Replies

If Mary had other children, why does John record Jesus as giving her to him as mother and him to her as son ? in Jewish society, surviving sons were required to support their mothers .

This seems, on the surface a reasonable question. Indeed, if Jesus had many "brothers and sisters" why would Jesus charge a non-family member to care after His mother. Doesn't seem to be following normal practice. Don't families usually take care of their own?

And this, by Big Mack, is what is termed by our esteemed opponents a "good response" worth slapping high fives and guffawing:

This has got to be the all time "twisting" of a reading that I have ever seen. Good job dadwags. :)

That's not even close to being an answer or an exchange of ideas. It is simply an accusation of "twisting" with no attempt to answer the quite logical question at all.

And now to the King Himself, our own Havoc. Here is his answer to the question:

This does not negate that duty. Jesus is King. He is also the Son of God and the First born natural heir of the line of David and to the Family. The family natural and spiritual responsibility first falls to Him. Or did you miss all these things in rush to make your point?

Say what? That doesn't even make any sense, yet it's all well and good enough for a high five. Maybe we should quit. I can't even find any logic in any of this. Let's try to break it down and see if that helps.

Question: Why did Jesus give His Mom to John's care if she had other children?

Answer: This does not negate that duty.

What does not negate what duty? Most people use antecdents before they use pronouns.

Jesus is King. He is also the Son of God and the First born natural heir of the line of David and to the Family.

OK. So what? Doesn't Jewish Law have provisions for who takes care of people when the "heir" dies?

The family natural and spiritual responsibility first falls to Him. Or did you miss all these things in rush to make your point

So He has the "natural and spiritual responsibility" to His family. We know that. Now why would he ignore custom and give his mom to someone outside the family, if he had these oodles of brothers and sisters? Strange, isn't it?

Nope. It isn't strange. It is the right of the heir to determine what will be. Custome or normalcy has nothing to do with it. It isn't normal for people to have their noses changed to look completely different than what they were born with. By your logic, one with lack of information to the contrary could look on Michael Jackson for the first time and reason that it must be his nose as it was when he was born because it isn't normal for people to alter them. You rule out all alternatives on the basis of maybes and rule in other alternatives on the same basis when you have no real ground to begin questioning the validity of the Bible. The Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters. The people pointed out that these brothers and sisters are of the same line ('And are not these "HIS" sisters..') etc.

Fact is, you are relying on a pile of if's and wishes and there is doctrine that the RCC has built upon as much. The doctrine proclaims itself as truth in absence of any supporting evidence and inspite of loud evidence, nay, truth to the contrary.