Burial Box of St. James (A Catholic Perspective)

This Ark theory was put out by one of the RC apologists, can't recall his name. It is laughable what this guy comes up with.

It is actually "offical" heresy.You hear it in the litany . Most Catholics say it like parrots..they have no clue what the ark is or where it was..blessed ignorance

I am taking an OT survey at a Bible school. I took some internet stuff on this in when we did Exodus and Leviticus the students are from all different backrounds..all serious bible students. They were appaled and LOL'd The dean was there and after reading it shook his head and said he had just wasted several minutes

It makes her a godess...

Why is it so hard to image that Joseph and Mary had a marriage beyond the birth of Christ? That they had children? That Jesus had a brother.

We agree..my point was my salvation does not depend on Marys sex life..it is a non fatal belief ..It is only fatal if it makes you take your eyes OFF Jesus

It is important to Catholics because so much of their doctrine rests on it..pull out the foundation stone and the whole house of cards colapses..

She is a "co redeemer "to them..if she was a wife and mother the mystic suprahuman element disappears

Loved your interesting post on the Tabernacle! You've obviously spent much time studying it.

<> I was just joking. I should have included a smile icon:)<>

3. The James Ossuary VERIFIES AND SUPPORTS exactly what the Bible already says. Jesus had four brothers -- James, Joses, Jude and Simon -- and that they were sons of Joseph and Mary. This is not a discovery of some new teaching, heretofore unknown. The reason the Ossuary is so exciting is because it verifies SCRIPTURE (For you Catholics, "Scripture" is just a big word meaning "The Bible")

Still engaging in your strongest character trait Berned, lying. Time for you to begin attending your Liars Anonymous meetings again. See what happens when you get lazy. The Bible says no such thing as you claim, simpleton. Zebedee and Salome begot James and John, Cleophas(Alphaeus) and Mary(the other Mary of Matthew 27:56,61, 28:1, John 19:25) begot James(the less), Jo'ses and Jude, The Holy Spirit and the Blessed Virgin Mary begot Jesus Christ. Simon was a Canaanite, Mark 3:18 and was related to neither Joseph or the Blessed Virgin Mary. Keep looking for answers in that edited, abridged, corrupted version you use of the original book produced by the Catholic Church in 405 AD.

Your particular judgment will be interesting.

Having just read the "gospel of Mary" said to be written by Matthew one question comes to the forefront..It says(chapter 6 vs 6) an aged Joseph had a dove land on his rod so he knew he was to marry Mary..he then returned to his home in Bethelem to prepare a house for her...ummmmmmmmm very strange that he must have lived in a stable

It is this kind of non inspired stuff from which the church draws its Mary doctrine

It is actually "offical" heresy.You hear it in the litany . Most Catholics say it like parrots

Your diatribe is wearying, Mom! But then again, why should I not be surprised. Charity is works based, and you calvinists don't buy any of that! Dominus Vobiscum!

That was from a Study site..I have studied the Tabernacle alot as it is an amazing sign of the plan of God..but I am also a very slow typer:>)

Do you think most Catholics know what the ark of the covenant is? Where it was kept and how it was made? I will ask 20 of my RC friends and family .(non movement folks,just your regular RC's)

Now my husband is a Eucharist minister..my guess is he has no clue.I will ask him tonight..

Truth IS love when an eternity depends on it

Well, Smedley, why don't you post the verses you claim to read from that says Alphaeus was the father of "James Joses Jude and Simon". The verses you catholics keep lying about -- (Mat 13:55, Mark 6:3, etc) are references to Joseph and ex-virgin Mary's children, and the Bible clearly states so: Here, I'll post the whole verses:

Mat 13:55: 54He returned to Nazareth, his hometown. When he taught there in the synagogue, everyone was astonished and said, "Where does he get his wisdom and his miracles?55He's just a carpenter's son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers--James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.56All his sisters live right here among us. What makes him so great?"

Mark 6 3: 3He's just the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us." They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him.4Then Jesus told them, "A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family."

In fact, Alphaeus's sons were James and LEVI (MATTHEW)!!

Mark 2:13 Then Jesus went out to the lakeshore again and taught the crowds that gathered around him. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at his tax-collection booth. "Come, be my disciple," Jesus said to him. So Levi got up and followed him.

Notice that there is NO MENTION of a son named "Levi" in the "Jesus's family" verses.

Lazy lazy lazy, Smedley.

my guess is he has no clue.I will ask him tonight..

My guess is that for every nominal Catholic there is a nominal Protestant. So what! I was pointing out that your way of exhorting someone to the truth often falls short of the Christian way. You don't call someone a 'parrot'. Nor implicate they are ignorant.

St. Paul said to Timothy,

Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels. A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth, and that they may return to their senses out of the devil's snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will.

                      BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF JESUS (Fr. William Most)

         (this is a revision of a previous article of same name)

Mt. 13.55 and Mk 6.3 name the following as brothers of Jesus: James, Joseph (Joses - the manuscripts vary on the spelling), Simon and Judas.

But Mt 27.56 says at the cross were Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Mark 15,40 says Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses was there.

So, although the proof is not conclusive, it seems that--unless we suppose these were others with the same names, that the first two, James and Joseph (Joses) had a mother other than the Mother of Jesus.

Therefore the term brother was used for those who were not sons of Mary the Mother of Jesus. So the same easily could be the case with the other two, Simon and Judas. Further if Mary had other natural sons and daughters too at the time of the
cross, it would be strange for Jesus to ask John to take care of her. Especially, James the "brother of the Lord" was alive in 49 AD (Gal 1:19). He should have taken care of her.

Lot, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Gen 11.27-31) is called his brother in Gen 13.8 and 14.14-16.

The Hebrew and Aramaic "ah" was used for various types of relations: Cf. Michael Sokoloff, "A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" (Bar Ilan University Press, Ramat-Gan, Israel, 1990, p. 45.) Hebrew had no word for cousin.They could say "ben-dod" which means son of a paternal uncle, but for other kinds of cousins they would need a complex phrase, such as "the son of the brother of his mother" or, "the son of the sister of his mother". For complex Aramaic expressions see Sokoloff, p. 111 and 139.

Objection 1: We should not consider the Hebrew--Greek did have a word for cousin and other kinds of relatives also, and the Gospels do not use the other specific words for the relatives of Jesus. They use only Greek "adelphos," which means a real brother.

Reply 1: The Septuagint (the old Greek translation of the Hebrew OT-- abbreviated LXX) uses Greek "adelphos," brother, for Lot - who as mentioned above, was really a nephew.

Furthermore, the writers of the Gospels and Epistles often had Hebrew words in mind when they wrote Greek words. This is specially true with St. Paul. And, as we shall see presently, there is strong evidence that St. Luke at some points was translating Hebrew documents - two kinds of Hebrew - with meticulous care.

The LXX for Mal 1:2-3 has this: "I have loved Jacob and hated Esau." St. Paul in Rom 9:13 quotes it the same way in Greek. Yet the LXX translators knew both Hebrew and Greek and so did Paul, yet they used a very odd, even potentially misleading Hebrew expression. How did it happen? Hebrew and Aramaic lacked the degrees of comparison (such as: good, better, best; clear, clearer, clearest) and so they had to find other way to express such ideas. Where we would say: "I love one more, the other less", the Hebrew said "I love the one and hate the other." In Luke 14:26 Our Lord tells us that we must hate our parents." Again,it means to love them less than one loves Christ. Similarly,in 1 Cor 1:17 Paul says: "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach"--yet Paul had just said he did baptize some. He really means, in the Hebrew way of speaking: My more important mission was to preach, less important was to baptize.

St. Paul in 1 Thes 4:5 speaks of the gentiles "who do not know God". He uses "know" in the sense of Hebrew "yada," a broader word, to know and to love. In fact quite a few times we must think of what Hebrew word was in Paul's mind to fully understand his Greek words.

All scholars admit that St. Luke's Gospel has more Semitisms than the books written by Semites (even though Luke was not a Semite himself, but a Greek Physician). Why? It had been thought that Luke did this to imitate the style of the LXX but a study I made (In my article, "Did St.Luke Imitate the Septuagint?" published in the international "Journal for Study of the New Testament" (July 1982, pp. 30-41 from the University of Sheffield, England) showed statistically that Luke did not try to imitate the Septuagint. I made a study of a very strange Semitism in Luke, the apodotic "kai," which reflects Hebrew apodotic "wau." Here is an example from Luke 5:1: "And it happened--when the crowds pressed on Him to hear the word of God--and He stood by the Lake. The underlined and would be in place in Hebrew- but not in Greek, not even in Aramaic. By actual count, St.Luke uses it only about 20 to 25% of the times he would use it if he were imitating the Septuagint. Clearly that was not his reason for using it. So why did he do it at all? In his opening lines, St. Luke says he took great care, spoke to eye-witnesses, and read written accounts about Jesus. Now written accounts could have been in Greek (a few Jews grew up speaking Greek), Hebrew, or Aramaic. So it is possible that St. Luke had used written accounts in those languages. Greek on Greek would not show, of course, but if he used Hebrew documents part of the time, and if he translated them with meticulous care - so extreme that he would bring a Hebrew structure into Greek, where it did not belong - then we could explain what he did. The odd stricture was not normal in Aramaic either, so we gather that St.Luke seems to have used,at some points, not at all points, Hebrew documents, and that he translated them with extreme care. Luke knew how to write fine Greek - yet he did this, Why? It was his extreme care to be faithful to the original texts he used.--So again, we need to know the underlying Hebrew to understand (of course in this item, English translations just skip the and--it appears only if we read St. Luke in Greek).

There is an important word in Romans 5:19 which speaks of the many as becoming sinful--original sin. Of course, St.Paul really means all. Yet the Greek he uses is "polloi." In normal Greek it always means just many, not all. But if we know the Hebrew in Paul's mind it clears up. There was a strange word "rabbim" which is first known in Isaiah 53, the prophecy of the passion. By context there we see it is clear that it means all, yet it also means many - to be more exact, it means the all who are many.If I were in a room with 3 others,I could say all, but could not say many. Now if we use a Greek concordance to find every place in St.Paul where "polloi" is used as a noun,it always,without exception, means all, as we gather from context, such as that of Rom. 5:19. Hence we really need to go back to the Hebrew to understand Paul's Greek here.

Again, St. Paul often uses the Greek "dikaiosyne" not in the narrow usual Greek sense, but in the broad sense of Hebrew "sedaqah."

There are many other times in the NT where we must consider the underlying Hebrew in order to get the right sense of the Greek.We have given only samples, but they should be enough to show how the NT writers worked, and the need to avoid stopping with the Greek and insisting that we should ignore the underlying Hebrew, as those do who point out that Greek had words for cousins and other relatives, even though Hebrew did not.

Objection 2: J.P. Meier, in "A Marginal Jew" (Doubleday, 1991, pp. 325-26) says that "The New Testament is not translation Greek",and says it would be a "wooden" translation to follow the Hebrew usage on brother.

Reply 2: Many scholars do think part or all of the Gospels were translation Greek. The evidence cited above in "Journal for Study of the New Testament" seems to show that.

Further we have just given extensive evidence to show that regardless of whether or not the writers were translating,they often used Greek words in such a way that to understand them we must look to the underlying Hebrew. This is specially true of Paul in spite of Meier's claim that Paul was not translating and that he knew "James the brother of the Lord" in person.

Meier also (326-27) asserts that Josephus, a Jew writing in Greek does at times use the special word for cousin, yet he does use brother for the "brothers of Jesus."--We reply that we grant Josephus does this. But, did Josephus have direct information on the real nature of the "brothers" of Jesus. Not very likely. Meier does not even mention this point.

Objection 3: Meier argues, p. 323, that if we want to say "ah" could mean cousin, then we should read Mt 12:50 thus: "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my male cousin, my female cousin, and my mother." Similarly, on p. 357 he says that Mk 3:35 should read "not even his cousins believed in him."

Reply 3: Meier seems to be deliberately obtuse here. If "ah" had the broad meaning, we should keep it in translation,not narrowing it to cousin - it would include cousin,but not be limited to it.

Objection 4,on Mt 1.25: Protestants like to point to two words here, "until" and "firstborn".

Until: Most ancient words have a broad span of possible meanings. Sometimes the word for until leaves room for a change after the time point indicated. However not nearly always. In Dt. 34:6 Moses was buried, "and to this day no one knows where the grave is." That was true in the day of the writer of Dt- it is still true even today. In Psalm 110:1,as interpreted by Jesus Himself (Mt.22-42-46), "The Lord said to my [David's] Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'" Of course, Jesus was not to stop being at the right hand of the Father at any point. So the word until here does not mean a change of status. Psalm 72:7, a messianic Psalm, says that in his days "peace will abound until the moon is no more." Again, the power of the Messiah is not to stop when the moon no longer gives its light (Mt.24:29). In 2 Samuel 6:23 that David's wife Michal had no son until the day of her death." Of course,she did not have one after that! In Mt. 11:23 Our Lord says that if the miracles done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom, "it would have lasted until the present day." Had it lasted, Jesus did not intend to destroy it in His time. In Mt 28:20 Jesus promised to be with His Church, His followers until the end of the world - nor would He desert them in eternity. In Romans 8:22 St. Paul says that all creation groans, waiting for there revelation of the sons of God until Paul's day. Nor did it stop then, that will continue until the restoration at the end. In 1 Timothy 4:13 the Apostle tells Timothy to devote himself to reading, exhortation and teaching "until I come." He did not mean Timothy should stop such things when Paul did come.--and there are more, but these should be more than enough to show that not always does until in OT and NT, mean a change of things is to come at the point referred to.

Even J.P. Meier,who works so strenuously to try to show that most probably Jesus had real siblings,admits that the arguments from "until" proves nothing (In CBQ Jan. 1992, pp. 9-11).

firstborn: Jesus is called that in Luke 2:& (and also in Mt 1:25 if we take the Vulgate addition to the Greek). This reflects Hebrew "bekor" which chiefly expressed the privileged position of the firstborn among other children. It need not imply there were actually others. We can see this from a Greek tomb inscription at Tel el Yaoudieh (cf."Biblica" 11, 1930 369-90) for a mother who died in childbirth: "In the pain of delivering my firstborn child, destiny brought me to the end of life." For another epitaph of the same sort, from Leontopolis, see "Biblical Archaeology Review," Sept/Oct, 1992, p. 56.

Objection 5:.Some early Christian writers think the brothers were true siblings.

Reply: Meier, who so diligently collects all data against virginity after the birth of Jesus, mentions only four: (1) Hegesippus, in the second century. Yet Meier admits on p. 329: "...the testimony is not without its problems and possible self-contradictions"; (2) Tertullian--yet Meier admits that it was his "fierce opposition to [the] docetic view of Christ's humanity' that caused him to say this. In fact, Tertullian even, in the same vein, argued that the body of Jesus was ugly (On the Flesh of Christ 9)! He was a real extremist, as shown by the fact that even the Montanists were not severe enough in morality - he formed his own subsect; (3) Meier also suggests that two passages of St.Irenaeus might imply a denial of virginity--in one Irenaeus works out in detail the parallel between Adam and Christ, for the sake of his favorite "recapitulation" theology; in the other, Irenaeus develops the New Eve theme.--It is hard to see any hint of a denial of virginity in these passages. Even Meier admits the texts are not probative; (4) Helvidius in the 4th century.--But these few texts are little compared to the extensive Patristic support of perpetual virginity. Cf. "Marian Studies," VIII, 1956, pp. 47-93. In his summary of conclusions, pp. 331-32, Meier does not even mention these early writers.

Objection 6: Meier, p. 331, says we have the criterion of multiple attestation", namely, Paul, Mark, John, Josephus and perhaps Luke speak of the brothers of Jesus.

Reply 6: He is begging the question.He has not proved that any of them mean true sibling by brother. Meier adds that the natural sense of brother is sibling--but we have shown in reply 2 above that it need not be so. He also says that there is no clear case in the NT where brother means anything but true brother or half-brother. Again he is begging the question: he has not shown that even one of the texts has to mean sibling.

Conclusion: Meier himself admits, on p. 331, that "all of these arguments even when taken together cannot produce absolute certitude. "WE add: In Mk 3:20-21 his relatives go out to get Him-younger brothers would not have done it in that culture - and He was the firstborn. -And at age 12 in Temple,if there were younger brothers, they would have been along - women did not have to go. So she would have stayed home with the younger ones.

So we can see that there are no solid evidences in Scripture that Our Lady had other children. We have just answered all claims. But the decisive reason is the teaching of the Church. The most ancient creeds all call her "aei-parthenos" = "Ever-virgin".

Meier seems to have an axe to grind. In his long CBQ article, 1992, pp. 1- 28, he says on the last page that we must ask whether the hierarchy of truths should not let us accept Protestants into the Catholic Church without asking them to believe in Our Lady's perpetual virginity. There is a hierarchy of truths, in that some are more basic than others. But this does not at all mean we can countenance denial of even one doctrine taught repeatedly by the Ordinary Magisterium and the most ancient Creeds - and
therefore infallible. Really,if some Protestants seemed to enter the Church, but did not accept the teaching authority, they would not be really Catholics, even if they accepted all but one of our teachings. That authority if really accepted leads them to accept all, not all minus one.

Even Meier,so inclined to deny perpetual virginity,admits (pp. 340-41) that there is a strong rabbinic tradition that Moses, after his first contact with God, refrained from knowing his wife. This first appears in Philo, is taken up the the rabbis. Therefore, if Moses with only an external contact with God did that way, what of Our Lady who was filled with the divine presence at the conception of Jesus, and caried divinity itself within her for nine months?

Actually, Luther himself and Calvin, as Meier admits on p. 319 of his book, accepted Our Lady's perpetual virginity. Why then does Meier argue so strongly against it?

Really, Protestants should not, if they were logical, appeal to Scripture at all for anything - for they have no means whatsoever of determining which books are inspired. Luther thought that if a book preached justification by faith strongly, it was inspired, otherwise not. But sadly, he never proved that was the standard--he, or I could write such a book, and it would not be inspired. And many books of Scripture do not even mention justification by faith. Also sadly: Luther did not know what St. Paul meant by the word faith - on that Cf. the standard Protestant reference work, "Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible," Supplement, p. 333.

My guess is that for every nominal Catholic there is a nominal Protestant. So what! I was pointing out that your way of exhorting someone to the truth often falls short of the Christian way. You don't call someone a 'parrot'. Nor implicate they are ignorant.

There are MANY nominal UNSAVED, UNREGERATE protestants that have no more use for the word of God than most Catholics..They will be burning in hell unless they repent and Believe. NO ONE is saved by a church

That being delt with I will note the difference..Scripturally ignorant Catholics are mouthing the heresy put in their mouth by Rome . They have NO understanding that they are mocking God when they call Mary the Ark of the Covenant.." my people perish for lack of knowledge"

Next time you read Paul you may want to read a bit of Titus

Tts 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

You have no say in who is saved and who is not.

The LXX for Mal 1:2-3 has this: "I have loved Jacob and hated Esau." St. Paul in Rom 9:13 quotes it the same way in Greek. Yet the LXX translators knew both Hebrew and Greek and so did Paul, yet they used a very odd, even potentially misleading Hebrew expression. How did it happen? Hebrew and Aramaic lacked the degrees of comparison (such as: good, better, best; clear, clearer, clearest) and so they had to find other way to express such ideas. Where we would say: "I love one more, the other less", the Hebrew said "I love the one and hate the other." In Luke 14:26 Our Lord tells us that we must hate our parents." Again,it means to love them less than one loves Christ. Similarly,in 1 Cor 1:17 Paul says: "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach"--yet Paul had just said he did baptize some. He really means, in the Hebrew way of speaking: My more important mission was to preach, less important was to baptize.

There is certainly words of comparison in Hebrew as we find in this passage

Gen 29:30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.

If God had intened to indicate that , it is what He would have said

No, actually God did hate Esau, He was an enemy of God

Hebrew

Mal 1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Hated

08130 sane' {saw-nay'} a primitive root; TWOT - 2272; v

AV - hate 136, enemies 3, enemy 2, foes 1, hateful 1, misc 3; 146
1) to hate, be hateful
1a) (Qal) to hate
1a1) of man
1a2) of God
1a3) hater, one hating, enemy (participle) (subst)
1b) (Niphal) to be hated
1c) (Piel) hater (participle)
1c1) of persons, nations, God, wisdom3404 miseo {mis-eh'-o}

The Greek was faithful to the intent of Gods words, as Greek also can show a distinction in levels of love

Note the words of Jesus Here

Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

from a primary misos (hatred); TDNT - 4:683,597; v

AV - hate 41, hateful 1; 42

1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest
2) to be hated, detested

You have no say in who is saved and who is not.

Just telling ya what the word of God says..BTW the church does not save ya..

"Did you intend to come across as obtuse or was it an accident? "

Now there is a word that you don't often hear outside of math class and conversations coming from the English Lit. sitting section of Barnes and Noble.

I'll bet you could lock yourself in a room with a simple bowl of Alphabet soup and humor yourself for hours...;)

by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Very familiar passage!

Yes, Mom, I remember the Lord saying something about being born again of water and the spirit. Baptism! Oh, but you don't believe in sacramental effecaciousness. And please, stop judging people to hell. If there is one-one-millionth of a chance that you are wrong you nonetheless judge, and with that measure you will be measured. (and maybe found wanting)

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Rom 6:3

And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. Acts 8:36-38

Baptism in water? Efficacious? Yes!!

"Mary was a virgin and was therefore not bound by the law. She obeyed the practice out of humility, just as Jesus was baptized out of humility."

The question was not on her purification or the offering of the first born.

The question was on her being without sin.(Luke 2:24, Lev 5:7)

de Liguori doesn't touch on this, only the purification.

Why do you people always answer with someone elses thoughts?
Do you have a secret website? www.catholic.rent-a-reply .com

If you believe that the baptism of Jesus was an act of humility, as de Liguori does, you have a bigger problem than this Marian heresy.

". Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. "

Again, Paul is stating that they should fast from sexual relations and concentrate on prayer. He in no way is talking about a lifetime of celibacy.

"Note also that Paul " wish[es] that all men were as I am." Certainly this casts consecrated virginity in a positive light, especially considering the fact that at the time of Mary's consecration she was a Jew."

You seem to imply that Paul was a virgin. It is my understanding that Paul was part of the Sanhedrin. It is also my understanding that to be a member one had to be married.

In either case Paul is not talking about a lifetime of virginity. He is stating that it is much easier to serve the Lord when you don't have the burdens of providing for your family.

Notice that in the verse you gave me as a reference Paul is also addressing widows.Usually widows are not virgins.

"Church tradition has always held that Joseph was much older than Mary at their marriage"

Assumption

"Scripture seems to indicate that Joseph died before Jesus public ministry thus giving credibility to this tradition"

Assumtion two used to verify assumption one.

"Another ancient tradition is that Joseph had children by a previous marriage and would therefore be more willing to accept marriage to a consecrated virgin. "

Assumption three of this paragraph. If Joseph had children from a previuos marriage, as your tradition states, why didn't they tend to Mary after the death of Jesus?

This is all i'm going to respond on this. This is an absurd stretch of Scripture.
I've seen you respond in other threads and made your point. You're way off the mark on this one. It isn't worth debating. Your starting from a false premise to make your case.