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.”
The answer will not be found in your religion, or your logic...
The answer will be found in the scriptures...
Joh 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
This is speaking of Jesus' brothers here...They did not believe He was the Messiah...So of course, Jesus sent His Mother to His favorite apostle, John rather than to His unbelieving brothers...
Obviously Jesus' brothers were saved 'after' the Resurrection...Jesus made a special appearance to His brother James, and likely the others as well...
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And we don't know one way or another, but Mary may have moved in with one of her Christian sons after they were saved...
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
BROTHER...Brother is Brother...
Luk 1:36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren.
COUSIN...Cousin is Cousin...Cousin is not Brother...
Col 4:10 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you: and Mark, the cousin german of Barnabas, touching whom you have received commandments. If he come unto you, receive him.
Someone else's Cousin...Not, Brother...
There's no way around it...
Psa 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.
And as you can see, it is prophesied in the OT in the Hebrew language that Jesus would have brothers and sisters...
There is nothing to dispute...
First, the Aramaic language seems to have a word for cousin. I base that on this web site: http://www.peshitta.org/lexicon/
I looked up the Aramaic word for cousin. It had one, and it differed from the word for brother.
Also, the NT was written in Greek. It sometimes transliterates Aramaic words, but if the Holy Spirit was truly guiding the writer, then the Holy Spirit could have led him to use the Greek word for cousin as well...at least ONCE! Think of all the confusion this would have relieved!
I find it a bit odd that Catholics read so much into just the participle in Luke 1.28, yet ignore words when looking at other verses.
I guess I don’t understand why Jesus needed the inaccurate title ‘firstborn’ to show his greatness, but John did not. Also, it seems a bit foolish for the Holy Spirit to lead a man to use a word that has an obvious, well accepted and yet - according to Catholics - inaccurate word to describe Jesus. If the rest of Matthew’s account doesn’t convince someone that Jesus is the Messiah, I doubt the inaccurate use of ‘firstborn’ in chapter 1 will sway them!
Jerome wrote nearly 400 years later, and admitted he was looking for a way to reconcile Mary’s lifelong virginity with Scripture. If you wish a fuller discussion, you might try this: http://books.google.com/books?id=cgQQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR3&lr=&as_brr=0&output=html
Jerome’s theory contradicts other church fathers closer to the events - although they use stepbrothers.