Jesus A Sinner If...

[John81]

I came across some Catholics and Jews arguing that if Jesus had brothers then He sinned in giving His mother into the care of someone outside the family. They claim no Jew would commit such a dishonor, which they say would be a sin violating the 4th commandment.

[MountainChristian]

There is no scripture where his brother Jude was at the foot of the cross. Wasn't John the only disciple with the guts to stay with Jesus after the trials started?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I came across some Catholics and Jews arguing that if Jesus had brothers then He sinned in giving His mother into the care of someone outside the family. They claim no Jew would commit such a dishonor, which they say would be a sin violating the 4th commandment.

point 'em to the story of how Hannah gave up Samuel to the care of Eli.

[No Nicolaitans]

I came across some Catholics and Jews arguing that if Jesus had brothers then He sinned in giving His mother into the care of someone outside the family. They claim no Jew would commit such a dishonor, which they say would be a sin violating the 4th commandment.

 

That's a violation of the sabbath day? 

 

Sorry Bro. John, but I couldn't resist...

 

So it's a dishonor to ensure that your parent is taken care of?

 

Hmmm...I think the key words here are "they claim no Jew would commit such a dishonor".  Uhmmm...weren't the 10 commandments given...TO THE JEWS? Weren't they given to show them that they were/are sinners? Are these Jews that you speak of claiming that they keep the law...without sin?

 

Their own Old Testament is chock full of Jews who did some pretty dishonorable things in spite of having the law.

 

Sounds like they're just a group of people grasping at "let's bring down Jesus Christ" straws...

 

...or...

 

...just like the Pharisees did in teaching for doctrine the commandments of men...and subverting God's word with traditions.  I can't find anything IN GOD'S WORD that forbids such a practice.  Are they getting this from Rabbinical teachings?

[John81]

Hannah dedicating Samuel to the Lord was not an uncommon practice.

 

Their argument is that if Jesus had brothers, the eldest of His brothers would have naturally been the one who would have cared for His mother. For Jesus to place His mother in the care of an outsider, violating the natural order of the Jews at that time, would have been seen as wrong, and even a sin.

 

Yes, it's a matter of "they claim", but it's a matter that bears addressing.

 

It's been many years, but I've heard this line of argument before and haven't heard a response that at least causes them to think over the matter, if not accept the truth.

[DaveW]

Jesus did indeed break many traditions of men - but did no sin.

[No Nicolaitans]

That's just it John...there's nothing in the Bible forbidding this (as far as I know). If I'm wrong on that, I'll gladly and humbly admit it.

 

It's just like when Jesus was condemned about his disciples eating without the ceremonial washing of their hands first.  They saw this as sin, but it wasn't.  The disciples had violated a tradition...not God.

 

They are arguing for tradition...not the word of God.

 

Since I'm unaware of any portion of scripture that says that it's a sin to hand over the responsibility of caring for a parent to someone else, all I can do is look at the commandment itself...

 

Exodus 20:12

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

 

There it is in all of its power and simplicity...Honour thy father and thy mother:

 

That's exactly what Christ did; he honored his mother by ensuring that she would be taken care of.  

 

They are adding to the word of God with their customs and traditions.

[John81]

I appreciate the input. Hopefully everyone realizes I don't hold to their unbiblical views, but was only searching to see if anyone had something to put forth I've not already considered.

 

For the most part, those who espouse such things are not interested in truth, just pushing their viewpoints on others. When one points out Scripture speaks of Jesus' brothers and sisters, they always claim that's a wrong translation/interpretation of the original Greek, which they say actually means cousins.

[No Nicolaitans]

Oh no...I understood what you were saying, and I didn't think you held those views.

 

As far as the brothers and sisters meaning "cousins", I have no clue where they're getting that from, unless they are using a Westcott/Hort Greek translation.  I don't know what those Greek words say, but I can show what the Textus Receptus says...

 

Matthew 13:55-56

55   Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56   And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

 

brethren -

ἀδελφός adelphos (ad-el-fos') n.

1. a brother

2. (of faith) a brother in our Lord, Jesus

 

sisters - 

ἀδελφή adelphe (ad-el-fay') n.

1. a sister

2. (of faith) a sister in our Lord, Jesus

 

Nothing in either one means cousin.

[No Nicolaitans]

Or...if I really want to get technical...

 

Matthew 13:55-56

55   ουχ ουτος εστιν ο του τεκτονος υιος; ουχι η μητηρ αυτου λεγεται μαριαμ και οι αδελφοι αυτου ιακωβος και ιωσης και σιμων και ιουδας;

56   και αι αδελφαι αυτου ουχι πασαι προς ημας εισι; ποθεν ουν τουτω ταυτα παντα;

 

[JerryNumbers]

One thing we know for sure is that Jesus did no sin.

 

1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

 

So when He did that there was no sin, & anyone saying it was is 100% wrong.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

I think the point the Catholics are trying to make is that Jesus wouldn't sin (being God) and therefore had to choose someone other than a younger sibling to fulfill the responsibility because he had no siblings (Mary ever Virgin and all that rot).

 

Speaking of the Queen of Heaven heresy, I brought out tonight that the wise men (when they came into the house and saw the young child and Mary -- no stable, manger or infant to be seen) worshiped HIM not them nor Him through her!!

[JerryNumbers]

I think the point the Catholics are trying to make is that Jesus wouldn't sin (being God) and therefore had to choose someone other than a younger sibling to fulfill the responsibility because he had no siblings (Mary ever Virgin and all that rot).

 

Speaking of the Queen of Heaven heresy, I brought out tonight that the wise men (when they came into the house and saw the young child and Mary -- no stable, manger or infant to be seen) worshiped HIM not them nor Him through her!!

 

Remember, the RCC teaches Jesus had no brothers, that is no half brothers. That Mary had only one child & it was Jesus. They claim if Mary had more children than Jesus them Mary would not be sinless. And they're attempting to try & prove Mary had only one child. Which we know is wrong for the Bible teaches she had other children after the birth of Jesus.

 

This is an attack on true Bible teachings.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Remember, the RCC teaches Jesus had no brothers, that is no half brothers. That Mary had only one child & it was Jesus. They claim if Mary had more children than Jesus them Mary would not be sinless. And they're attempting to try & prove Mary had only one child. Which we know is wrong for the Bible teaches she had other children after the birth of Jesus.

 

This is an attack on true Bible teachings.

That's what I just said

[Ukulelemike]

Of course, the RCC ignores the fact that Mary, after the birth, went to the temple and gave a sin offering of two turtle doves. They would say, she did it out of obedience to the law, to show her sinlessness. Yet we never see Jesus offer a sin sacrifice at any time, yet the Bible specifically mentions Mary doing it-one of the ONLY people in the gospels actually mentioned, by name, to have given a sin offering. I wonder, why her, if she was supposedly without sin?