Replies

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).

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.

Yes, I have; your choice to gainsay the evidence, notwithstanding.

You can claim that all you like but what you have provided in not compelling at all. In my profession, I evaluate evidence all the time and your evidence doesn't even get out of the starting gate.

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.

I'm not even sure where to start with all the faulty assumptions in that paragraph. As a Protestant, I hold to the Word of God as contained in the Old and New Testaments.

Rejecting Jewish law? Not being convinced by an irrelevant passage from the Old Testament isn't rejecting Jewish law. Nor is rejecting the writing of some person who claims to be an expert in Jewish law who you chose to cite. Particularly, when his commentary didn't even get to the issue at hand. Nor is rejecting your interpretation of Jewish law a rejection of Jewish law. Nor is not accepting your reading of your interpretation of Jewish law into Paul's writing.

Are you really claiming canonized Scripture as a Catholic exclusive? The process of canonization took place long before the Protestant Reformation. Back at a point of common heritage for both the Catholics and the Protestants. When a tree forks, neither fork has a superior claim to the trunk. Protestants can trace their lineage back to the apostolic church as well and prior to the 1500s, it would be a shared heritage. What you just presented is a false dilemma.

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.

In your legalistic view, there seems to be only way in which Mary could be cared for by her children (if they existed): living in their households. What if Jesus, his siblings, Mary, and John all agreed that the best provision for Mary was to go to John's household? Have they not provided for their mother (which is Paul's point)? What if the other siblings were paying for Mary's support while she lived in John's house? Would that not be providing for their mother? We know nothing about the arrangements except that Mary was to live with John.

[CommerceComet:] 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).

Yes, I have; your choice to gainsay the evidence, notwithstanding.

No you haven't, as technically, by the law (tradition), if the woman has no sons, and her husband's house cannot care for her, then her care can almost necessarily come from (she returns to) her father's house. The one chosen can come from any relation, providing that those with better standing are notified and consent - And his wishes in nominating John would carry much weight. We have no idea how John, son of Zebedee, was related to Mary, any more than we know for certain how Joseph of Arimathea had the familial authority to claim the body of Yeshua - It is likely that ALL who went to prepare him for the grave WERE related, because that tended to be a very family oriented event...

So, your declarations prove nothing, without laying John's claim to Mary before us, which cannot be done, and likewise, the claim of John as treated by others who may have a greater claim, which also cannot be done. As it is, Yeshua left her care to the one that he loved, and to the one who, as it turns out, was the only one long lived enough to be able to care for her - A prophecy in it's own right.

Absolutely incorrect. Yeshua tore down the tradition of the rabbis - A disciple of Moses is a disciple of Moses, and not of anybody else. And he established (necessarily) the same exact thing through himself - He came to teach the doctrine of his Father, not of Himself, thus his doctrine IS his Father's, and his Father's doctrine is Torah. He said 'Follow ME'. not 'follow the pope' or 'follow the elders'.

Those that do the will of His Father, not any silly succession of men. That's the very same trap the Pharisees fell into.