And by the same rhetoric, shouldn't that Infinite God destroy men and created a better one? It is so easy for Him, right?
It's not God doing something for Him, but for us. It is because of His love for us that He was born from a woman and suffered and died as a man and not as God. His suffering and death redeemed us all. Why didn't God made us just and good so we wouldn't commit sin? Because He gave us a mind of our own with the freedom to choose between good and evil. God didn't create a sinless vessel, He picked a sinless woman... it wasn't a magic wand that made Mary, but it was her devotion and high morality that was the determining factor in her selection.
And why would Mary need to have other children, prone to sin, after giving birth to the Savior of the world?
Mary didn't have other children. Jesus was the ONLY one.
We know that Jesus was an only child, but some people disagree. The reason they disagree is that they deny the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, something that has always been believed by Christians.
Here's a proof that Jesus was an only child:John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, there would be no need to put His mother under the care of John. In fact, it would probably be an insult to His siblings. On the other hand, if we assume Jesus had no siblings, the way He provided for the care of His mother makes perfect sense.
More here, if you are interested.
That's how you've been told to read it. Just another "bone of contention," that removes the true purpose of His Church. That purpose is to worship Him.
"Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of Jacob (James), Jose (Joseph), and Judah (Jude) and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?"
Mark 6:3 from Codex Sinaiticus
"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Lk 1:34) is also interpreted as a vow of life-long virginity. All Mary is quoted as saying is that she was, according to Jewish custom and requirement, virgin until her marriage.
Starting with Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI, "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."
.Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4:
".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."
(JK) Hmmmm! That's funny, Eusebius seems to agree with Clement.
Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5:
"Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."
(JK) Now Hegesippus was a first generation member of the Jerusalem Assembly of Jesus’ disciples and family. He knew the folks.....how could he have gotten so confused??
Origen (185 - 254 CE), quoting early Josephus:
"These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx:
"So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
Clement:
"When James the Righteous had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon, the son of his Uncle Clopas, was appointed bishop. He being a cousin of the Lord."
Eusebius:
"A group of heretics accused the descendants of Jude...the brother, humanly speaking, of the Savior...on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ himself."
(JK) The brother, HUMANLY SPEAKING???? Now what do you suppose he meant by that??
Hegesippus:
"...and these still survived of the Lord's family, the grandsons of Jude, who was said to be His brother, humanly speaking."
Luke:
Acts 1:14 "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother (MHTHR) of Jesus and with his brothers (ADELFOI)."
(JK) The Greek usage (in parentheses) that LUKE so"incorrectly" used, just to confuse all of us, is mine.
Paul:
1 COR 9:5 "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the Brothers of the Lord? (ADELFOI TOU KYRIOU).
(JK) Ahhh! So poor old Paul falls under this delusion too, huh?
GAL 1:19 "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (IAKOBWN TON ADELFON TOU KYRIOU)
(JK) No, No Paul! Your confused again. That means, "fellow-villager" er...no..."cousin"....uh..."kinsmen" Yeah, that's it!
http://www.historian.net/jesfam.html
The reason Jesus did not give the responsibility of the care of his mother to his siblings was his estrangement of them. Instead he gave this responsibility to John, his cousin. His siblings were not even present at the crucifixion.
His own brothers attempt to get him killed in John 7:1-12. They knew the Jews were waiting for him, encouraged him to go anyway....but then left without him. He, using subterfuge, goes incognito later. Do you not actually think these are brothers. If you believe they are just followers, and not flesh and blood, you are greatly mistaken. Followers would not act this way.
Jesus was a constant thorn in their side. They call him crazy in Mark 3:20-21. He publicly rebukes them in Mark 3:31-35. The reason for all of this was "they did not believe in him".
Later on, James of course, after the resurrection becomes a leader in the early Church. [Acts 15:19] [Galatians 1:19]
Hegesippus If you can read this and not come away believing that James and Judas are flesh and blood then you should read it once more.
If that doesn't do it for you try this.
The fact that he had flesh and blood sibling flies in the face of mainstream Christianity doctrine. The doctrine is wrong.