And He is first in everything as a Man. He is Man the way God created man. We are not.
Adopted is not the same as being of the same blood. We are His step-brothers.
No one can be a true brother to Christ. You, of course, are free to believe otherwise. But that's not what Christianity believed all along.
Even if the ridiculous Protestant notion hat Mary did have children after Christ were true, they would have been only human, with one nature and one will, and therefore essentially different from Him. Christ is Unique. He was not firstborn in the human sense, because He was not "made" but rather He took on human nature and became Man; the first and the last; the only.
There is none like Him. There can be none like Him. No man can be His true brother. That much should be obvious to every Christian. Believing anything other than that is indeed something docetists & al would believe, a heresy.
As regards your comments on "Woman behold your son" all I can say there are laws. The laws prevented a woman to go wherever she pleased. Her true sons would have legal rights to their Mother. Besides, following your thinking, all apostles, save for +John, were worthless cowards when they scattered and pretended they didn't know their Lord.
Do you for a moment think that Jesus loved +John more than His own blood "brothers?" God is nor partial. Do you think His blood "brothers" would not have loved their own Mother? You don't think they would have raised legal issues with +John taking custody of their Mother? And do you think the Jewish and Roman authorities would have listened to +John's argument that His Lord, who had been condemned to death as a common criminal, told him to behold His Mother while dying on the Cross? That would really carry a "lot" of legal weight, Blogger.
The text mentioned did not mention Logos, or WORD. It just said he was the firstborn. This was my point.
As far as John goes, Jesus can do whatever he would like, agree? Nothing says it was a legal pronouncement.
And as far as Mary's other biological children- of course they are going to be half-brothers. Jesus was fully human though. He was also fully divine. So, his nature was different since He was God manifested in the flesh.
And the "notion" isn't "ridiculous". It's based on an understanding of the plain meaning of the text. Mary's perpetual virginity was a doctrine that came AFTER the canon was complete.
Do you for a moment think that Jesus loved +John more than His own blood "brothers?" God is nor partial. Do you think His blood "brothers" would not have loved their own Mother? You don't think they would have raised legal issues with +John taking custody of their Mother? And do you think the Jewish and Roman authorities would have listened to +John's argument that His Lord, who had been condemned to death as a common criminal, told him to behold His Mother while dying on the Cross? That would really carry a "lot" of legal weight, Blogger.
Obviously (for whatever reason), ... it never came to that.
BTW ... I don't think that any other hypothetical sons of Mary would have a "right" to her ... as much as a "responsibility" for her.
Jesus, at the cross (where His brethren most likely were not) ... took care of providing for Mary's care ... by placing her with John.
Taking into account that Jesus' brethren were not believers at this point; ... while Mary and John were, ... and of the sharp divide in the Jewish community that belief on Jesus caused, ... it is not at all unfathomable that the two groups (believers and unbelievers) ... would choose to go their own way.