That’s not an assumption you can support. Omission is not provable that something didn’t happen. If it were all the critics that say the gospel accounts of Jesus are unreliable because they don’t all contain the same exact facts (some omit certain things, some include things the others don’t) would have their ‘proof’ they are unreliable.
Your kind of assumption is the same kind of assumption that those that say the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ wedding because there’s no mention of the groom, rabbis of Jesus’ age would be getting married around his age, and why would Mary bother him about the wine if it wasn’t his wedding? Yet there is no factual evidence in the story AT ALL about it being his wedding, you have to assume a bunch of things based on the LACK of evidence.
Also, using your logic, there’s no mention of Mary after the Gospels. Are we to assume due to lack of evidence she is now dead, or not important anymore? Nobody left prays to Mary, nobody asks Mary to intercede for them in any of the following letters/books of the New Testament. Nobody is saying “Hail Mary’s”.
It doesn’t fly. You can’t assume Peter’s wife is dead. Further if we are going to play fast and loose with evidence, who’s to say Peter didn’t get married after dropping his net and following Jesus? Peter was an “apostle” - one who was a follower of, and taught face to face by Jesus - as soon as he dropped his fishing net and followed Jesus. Who’s to say the wedding at Cana wasn’t Peter’s wedding? The lack of evidence allows us to assume that it was, just as well as the lack of evidence allows you to assume Peter’s wife is dead.
And the fact that she is dead, more importantly, makes no difference at all. Peter was married. He was allowed to be married. The qualifications for being an elder allows for elders and deacons and overseers to be married, there was no prohibition on marriage, so whether he got married before or after he was a follower of Jesus makes no difference. He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.
“That’s not an assumption you can support.”
Why not?
“Omission is not provable that something didn’t happen.”
Where does scripture say that she was alive? Scripture doesn’t even give her name.
“If it were all the critics that say the gospel accounts of Jesus are unreliable”
And they would be wrong because they do differ on some of the details, but they are all substantially the same.
“Your kind of assumption is the same kind of assumption that those that say the wedding at Cana was Jesus’ wedding because there’s no mention of the groom.”
Quite the contrary, they do mention the host. Look, I appreciate you saying this, but you really do need to reread the account. Jesus was a guest at the wedding. Scripture does in fact refer to the host, who was not Christ.
“why would Mary bother him about the wine if it wasn’t his wedding?”
Because she knows what Jesus is capable of. What’s your explanation for why we hear of Peter’s mother-in-law, and yet his wife is not there to attend to her mother?
“Also, using your logic, there’s no mention of Mary after the Gospels.”
Gee, do you sola scriptura folks even read your bibles?
“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.”
Acts 1:12-4.
If you are going to bash Mary, it would help if you actually get your facts right.
“You can’t assume Peter’s wife is dead.”
Why not? Is there any evidence in scripture that she is alive?
“who’s to say Peter didn’t get married after dropping his net and following Jesus?”
Do we have any evidence that any of the Apostles were married after they followed Christ? No. There’s no evidence for it in scripture.
“The lack of evidence allows us to assume that it was, just as well as the lack of evidence allows you to assume Peter’s wife is dead.”
Just as the lack of evidence allows you to assume that she was alive.
“And the fact that she is dead, more importantly, makes no difference at all. Peter was married. He was allowed to be married. The qualifications for being an elder allows for elders and deacons and overseers to be married,”
Yes, this is very true.
“there was no prohibition on marriage”
There is a difference between saying that it is permissible for bishops and priests to be married when they are ordained, then to say that those who are ordained are permitted to marry.
“He still could have married her after becoming an apostle of Jesus. Not at all the celibacy requirement that the RCC has in place today.”
Is there any evidence of your contention that the Apostles were married after their ministries? I’ve heard this assertion before and the evidence just isn’t there.