Did Jesus sin from the cross?

[Redbandito]

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?

That’s a non-seqitur, isn’t it? How in the world does this verse make Jesus a sinner based on the previous question? One deals with Jewish law. The other is hyperbolic language intended to make the point that nobody is to be put before God.

 

[sandusky]

VociMike:

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.

Forgive me, Mike; from the phrasing of your post I understood it as a hypothetical, since you don’t believe that Mary had other children, and you don’t believe that Jesus can sin.

If you are not speaking hypothetically, will you explain to me how it is from Jn 19:27 that you come up with the interpretation that Jesus is tearing His mother away from her other children, or other blood relatives?

Also, what sin would Jesus be committing by entrusting His mother’s care to John instead of to her other children, or other blood relatives? I am not interested in any Jewish cultural tradition Jesus might be violating; but, what part of His law would Jesus be violating?

VociMike:

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…

Wait a minute, Mike.

Initially you said that Jesus is tearing His mother away from her surviving family, and now you are saying that Jesus’ mother is leaving her children and going to live with an unrelated man; which is it?

Moreover, from Jesus’ actions, it is clear that He thinks entrusting His mother’s care to an unrelated man is fitting; why do disagree with Him?

 

[Redbandito]

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?

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

Actually, you throwing this passage in means YOU are changing the subject. You never answered the question by addressing the passage, but rather shifted the discussion by attempting to prooftext something that doesn’t get close to making your point. Nice try.

 

[Redbandito]

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.

Sandusky, you know darn well that this avoids the whole point being made. The verse you cite is precisely what would be expected of the SONS OF MARY. Again, you’re throwing in a red herring. This has nothing to do with the discussion. Try to stay on topic here.

 

[sandusky]

Redbandito:

Actually, you throwing this passage in means YOU are changing the subject. You never answered the question by addressing the passage, but rather shifted the discussion by attempting to prooftext something that doesn’t get close to making your point. Nice try.

Redbandito, where in the OP is anything mentioned about the historic belief of Christians that Mary had no other children?

And where in the OP is there any mention of Jn 6?

My initial post is attempting to flesh-out the point of the OP.

Redbandito:

Sandusky, you know darn well that this avoids the whole point being made. The verse you cite is precisely what would be expected of the SONS OF MARY. Again, you’re throwing in a red herring. This has nothing to do with the discussion. Try to stay on topic here.

My queries are on topic. If you don’t like my line of thought, then stop reading the thread.

If Mike doesn’t like my line of thought, he can ask me not to participate in the thread, and I’ll stop.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

The conclusion is based on the unspoken & unprovable assumption that what we are told, is all there is to say. There might have been excellent reasons of which we are told nothing, for Jesus to speak and act as He did. The gospels are not a diary, the Evangelists were not ambulance-chasers, & Jesus is not some wretched “celeb” of whose life we know every last detail.​

So the conclusion - that Protestant exegesis logically requires Jesus to have sinned as described - does not follow.

If it did, that would in all likelihood have been noticed long ago by Protestant commentators themselves. The picture painted is very affecting - but it goes beyond anything implied by Protestant exegesis, because that picture is not required by Protestant exegesis.

It’s not required - but, it is not implausible either. Jesus does “tear people away”, so far as the text goes, on more than one occasion - so*** if*** He had done so here, that would not have been anything new: it would have been appropriate, in a way; for He called James & John away from their nets & their father; so to have called Mary away from her other sons, *would have *fitted into a pattern; it would have been symmetrical. Jesus in the gospels is a divider of homes, not a champion of domestic stability. But, there is no solid foundation for the idea that He does so here; so the most one can say is, that if He had done so in this passage, then that would have been prepared for bye His previous behaviour.

The mother of Jesus and the brother of Jesus is the person who does His Father’s Will - not the person related to Jesus by ties of blood. What Jesus says about this, implies that if he had a mother whose son He was, He must also have had brothers & sisters in exactly the same sense. If He did not, if He really was an only child, then His words on relationship to Him lose something of their meaning.

That He is not shown with siblings as a child, proves nothing - as Catholics are quick to point out when arguing against Protestants. If the argument from silence can be validly used against Sola Scriptura, it can also be used against the perpetual virginity. Certainly there are objections derivable from the NT to the notion that He had siblings - but they are no weightier than objections to the Deity of the Holy Spirit. If the latter is credible, why is the former not credible ? There are objections to both in Scripture & Tradition.

 

[VociMike]

Forgive me, Mike; from the phrasing of your post I understood it as a hypothetical, since you don’t believe that Mary had other children, and you don’t believe that Jesus can sin.

Correct.

If you are not speaking hypothetically, will you explain to me how it is from Jn 19:27 that you come up with the interpretation that Jesus is tearing His mother away from her other children, or other blood relatives?

By establishing a new relationship between Mary and John, that of mother and son, it is clear that Christ was sending Mary to live with John “from that hour on”. If Christ was not sending Mary to live with John, then it makes even less sense that she did so if she had other sons! Good grief!

Also, what sin would Jesus be committing by entrusting His mother’s care to John instead of to her other children, or other blood relatives? I am not interested in any Jewish cultural tradition Jesus might be violating; but, what part of His law would Jesus be violating?

As I said, that of breaking apart a family, His own family, especially in time of loss and grief, and for no discernable reason.

Wait a minute, Mike.

Initially you said that Jesus is tearing His mother away from her surviving family, and now you are saying that Jesus’ mother is leaving her children and going to live with an unrelated man; which is it?

Only on Christ’s words. And what I asked is why do not all Christian mothers leave their children and go to live with unrelated men? If Christ desired it of His own mother, why not all Christian mothers?

Moreover, from Jesus’ actions, it is clear that He thinks entrusting His mother’s care to an unrelated man is fitting; why do disagree with Him?

It is not fitting to tear apart one’s family. Therefore, since Christ did it, it is proof to anybody not swayed by the Protestant tradition that Mary did not have other children.

 

[VociMike]

The conclusion is based on the unspoken & unprovable assumption that what we are told, is all there is to say. There might have been excellent reasons of which we are told nothing, for Jesus to speak and act as He did. The gospels are not a diary, the Evangelists were not ambulance-chasers, & Jesus is not some wretched “celeb” of whose life we know every last detail.​

And yet God chose for this speech to be made known to the Church, and for the fact that Mary lived with John for the rest of her days to likewise be known. You suggest that there are unspoken good reasons why Christ would do something quite inexplicable and cruel. That is just pleading. Rather, the much more compelling argument is that God has recorded this fact for us precisely because it could only be possible if Mary had no other children.

There are only two possibilities regarding other sons.

1. The other sons were not believers and never became believers. In that case it is quite impossible that they would allow their “crazy” brother to send their mother off to live with an unrelated man. They would have physically prevented her, or gone to fetch her from John’s house. But that did not happen - she lived with John from that hour on. So unbelieving sons is not believable. Then there’s
2. The other sons were believers, or became believers. In this case, any possible justification goes out the window, because her sons were saved believers! What possible reason could there be to tear a believing mother away from her believing children?!

Oh, and I note with interest that Protestantism does not generally teach that believing mothers should leave the homes of their unbelieving but otherwise decent children. Why not? If that is the reason proffered for Mary going to live with John, why don’t all Christian mothers refuse to live with their unbelieving children?

 

[Marilena]

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.

err yeah… right Jesus was a righteous man, and the Son of God. He did not sin. Not even when He was dying on the cross. He lovingly gave Mary to John because there was no other family for her to be with. Thus it is a fact right there that she had no other family, no other children. had she had chidlren, they would have taken her in and Jesus would not have said what He did on the cross.

But you know that, and i know that, perhaps they need to know that. If those protestants claim they believe in Jesus then they’d know just from that statement of His that Mary had no other family except Him, and Joseph, and it Joseph was alive, he would have been there and there would be no need for Christ to make that statement.