Not very charitable ericc.I answered you squarely and genuinely. Your good point has been addressed. As you think i overlook sanctity of where God has been (eg Mary’s womb), you might overlook the depth of sin, in unbelief( of the brethren), and the sanctity of true "brotherhood’ and "sisterhood’ in the spirit (deep fellowship of believers).
I was asking why the alleged bro/sis of Jesus did not observe their customs and your answer is that Jesus did not observe customs either.
Well, did He always observe them ? Did he ever criticize custom? Was he ever criticized for going against custom? You don’t have to address this if you don’t want.
Those guys were not given any leeway, were they?
Leeway ? You mean forced obedience ? What happened to free will ? The prodigal son was Jewish. Have you had kids ? Are they automatically in your faith also ? Adam and Eve were perfect for a spell, yet where did Cain come from ? It is a reality that indeed some kids obey and that some do not.
Of course if these kids were all dysfunctional/lunatics it could explain why they did not do what they are supposed to do.
Are you or I a lunatic when we disobey ? Have we ever missed the boat on something important cause of lunacy ? Is this your debating tactic so often used -hyperbole ? No, but perhaps you are very zealous in your belief and that’s OK, but… Furthermore scripture does say the "brethren did not believe "before Calvary. It is your assumption that they would not have taken care of the body or of Mary. That others stepped in proves nothing. That Jesus assigned Mary before anyone else could do anything does not mean the “brethren” would not have taken care of Mary. It was the Lord’s call as we see it.
So far you have listed (a) these were bad kids (b) Jesus ignored customs and these kids followed.
Wow, I said that ? Sorry you misunderstood. The Lord did not tempt his brethren to evil, nor give them a bad example in anything. All I said was they did not believe, and that Jesus was critical of some customs. He NEVER abrogated the true spirit behind of any custom. The reason why Jewish law held family responsible for one another was because they were a peculiar people, a true, spiritual people, relative to gentiles. Provision must be made within the family, the carrier of this One, Holy, True, Patriarchal faith. And not just the family, but the tribe, the nation, to maintain the"purity" of the faith. And Now you want Jesus to give Mary’s care to “brethren” that went against that faith? So you see Jesus did not break the “law”, the custom" of caring for “family”. He carried it out to the true spirit behind the law, to the “t”. In our opinion Jesus would have gone against the intent of the law had he given Mary over to such brethren…But thank you for challenging me even more to put forth our views more clearly.
Which means there is insufficient conclusive support. True for one and not true for others. Therefore, shouldn’t those anti-PV drop it and just admit insufficient grounds to come to a conclusion rather than keep on harping about it.
Well, that is your opinion that it is true for one. If in a weak moment I say ambiguous, it is out of respect that each must be full convinced on his own, and I really see the the opposing arguments as strong and understand them, though disagree and not strong enough to deny us a reciprocal attitude.
Yep, your respect for God in the Third Person is truly amazing. God has taken abode in Mary’s womb and you think after God has left the womb it returns to normal everyday routine.
Good point. Still it assumes any further use would “desecrate” or be not sanctified. It is like David using his skill to kill Goliath, to be mightily used of God, and dropping the sword that cut of Goliath’s head and say, “Wow ,what a moment of experiencing God’s power. I will never do anything again with these hands and totally give them to the Lord”. We don’t know that God did not tell Mary to have other children or not. We do know it was a divine command to Jewish married woman. So as she obeyed the angel in the special request, Mary may have obeyed, and saw it fitting, to then also obey the general command to have her “quiver full”.
All I can do is encourage you to read more of the OT Exodus/Leviticus and see how the Israelis treat holy ground, consecrated items, Ark of the Covenant etc. Definitely a flippant attitude is not proper.
Totally understand your point. It was an awesome happening, especially in hindsight. Yet Mary, and I assume Joseph, had to ponder many things. I would not assume she understood the total import as she did after Pentecost or days thereafter. I understand Joseph’s possible trepidation of touching Mary afterwards, but he was told to take her as wife .We have no mention of him being told not to touch her afterwards. Notice in OT God himself declares what is holy ground and what is not. God also left ways of access (take off your shoes, or thru high priests and once a year etc.) Plus that is what is awesome about the incarnation. His holiness came to touch us, to break down that separation, to make himself approachable and touchable. It was totally possible for Joseph to touch Mary in a holy sanctified way, especially if God gave him the green light,or in lack of any red light. But I get your point. It would be natural to be in awe and stay away from Mary, but nothing was natural here, and only in holy obedience would anything be done (as it should for all of us)…Blessings also.
Okay.