Taking care of Jewish widows

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dokimas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sam_777 said:
No way…, that would be considered adultery (even when there is no sex involved), read this story which has happened recently in Saudi Arabia where someone was taking care of a 75 old widow then the authority arrested all of them and lashed her.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Glad I don’t live there.

…makes me hope that the culture you are describing really has altered greatly from Jewish culture of the year 33 AD (or CE, whatever…)

this article left me asking a question, though. It doesn’t matter what those two young men were doing in Khamisa’s house. These people are seriously horrible.

If , that is, the story is factual. I will admit that I was curious. How could the author SERIOUSLY ask how the judge involved could determine that a 75 year old woman had NOT breastfed a 24 year old man as an infant?

Remember basic biology and do the math. 😉
 
I haven’t seen any historical evidence to prove what some here think about why Jesus would have had to commit His mother to a sibling if He had any.
 
Dokimas said:
I haven’t seen any historical evidence to prove what some here think about why Jesus would have had to commit His mother to a sibling if He had any.
Click to expand...
…or, just a thought…why Jesus could not have been asking John to do this in addition to any duties toward Mary that siblings would have had.

Just remembering when my daughters moved to northern Utah, where I have a fair amount of family, including aunts, uncles, cousins and sisters. I also asked a friend of mine to ‘look out’ for them, even though I knew that my sister, cousins, aunts and uncles would also do so.

Just a thought…
 
Dokimas said:
I haven’t seen any historical evidence to prove what some here think about why Jesus would have had to commit His mother to a sibling if He had any.
Click to expand...
“Have to” is a bit strong. He wouldn’t have to, however given that - as far as I’m aware - no culture in the history of humanity has ever had the custom of children giving their parents into the care of those who are not part of the family, the onus of proof seems to be the other way.

Keep in mind that James, his supposed brother, stuck around Jerusalem while John went abroad, yet Mary went with the nomadic John, and not the sedentary James.
 
jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm

This is a decent primer page on Jewish views of charity which would include providing for widows.

If one has to go Biblical in the OT it was demanded by God to provide for foreigners and the poor among the Jews I won’t post all the relevant passages but for example every seventh year they are to farm their fields and give all the crops to the needy. And they had under custom a right to glean the fields of any leavings as stated in Ruth in fact with the purposeful leaving of extra grain and an order not to harass Ruth he was being overly charitable to Ruth and her widowed stepmother under Jewish law if I have that right.

As for Jesus he did say to his disciple to take care of His mother with a clear making him her son, it would have been expected if Jesus had no brothers or none alive. Did you ever think any brothers he had died and left only daughters, in that case this man chosen could have been a son in law, Jesus just making the situation official. If an eldest sister was the one he was married to. Why not just think logically and outside your little boxes and you can rationalize why these words were said at his crucifixion.
 
Libertarian_FL said:
jewfaq.org/tzedakah.htm

This is a decent primer page on Jewish views of charity which would include providing for widows.

If one has to go Biblical in the OT it was demanded by God to provide for foreigners and the poor among the Jews I won’t post all the relevant passages but for example every seventh year they are to farm their fields and give all the crops to the needy. And they had under custom a right to glean the fields of any leavings as stated in Ruth in fact with the purposeful leaving of extra grain and an order not to harass Ruth he was being overly charitable to Ruth and her widowed stepmother under Jewish law if I have that right.

As for Jesus he did say to his disciple to take care of His mother with a clear making him her son, it would have been expected if Jesus had no brothers or none alive. Did you ever think any brothers he had died and left only daughters, in that case this man chosen could have been a son in law, Jesus just making the situation official. If an eldest sister was the one he was married to. Why not just think logically and outside your little boxes and you can rationalize why these words were said at his crucifixion.
Click to expand...
As I already pointed out, one of those named as his brother was James, who was still alive and well after his crucifixion.
 
Sam_777 said:
Remember that Isaac is Ishmael brother, not to mention the shared geographical land…😉
Click to expand...
That’s even longer ago, Sam–and if I’m not mistaken, didn’t the Jewish and Arabic/Islaamic culture split at that time? At least, that’s what the Muslims claim…that Ishmael was the preferred son? (I could be wrong about that…it’s something that sticks in my head for some reason). At any rate, if the cultures split that far back, then there are a few problems to your argument here…it would mean that your culture split away from the Hebrew one considerably before Jesus’ time.

Look at how much western culture has changed just since Jesus’ time–and you are asking us to believe that eastern culture has NOT changed in close to three or four thousand years?

???
 
People have only provided general cultural evidence that 'families take care of their own, which none here disagree with.

The above doesn’t prevent someone in Jesus’ day from entrusting his mother with a friend who owed him complete loyalty and may have had resources and family to help care for the elderly parent. We just don’t have enough details to really know 100% that Jesus did/not have siblings.
 
Todd520 said:
People have only provided general cultural evidence that 'families take care of their own, which none here disagree with.

The above doesn’t prevent someone in Jesus’ day from entrusting his mother with a friend who owed him complete loyalty and may have had resources and family to help care for the elderly parent. We just don’t have enough details to really know 100% that Jesus did/not have siblings.
Click to expand...
Except we know the life James lived, and we know the life John lived.
 
Mathew 15 and John 19:27. In mathew chapter 15 Jesus vehemently condemns the Pharisees because they had a proceedure, the Korban rule< that allowed children to avoid taking care of their parents. In the OT, children had a solemn obligation to care for their elderly parents. This is why the Pharisees’ scheme to let people shirk their responsibilitiy made Jesus so angry.
Turn to John 19:26-27 and the scene at the cross. Jesus is about to die. Apparently, Joseph had already died because he is no longer mentioned after Jesus begins him ministries. Mary is in danger of being left alone, so he entrusts her to John the Apostle, Zebedee’s son, who is not a sibling of our Lord. If Jesus had younger siblings, His behavior makes no sense. Jesus had condemned the Pharisees for dispensing people from the responsibility of caring for their parents. Why would He dispense His own siblings from this important obligation? Such inconsistency is inconceivable.
Acts 1:13-14
after the ascension, the followers of Jesus- including Mary, John the Apostle with whom Mary now lived, and the brothers of Jesus- gathered in the upper room. If these brothers of Jesus were also Mary’s sons, Mary would be praying together with her sons who were FAITHFUL followers of Jesus, and YET going home with John.
In her jewish culture, such a situation simply WOULD NOT happen.
 
maryj said:
Mathew 15 and John 19:27. In mathew chapter 15 Jesus vehemently condemns the Pharisees because they had a proceedure, the Korban rule< that allowed children to avoid taking care of their parents. In the OT, children had a solemn obligation to care for their elderly parents. This is why the Pharisees’ scheme to let people shirk their responsibilitiy made Jesus so angry.
Click to expand...
I’m not 100% certain, but didn’t most of his disciples, followers, and purpoted family desert Jesus in his time of crisis?
Ergo, he did not have family at his feet, that he could count on, to watch over Mary. He made the best choice among who was with him.
 
Todd520 said:
I’m not 100% certain, but didn’t most of his disciples, followers, and purpoted family desert Jesus in his time of crisis?
Ergo, he did not have family at his feet, that he could count on, to watch over Mary. He made the best choice among who was with him.
Click to expand...
Now that’s a stretch…and to explain Acts 1:13-14?
 
If He had siblings, wouldn’t She AUTOMATICALLY dwell amongst them? Jesus really didn’t need to say anything if there was a procedure to have followed.
 
maryj said:
Now that’s a stretch…and to explain Acts 1:13-14?
Click to expand...
Mary, don’t throw out red herrings - Acts 1:13-14 has no bearing on the time Jesus gave Mary to John

Question - was John the only disciple at the foot of the cross? If so, then it’s appropriate for Jesus to entrust his mother in her care. (His purported siblings were in hiding)
 
Todd520 said:
Mary, don’t throw out red herrings - Acts 1:13-14 has no bearing on the time Jesus gave Mary to John

Question - was John the only disciple at the foot of the cross? If so, then it’s appropriate for Jesus to entrust his mother in her care. (His purported siblings were in hiding)
Click to expand...
No bearing? If Jesus had siblings Mary would have been with those “brothers” of Jesus in the upper room…and then left with John? Still strethching…

And No John was not the only “disciple” at the foot of the cross, His mother was there and also Mary Magdalene…both disciples of our Lord.
 
maryj said:
And No John was not the only “disciple” at the foot of the cross, His mother was there and also Mary Magdalene…both disciples of our Lord.
Click to expand...
**So you agree, **John was the only MALE disciple at the foot of the cross.

At the end of his mortal existence, John was the only available male Jesus could entrust with the care of his mother.

If some of the other disciples were kin to jesus, they had deserted him at his time of need.
These other disciples were also destined to go forth and teach, not stay home and care for Mary.

Net, who Jesus entrusted with the care of Mary is not defined by whether Mary had other chidren.
 
Todd520 said:
**So you agree, **John was the only MALE disciple at the foot of the cross.

At the end of his mortal existence, John was the only available male Jesus could entrust with the care of his mother.

If some of the other disciples were kin to jesus, they had deserted him at his time of need.
These other disciples were also destined to go forth and teach, not stay home and care for Mary.

Net, who Jesus entrusted with the care of Mary is not defined by whether Mary had other chidren.
Click to expand...
Korban rule has already been stated. It didn’t happen that way. Do you pray about discernment or are you just shooting from the cuff? God Bless, come home!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top