“Not really. At this point none of His brothers and sisters were believers”
None, really?
And them not believing in Him would mean they would abandon their own widowed mother, requiring a non-family member to take care of her?
Where is this found in scripture?
Love,
O2
see his post 67
They abandoned HIM, not her.
They were not at the cross OR Jesus knew that they would not be the best person to take care of her.
Him discharging His responsibility to someone He knew would be responsible does NOT mean that He didn't have brothers and sisters.
Again, what's the big deal if Mary had sex after Jesus was born? Why does the thought of it send Catholics into a rabid frenzy?
Do Catholics really deep down inside think that sex is dirty or sinful?
Cause that's about the only conclusion one can reach for their irrational defense of a clearly unScriptural doctrine.
And them not believing in Him would mean they would abandon their own widowed mother, requiring a non-family member to take care of her?
Where is this found in scripture?
John 7:1-5
1After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. 3Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4“For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.”
5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
His brothers did not believe in Him at this point. Nor is there any evidence they did at the cross. Hence the need to entrust Mary to John.
We do have evidence that they did come to believe in Him in Acts 1:14. His mother and brothers were there in the Upper Room.
Again...context is your friend.