE  WHY  NOT.  WHO  ARE  YOU,  WHERE  DO  YOU  LIVE?  MY  NAME  IS  MARY  WHATS  YOURS?
931109
Jesus is known as Issa.   eesa
322236
Yeah its definitely about Jesus Christ.  "For he's my rock, my refuge" That's from the psalms.  And they talk about Jesus dieing on the cross for all of mans' sins in the last paragraph.  I like it alot
711077
Amen brother.....you butter believe I let Jesus into my heart to forgive and save me. Oh yes!!!!\n\nI am nothing without Him. :)
292851
Hello summitx10x.. :)\n\nA brother or sister that I can share the Love of Jesus with..Amen!\n\n\nIn Jesus Most Precious Name..\nWith Love..In Christ..
584633
I understand what you're trying to say to us protestants.I want you to know, as a protestant I do not put her(Mary) on a shelf, and only bring her down at the celebration of His birth,(Xmas), and His death on the cross(Easter).After all my protestant prayers, I thank Her for saying "yes" to God, and bearing a savior for the world.I thank her for rearing him, loving him, molding him for his ministry. Jesus loved her, shes His mother , so How can I help but love Her. I am a mother of Sons too. When I watch the passion of Christ, I cry, for my savior, for Her, for the heartbreak I share with her. Do I love Jesus?.......YES,  do I love His Mother?..........YES.   Does Jesus love me?.........YES.
313758
Yes and his name was Jesus the son of Mary peace be upon them both. You claim that you believe in the Quran, if so then go read what God tells us in it.
646785
Hello genderless00.. :)\n\nListen to this video..there your answer lies.. :)\n\nhttp://fathersloveletter.com/fllnarration.html\n\n\nAsk and it shall be given..seek and ye shall find..and knock and the door shall be opened unto you.. :)\n\nI am here for you.. :)\n\nIn Jesus Most Precious Name..\nWith Love..In Christ..
124551
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31; Matthew 1:6,7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary showing Jesus' NATURAL descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' LEGAL right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father.  Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus' actual father, but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.  Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) Notice that he does not say 'Joseph became father to Jesus but that he was "the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) he says" "Jesus...being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son Of Heli." Luke 3:23.\n\nSince Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph, but was the Son of God, Luke's genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.  Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit (1) That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; (2). That, this afffiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary.  But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to his grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link.  Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother, and among Jews the adage was: "Genus Matris non vocatur gfenus, translated "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant"\n\nWe may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely. (a) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and (b) that Jesus was also the Legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35; Romans 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus' birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander.
379211
33. mary is just his mother, so no. I also know that you can go to heaven if you get saved and the way that you get saved is if you believe that Jesus died on the cross from your sins, rose on the third day, and then you have to confess to God in prayer that you are a sinner and that you believe He died on the cross for your sins and ask for His forgiveness on your sins and it is THAT simple, salvation is a free gift, we can't earn it. I am a baptist who believes (let me rephrase that, I KNOW) that this stuff I said is true. My name is Matthew James Needham and don't be shy to contact me on this. my email address is im_proud2b_a_christian@yahoo.c...
931301
We know from Jewish records of familiy history that Mary was born at home, but after being weaned from her mother, she was sent to live in the temple, as were many other girls and boys during this time and culture.\n\nShe was raised and educated in the temple until she was close to puberty.  Boys could live in the temple past puberty, but girls could not, as they would be defiling the temple at the onset of puberty as per levitical law.\n\nWhen she was brought back home, her parents set out to marry her off and Joseph was the one chosen to be her husband.  From this point on, there was a one year waiting period in which she would continue to live at home and wait for Joseph to come and claim his bride.\n\nThere is actually more of Mary's childhood written in the Quran (copied from Jewish records) than in the bible. I find that quite interesting especially from those who claim that the bible was put together by Catholics for Catholics, as they would have put everything they could have about Mary if they had put the bible together.\n\nThere are also some false writing that have endured over the years about both Mary and Joseph.  You would have to compare them to secular records of times of births and deaths to try and judge truthfullness and accuracy.\n\nI have not researched Joseph's background and truthfully there is not much available for research.  There is a lot of speculation, but not much authentic truth to go on.
519137
who the hell is Jesus