Replies

a. Where were these younger children when our Lord was left at the Temple?

b. It would have been unheard of in Jewish tradition for a younger sibling to question their oldest brother (read Genesis 27:29-40).

c. Why did He need to entrust His mother to John? Jewish custom was that the next oldest son would care for her.

You're hand waving. And you're using really ludicrous methods of doing so.

a. What did Mary and Joseph have to eat for lunch that day? Does the fact that no one was mentioned as performing excretory functions mean that back in that day no one took a dump? Where were the other kids? Uh, with the rest of the relatives? Why weren't they mentioned then as opposed to later many times in both gospel and epistles? They weren't relevant to the story.

b. And it would have been unheard of for Jewish people to set aside God's laws about caring for their parents by setting up their own rules to make God's rules of none effect. Oh, wait, according to Jesus, they did. And it was probably more unheard of then for someone to use a plural pronoun with a singular noun.

c. Um, let's see. He did do that. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters or that Mary had had no other children. It could have meant that at the crucifixion Jesus's brothers had not yet accepted his position as Messiah (they were described earlier as not being believers) and weren't present with his mother as John was but were hiding out like other disciples out of fear.

Your exceptions are studies in misdirection and irrelevancy.