Just curious here...let’s assume that Mary and Joseph had children after the birth of Jesus, and I understand that Jesus perhaps had as many as four half-brothers and two half-sisters, right? All of these would have been younger than Jesus. Assuming that they didn’t all die before Jesus died on the cross, why should Jesus have John take Mary into his home? Again, just curious. I guess I’d sort of assume that at least one of these six other children would have written something about his or her life growing up in the house with the Messiah. To me, this question causes me some degree of confusion because some assumptions are being made without any scriptural evidence. How does one reconcile these two seeming contradictions?
Excellent question and lots of theories, but the one I tend to give credence to is that since Jesus was the elder son, He needed to ensure Mary was cared for after His death. John was (presumably) the youngest of the Apostles and was the one that Jesus loved (John 13:23) so the lot fell to him, not to mention that Jesus' brothers were not there to witness His execution (or at least, not recorded to have been there).
Just curious here...let’s assume that Mary and Joseph had children after the birth of Jesus, and I understand that Jesus perhaps had as many as four half-brothers and two half-sisters, right? All of these would have been younger than Jesus.
Actually, the confusion originates in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages of most of the original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word existed for cousin, nephew, half-brother, or step-brother; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, "the son of the brother of my father." When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word adelphos was used to capture all of these meanings. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the Greek adelphos to signify all of these relations.
Nevertheless, other Gospel passages clarify these relationships. James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20).
All of these would have been younger than Jesus.
The Gospels are also very clear that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Mt 1:18-25, Lk 1:26-38). Remember when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary God's plan, she responded, "How can this be, since I do not know man?"
After the birth of our Lord, although the Gospels do not give us many details of His childhood, no mention is made of Mary and Joseph ever having other children. Never does it refer to the "sons of Mary" or "a son of Mary," but only the son of Mary.
Assuming that they didn’t all die before Jesus died on the cross, why should Jesus have John take Mary into his home?
Bingo! This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, "Woman, there is your son," and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, "There is your mother."
According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no "blood brother," He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.
Through critical thinking, you have just arrived at historical truth.
You may find the following article, interesting. Bad Aramaic Made Easy
Again .... Welcome to Free Republic!
For one thing, Jesus’ brothers and sisters rejected him as the Savior, the Messiah of Israel. John didn’t.
And in answer to the thought that one of Jesus’ brothers or sisters must have written something ... I would say that most likely not the sisters of Jesus. They didn’t have women’s lib in those days ... :-) ...
In regards to the brothers of Jesus, they very well might have written something, but since it wasn’t SCRIPTURE that they wrote, it probably wasn’t preserved, in the way the inerrant and infallible Scriptures were. It might have been written and lost in history like most of the other human writings of the day would have been!