Well Brooke asked the question. I’m not trying to convince you or anyone just pointing out what I found. After Jesus was in the temple at the age of 12 we heard nothing about Joseph, you would think we would have heard how he died or more about him also.
Matthew 12:46 See here Jesus was not denying his responsibility to his earthly family. He critized the religious leaders for not following the OT command to honor you parents. His mother and brothers were present in the upper room at Pentecost. Acts 1:14.
Why wouldn’t he have sibblings? History proves that it was common to have large families back then, so why would Mary and Joseph be any different. Doesn’t the bible say to be fruitful and multiply or does that not apply to Mary and Joseph.
Funny you should mention Jesus at the temple.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “
the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as
a son of Mary. Others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” As the OP mentions, t the foot of the cross, when Jesus was dying, he entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons. If they were her sons, they would have an obligation to her.
Why is Mary’s family any different than a normal Jewish family of the time? Wow, where to begin… Besides the fact that she gave birth to God, who came down from heaven? Maybe the fact that her family started just after an angel came to her and told her she would conceive by means of the Holy Spirit?
Speaking of… let me just say that it is the proposition that Mary took a lifelong vow of virginity that makes her question at the Annunciation make sense. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (Do a search for “the protoevangelium of James”) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.
Why is that? Well, Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children by having sex, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and agreeing to the angel’s request.
