You mean like the modern Catholic Church reading its positions back into Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers? That sword can cut two ways. Derogatory terms which imply someone has an irrational hatred for a group serve no purpose in debate other than to try and embarrass or intimidate the other party into silence. As Redleghunter pointed out, the terms you used are akin to the use of "racist" or "sexist" or "homophobe" in political debate to quell opposition.
Your responses to my assertion that you have not proven your point: Of course I have; even Paul testifies thus. I have and I do.
No, you haven't. You provided the laws on inheritance from Numbers and some commentary by a modern Jewish writer. Both of these deal with the distribution of tangible assets which today we would call an estate. But nothing which shows as you earlier claimed that Jesus HAD to assign care of His mother to a brother (if one existed).
You seem to entirely miss the point.
It would have been helpful when you first quoted the passage to include the whole passage rather than stopping at an advantageous point for your argument. Verse 16 summarized Paul's point, not verse 8. Paul rightfully insists that the family provide for the care of the widow as is their duty assigned by God in the most important part of the Torah, the Decalogue: "Honor thy father and mother." Paul is telling the church that only true widows are entitled to church support. Of course, this doesn't apply to Mary because Jesus had saw to her care when He assigned it to John.
For the Catholic position to carry any weight, you need to show that the ONLY lawful thing that Jesus could have done to provide for the care of His mother was to assign it a brother (if one existed). Simple assertions that it was unlawful or scandalous without support are meaningless and should be seen as merely speculation.
Yes, I have; your choice to gainsay the evidence, notwithstanding. I will further posit, in your apparent rejection of Jewish law, you must hope to be under the moral authority of the holy catholic apostolic church, for if you reject the Jewish tradition you must take the catholic, else you are orphaned with no line of inheritance to the scriptures, trusted to the Jews and holy catholic apostolic church for transmission.
The very property in Numbers is the bread of the widows and orphans, for how else shall they eat ? Surely God will provide, yet what happens to those in their immediate and extended family who deny them ? He wants families to care for their widows. OSAS ? Nay, they become infidel and apostate to the Jewish community and the holy catholic apostolic church, except they repent. Your argument has Jesus breaking the commandment in such a way to apostasize the siblings you assert he has, rather than fulfilling their Torah obligation to care for a widow, which is preposterous in its cultural bias, even if the Gentiles behave thusly.
False; what "derogatory term" are you writing about ? Which terms have you written ?