The term “mother in law” is not a legal term, it’s a descriptive one. Your point about “the law” being voided at death is irrelevant. Insert “wife’s mother” in there instead of mother in law. It’s perfectly reasonable to do so, as there isn’t any distinction in the Greek. Look it up in Strong’s, it’s G3994.
Yes Icool is right I erred when I implied they were at the mother in law’s (excuse me, wife’s mother’s) house when she was ill. They were at St. Peter’s house. That only bolsters what I’m saying though, and that is if his wife was alive she would have been the one to wait on them at her own house.
Sure it’s true it’s possible she, along with any other women there were simply not recorded in Scripture, as the passage was about St. Peter’s MIL and her miraculous cure.
But you guys (Protestants/anti-Catholic Christians) are always the ones telling us Catholics, “Don’t go beyond what’s written! Don’t add to Scripture!”
So fine. I’m not adding anything to Scripture. I’m just saying you can’t prove St. Peter had a (living) wife at the time he met Jesus, using Scripture alone.
If anything, this little exercise should demonstrate exactly the mental deficiency of the doctrine “sola scriptura” (as it’s actually practiced not the formal definition thereof)
Thanks for the suggestion; but I think I'll leave the inserting to Rome and Salt Lake City.
We Prots are so EASILY fooled!