Did Jesus sin from the cross?

[VociMike]

According to the Protestant assertion that Mary had other sons, He did. For at His mother’s time of greatest loss and need, and at His (alleged) brothers’ time of greatest loss and need, He tore apart His mother’s family and sent her to live for the rest of her days (“from that hour on”) with an unrelated man. To tear one’s mother away from her surviving family, especially at a time of such loss and pain, is a grevious act of dishonoring. Thus I cannot escape the conclusion that the Protestant belief requires that Jesus sinned from the cross.

But of course, that cannot be.

 

[thistle]

According to the Protestant assertion that Mary had other sons, He did. For at His mother’s time of greatest loss and need, and at His (alleged) brothers’ time of greatest loss and need, He tore apart His mother’s family and sent her to live for the rest of her days (“from that hour on”) with an unrelated man. To tear one’s mother away from her surviving family, especially at a time of such loss and pain, is a grevious act of dishonoring. Thus I cannot escape the conclusion that the Protestant belief requires that Jesus sinned from the cross.

But of course, that cannot be.

That’s all based on the false premise that Mary had other children. She didn’t!

 

[VociMike]

That’s all based on the false premise that Mary had other children. She didn’t!

But I would like Protestants to tell me how, if she did, that Jesus did not sin when He forced her out of their homes and sent her to live with John.

 

[Fidelia]

They probably haven’t put two and two together like you have.

According to the Protestant assertion that Mary had other sons, He did. For at His mother’s time of greatest loss and need, and at His (alleged) brothers’ time of greatest loss and need, He tore apart His mother’s family and sent her to live for the rest of her days (“from that hour on”) with an unrelated man. To tear one’s mother away from her surviving family, especially at a time of such loss and pain, is a grevious act of dishonoring. Thus I cannot escape the conclusion that the Protestant belief requires that Jesus sinned from the cross.

But of course, that cannot be.

Sounds logical. Because Mary’s eprpetual virginity is logical.
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

According to the Protestant assertion that Mary had other sons, He did. For at His mother’s time of greatest loss and need, and at His (alleged) brothers’ time of greatest loss and need, He tore apart His mother’s family and sent her to live for the rest of her days (“from that hour on”) with an unrelated man. To tear one’s mother away from her surviving family, especially at a time of such loss and pain, is a grevious act of dishonoring. Thus I cannot escape the conclusion that the Protestant belief requires that Jesus sinned from the cross.

But of course, that cannot be.

It’s also based on the false idea that God is capable of doing evil. For this to work they are denying the Divinity of Jesus

 

[Chipper]

But I would like Protestants to tell me how, if she did, that Jesus did not sin when He forced her out of their homes and sent her to live with John.

Why are you expecting a protestor to give a veiwpoint based on history, history of cultures, logic and reasoning?

I really think your gonna get some weird answers, like that incident in the bible where his mother/brothers and sisters reffered to him as insane. At least that was an answer I once received when I suggested this theme to a small group of protestors.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

God cannot sin…period.

Iowa Mike

 

[VociMike]

It’s also based on the false idea that God is capable of doing evil. For this to work they are denying the Divinity of Jesus

Quite right. For to separate any mother from her children, especially in time of loss and pain, and permanently, is a great evil.

 

[water]

Do majority of Protestants believe that the Virgin Mary had many sons?

 

[VociMike]

Why are you expecting a protestor to give a veiwpoint based on history, history of cultures, logic and reasoning?

Because I’m eternally optimistic?

I really think your gonna get some weird answers, like that incident in the bible where his mother/brothers and sisters reffered to him as insane. At least that was an answer I once received when I suggested this theme to a small group of protestors.

Yes, I could see them suggesting this. But why would Jesus bother to separate his disbelieving mother from her disbelieving children? And then there’s always that problematic fact that any sons who thought that Jesus was insane would never let their insane brother send their mother off to live with an unrelated man! Nor would a mother who thought her son was insane have left her other children on his orders!

 

[Chipper]

Because I’m eternally optimistic?

Praise the Lord!

 

[sandusky]

VociMike:

According to the Protestant assertion that Mary had other sons, He did. For at His mother’s time of greatest loss and need, and at His (alleged) brothers’ time of greatest loss and need, He tore apart His mother’s family and sent her to live for the rest of her days (“from that hour on”) with an unrelated man. To tear one’s mother away from her surviving family, especially at a time of such loss and pain, is a grevious act of dishonoring. Thus I cannot escape the conclusion that the Protestant belief requires that Jesus sinned from the cross…

But I would like Protestants to tell me how, if she did, that Jesus did not sin when He forced her out of their homes and sent her to live with John.

Matthew 10:34-37

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.According to your assertion, Jesus sinned when He said that.

How do you explain why, if Mary had other children, that Jesus’ mother, and his brothers, and his sisters should be excluded from that pronouncement?

 

[BeeSweet]

Matthew 10:34-37

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.According to your assertion, Jesus sinned when He said that.

How do you explain why, if Mary had other children, that Jesus’ mother, and his brothers, and his sisters should be excluded from that pronouncement?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So you are saying that Jesus was telling us that He came to separate His blood family from His and their mother because of their personal sin of ‘disbelief’ in Him, it appears. . .by committing sin Himself.

In itself isn’t it somewhat astonishing that there is absolutely no acceptance by Christians for there being “blood siblings” of Christ until the Protestants somehow found that “brother” means “biological brother” yet “He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood abides in me” is ‘only symbolic’–when for 1500 years prior it had been absolutely the other way around in that ‘brothers’ of Christ were understood to be symbolic and/or not biological, yet “He who eats my flesh” was understood to be totally literal???

 

[sandusky]

Tantum Ergo:

So you are saying that Jesus was telling us that He came to separate His blood family from His and their mother because of their personal sin of ‘disbelief’ in Him, it appears. . .by committing sin Himself.

Not at all; Jesus cannot sin, and it is HIS statement that He came to separate blood families; that is not my assertion, but His assertion.

My question is, why should He exclude His mother, brothers, and sisters from His purpose of separating families; if indeed he did have siblings?
Tantum Ergo:

In itself isn’t it somewhat astonishing that there is absolutely no acceptance by Christians for there being “blood siblings” of Christ until the Protestants somehow found that “brother” means “biological brother” yet “He who eats my flesh and drinks My blood abides in me” is ‘only symbolic’–when for 1500 years prior it had been absolutely the other way around in that ‘brothers’ of Christ were understood to be symbolic and/or not biological, yet “He who eats my flesh” was understood to be totally literal???

You are changing the subject, and from that response I take it that you can answer neither Mike’s question, nor mine.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Not at all. I’m putting the statement into context.

You see, in order to assert that Jesus’ statements about ‘setting families against each other’ also relate to His own particular family, you are assuming the Protestant position that He had ‘biological siblings’ through Mary.

And that position was not ever a Christian position until the Protestants came in–and not even from the start if you read Luther and Calvin, both of whom believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The whole proposition you give is therefore based on an erroneous assumption that Christ had biological siblings.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You see, Sandusky, the premise from the OP is that by the claiming of certain Protestant groups that Mary was **not **a perpetual virgin (a teaching which itself is bolstered neither by Scripture nor tradition, both of which clearly indicate that she was a perpetual virgin), the known actions of Christ on the cross in “giving Mary to the care of John” would have been considered sinful because to Jews, the responsibility of care for a widow lay with her family, not an outsider.

Your attempt to claim that this would not be sin based on Jesus’ words in Matthew that He ‘came to put enmity between father-son etc.’ don’t obviate that sin, though. IOW, you’re attempting it appears to state that because Jesus said He came to bring division (which in itself is taken out of context and ignores the other Scriptural teachings on unity and the Body of Christ), somehow that ‘trumps’ the known sin that it would have been to separate Mary from her children (even if those children sinned). And that just doesn’t fly. Jesus doesn’t have one set of rules for Himself and a different set for everybody else.

 

[BeeSweet]

Matthew 10:34-37

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.According to your assertion, Jesus sinned when He said that.

How do you explain why, if Mary had other children, that Jesus’ mother, and his brothers, and his sisters should be excluded from that pronouncement?

The scripture passage you’re citing is not really applicable to the OP’s quandry. In this particular passage Christ was telling us our love for Him would cause division between ourselves and even our closest relationships. The OP is asking if Christ would have sent his grieving mother to live with a stranger had she children of her own to care for her in her sorrow. Christ didn’t say to his mother, “Woman, behold your son, you’ll go live with him if you love me.”

Protestant scripture interpretation often misses the forest for the trees.

 

[VociMike]

Matthew 10:34-37

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.According to your assertion, Jesus sinned when He said that.

How do you explain why, if Mary had other children, that Jesus’ mother, and his brothers, and his sisters should be excluded from that pronouncement?

Start another thread then, about how Jesus hated His parents and His brothers and sisters. That should be great fun. My question is quite specific, please don’t derail this thread by falsely equating setting mother against children with tearing mother from children.

BTW, does your church teach that all mothers should leave their children and go live with unrelated men as a way of following Jesus?

I didn’t think so…

 

[sandusky]

Tantum Ergo:

IOW, you’re attempting it appears to state that because Jesus said He came to bring division (which in itself is taken out of context and ignores the other Scriptural teachings on unity and the Body of Christ), somehow that ‘trumps’ the known sin that it would have been to separate Mary from her children (even if those children sinned).

Will you please cite from God’s word where the known sin of entrusting the care of one’s widowed mother to someone other than a blood relative is articulated?

I am not interested in what Jewish cultural tradition might say, but God’s Word.James 1:27

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.Tantum Ergo, in light of that passage, how is it that you assert that by entrusting the care of Mary to John, that Jesus would be committing “a known sin?”

Is Jesus sinning by directing John to go beyond the command to merely visit widows? Is John sinning by going beyond God’s command to merely visit widows? Please explain your thinking on that.