“As you said, it would be very odd for Christ to give Mary to John to take care of had He had other brothers. He would have been breaking Jewish law.”
It is also very odd if Mary had step-sons who could take care of her. If a woman had no sons, her step sons should take care of her.
“In that day, “brothers” was used for cousins too.”
Yes, and even today we can use ‘brothers’ to speak of associates with no family relations. However, there WERE words for cousin, and they were commonly used. And nowhere in Scripture are they referred to as cousins. They were also always, while she lived, associated with Mary.
“The term “firstborn” was a title of honor given to your first child, whether or not you had more.”
Not exactly. When Luke wrote of John the Baptist, he didn’t call him ‘firstborn’. I’m not saying it is wrong, just that it wasn’t used by Luke when describing John.
“In Mt 13:55-56 four men are names as brothers of the Lord. However, at least two of them, James and Joseph, were the sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas.”
What it says is, “55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And are not all his sisters with us?”
The idea that James and Joseph were the sons of “Mary the wife of Cleophas” was first proposed by Jerome, and his ‘proof’ is a bit underwhelming. It certainly is not provable from Scripture.
And at the Temple, it was Jesus who was extraordinary.
That’s exactly my point, Mr. Rogers. Mary had no sons or stepsons to take care of her. She had no other children. Christ, who loved her, gave her to the disciple He loved most to take care of her. He found the best person He could for her so she wouldn’t be alone.
In the Aramaic language of Jesus’ time, there was no word for cousin. Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. When they related the good news of Christ to others, they used Aramaic. Everyone knew what they meant when they said “brothers.”
I’m not sure what your point is about John the Baptist. Jesus is the Firstborn, and labeled as such, to show that He is the fulfillment of the Scriptures about the Messiah. John did not need to be a Firstborn to be the great prophet he was and to fulfill Scripture.
In Mt 13:55-56 the Aramaic speaking relatives of Jesus are speaking of Him. They cite Mary of Nazareth as His mother and His 4 male cousins as His “brothers” because they have no word for cousins in Aramaic. All male and female cousins at the time were called brothers and sisters.
Jerome’s proof that the “brothers” were the sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas, while you may find it underwhelming, is more proof than you’ve got that they weren’t. Jerome was quite the scholar and he was examining the historical record in an era much closer to Jesus’ time than we are. I’ll take his word for it. He is a saint, after all.
I’m not sure what your point about Jesus at the Temple is. Of course, Christ was extraordinary. But there is no mention of siblings in the passage. Indeed the tone of the passage is that the trio of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were very much alone. Only Mary and Joseph went to look for Him. No one else is mentioned. Again, you are straining too hard to make the Scriptures mean what you’d like them to mean. The Gospels go to great lengths to mention all the people who were distressed at one time or another by their love for Jesus: Peter, the Apostles, Mary and Joseph, Mary Magdalene- they were all distressed at times by Christ’s actions; yet Jesus is missing and lost and no mention is made of distressed siblings. Just parents.
I will be signing off this thread now. But I do have a final point. This thread has been an interesting and courteous discussion, for the most part. I try to follow 1 Pet 3:15 in defending the faith: “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to do it with gentleness and respect.” And if you need more Scriptural evidence for that approach, check out Phil 1:15-16 which reads, “Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel.”