No, it doesn't. It tells us that Jesus did not think them able to care for Mary, their mother. They could have been too young, too rash, too unbelieving. His brothers probably were miles away from the crucifixion. They came to belief late.
This was a traditional one where parents, grandparents etc. lived together and it was the duty of the FAMILY to take care of their widows etc.
Mary was a widow. Jesus Christ was her Son
If the eldest son dies, then the next older son has the responsibility to take care of the mother. If no sons then the next older daughter
But you do not now in Semitic societies nor especially then in Semitic societies give the responsibility to your friend if you have any other blood siblings
That is so against whatever a traditional Jew would have done, it is unthinkable for Christ, a true Jew to have done that.
Whether they were "rash or unbelieving" doesn't matter, they still have their responsibility and the eldest son can't "skip over" them.
They could not have been "too young" because Jesus was 33 and the coming of age was 13, so are you saying Jesus had teenage siblings?
You do realise that your line of thinking ultimately leads to the same false dichtomy as Dan Brown?
If an eldest son dies, the other children HAD to take care of their widowed mother -- check out even traditional societies like India today -- the same thing.
The Eldest Son takes care of the mother, then the next eldest son, etc. then the daughters -- in order. To bypass this is not something Jesus would do. Ergo, he had no other brothers or sister by Mary.
In a traditional society like that of Israel 2000 years ago, like the Semitic world today, the eldest son does not give the custody of the widowed mother to a stranger if there are younger brothers or sisters.
That is not done
Stop looking at things through the prism of today and see how a different culture in a different time did things
John Calvin (Sermon on Matthew)
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."Now that's one thing I can agree with Calvin about....
Even Spanish is a relatively simplified language, compared to the Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew -- English for instance does not have cases such as Gentive, Nominative, Dative, Locative, Instrumental, Vocative or Accusative and does not have gender assigned to inanimate objects
brother has shades of meaning because Aramaic and other Semitic languages do not differentiate between a blood brother/sister and a cousin or other
For example
The NT was written in Greek, ok -- not all, but let's take your argument for the sake of argument. Remember also that the words of Jesus were mostly Aramaic or Hebrew or maybe even GReek -- we've already shown that in SEmitic languages like Aramaic/hebrew there is no differntiating term between a blood brother and a cousin, let's examine the GReek ouch outos estin o tekton o uios Marias adelphos de Iakobou Iose kai Iouda kai Simonos
If the term is that the adelphoi have the same mother then it would be ho adelphos But that is not used. Without the article adelphos is non-specific and non-exclusive and can mean kinsmen, relatives
1. Have you read Matthew? You don't see the part where Jesus gives Simeon a different name -- Petros/Kepha/Piotr/Pierre? And don't you know that Petros/Kepha/Pierre means ROCK? Simeon was his original name and is from Hebrew שִׁמְעוֹן Šimʻôn, meaning "he [God] has heard." Yet in
Matthew 16:18And I tell you that you are Kepha/Petros/Petra/Rock/Peter,[c] and on this kepha/petra/rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven
Now the arguments about Petra vs Petros
Petra means rock and is feminine in origin --> for someone like you, quix who may know only English, it's difficult to understand languages that give gender to inanimate objects
But they do -- all Indo-European languages except English DO have this Genders for inanimate objects
the gospel writer translting to Greek from Aramaic/hebrew can't call Simeon a girl's name "Petra" so he uses the masculine version of that name "Petros".
Jesus never called Peter “Petros,” or “Petra.” He called him Cephas, a name also used by Paul. Koine Greek, throughout the Old Testament Greek, always uses “Petra” for rock; when he translated “Cephas” into Greek, however, Matthew chose “Petros,” the male form of the word.
“Petros” is not a diminuitive of “Petra,” and occurs as such in no Christian writing.
To make petra into a man's proper name, you have to switch it to a masculine declension, so it becomes "Petros". Jesus could not have named Simon "Petra" if he'd wanted to, so the argument that there's some significance in him not naming him "Petra" is evidence of not understanding how languages use gender for inanimate objects