Five big questions about the 'Jesus' wife' papyrus

Houston Chronicale ^ | Thursday, September 20, 2012 | Alessandro Speciale

[freepertoo]

For Jesus to take a wife would mean he would love one above all others...

I’m a member of the Bride of Christ...I’m not sharing. :-D

[freepertoo]

For Jesus to take a wife would mean he would love one above all others...

I’m a member of the Bride of Christ...I’m not sharing. :-D

[freepertoo]

For Jesus to take a wife would mean he would love one above all others...

I’m a member of the Bride of Christ...I’m not sharing. :-D

[CommerceComet]

Because Christ didn't have any children, nor any siblings from Mary.

Matthew 1:25 implies that Joseph and Mary had normal sexual relations after the birth of Jesus. Those sexual relations likely resulted in children. The later references in Scripture logically refer to the brothers and sisters of Jesus are most likely the products of those sexual relations. Bearing other children in natural, lawful sexual relations with her husband, doesn't diminish the holiness of Mary. IMO the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is based on poor hermeneutics.

In a Semitic society then as now, the care of the mother is with her sons. One does not entrust one's mother to the care of someone who is not her son or daughter. It is not done.

Since when is the Lord of All restricted by man-made cultural restraints? I don't claim to know Jesus' motivation for elevating John to the position of son above his other half-brothers who were most likely the sons of Mary but He did.

[Cronos]

Sorry, but Matthew 1:25 uses "until" is the same as 2 Samuel 6:23 "And Michal ... had no child until the day of her death" -- which does not mean she had children after she died

In the same sense Mary and Joseph who were already 'espoused' according to luke 1:27 which is why he wanted to "divorce her quietly" -- there would be no need to do that if he was not already married to her.

[Cronos]

Since when is the Lord of All restricted by man-made cultural restraints

as scripture says, Jesus followed the Law and customs. He would not hand over custody of His mother to a non-son of Mary's

[CommerceComet]

Sorry but I'll stick with the plain meaning of the text rather than some explanation as to why the passage doesn't really say what it says.

Okay, I'll agree that Jesus followed the Law. In His role as the true Passover Lamb, He had to be without flaw with respect to God's Law. Where does Scripture say or imply that Jesus was obligated to follow cultural rules? Man-made cultural rules and God's Law are not always the same thing as Jesus Himself pointed out in Matthew 15 where He condemned those who declared property as a gift to God (a cultural practice) in order to avoid their obligation to honor their parents (God's Commandment).

[Cronos]

Actually, you (and I when I read it in English or another modern language) are using someone else's explanation (i.e. interpretation) of the text.

As I pointed out above, the writers used the word "until" in the sense of "did not" -- as seen in 2 Samuel 6:23

And Jesus would not be shown to flout the Jewish laws of the day to hand over His mother to a non-family member.