I suppose that you see what you want to see. Protestants are not Jewish nor Catholic. Protestants are under no obligation to accept their teachings uncritically. Disagreeing with a position is not bias against the people holding the position. If you wish to assign motives to people and take on the victim status, have at it.
The Jewish laws and customs of caring for parents are, and were, observed.
You have not shown that Jesus was obligated to turn over care of Mary to His brothers rather than to a close friend. The fact that Jesus honored His mother and made provisions for her is more important than if He followed some rabbinical guidelines (which you haven't shown existed anyway nor shown to be binding on the actions of Jesus).
1 Timothy 5 makes the point that the Church shouldn't have to take care of a widow if the family can. Mary wasn't a "widow indeed" or "truly a widow" (depending on the translation) because she had been provided for by her son when He assigned her care to John. Presumably, Mary was not going to become dependent on the Church because of the care of John.
More conjecture that does not pass a credible threshold with respect to the scriptures, Jewish law, and Catholic tradition.
I agree that is conjecture because Scripture doesn't say why Jesus did what He did. However, it doesn't conflict with any Scripture passage and provides a plausible explanation. The Catholic position creates far more difficulties in reconciling to Scripture. If you're going to be intellectually honest about this, the Catholic position is pure conjecture as well.
I will note for the record you bring up a good point. As the liberal left uses the same tactics of labeling people racist and sexist for even addressing the specious arguments of the left. Good point.
Yet there can be systematic, pervasive bias in certain communities that shapes the perceptions and interpretations of scripture and people. The Jewish laws and customs of caring for parents are, and were, observed.
You have not shown that Jesus was obligated to turn over care of Mary to His brothers rather than to a close friend.
Of course I have; even Paul testifies thus.
The fact that Jesus honored His mother and made provisions for her is more important than if He followed some rabbinical guidelines (which you haven't shown existed anyway nor shown to be binding on the actions of Jesus).
I have and I do. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty three, Protestant verses one to three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
1 Timothy 5 makes the point that the Church shouldn't have to take care of a widow if the family can. Mary wasn't a "widow indeed" or "truly a widow" (depending on the translation) because she had been provided for by her son when He assigned her care to John. Presumably, Mary was not going to become dependent on the Church because of the care of John.
You seem to entirely miss the point. The Apostle, thoroughly steeped in Torah, now binds the Jews and Gentiles in the holy catholic apostolic church in laws to care for their families or become infidels. Did you imagine this was a Moslem word ? That the Apostle made such a strong law argues it came straight from the righteousness of Torah and every righteous Jew knew this to be correct; the Gentiles, however, needed instruction in righteousness that they had not obtained from their mothers', as had Timothy from his ema and Savta (Jewish mother and grandmother).