Why are the "children" of Mary never called the sons and daughters of the Virgin Mary in the bible?
Oh, help! Would you believe (no, you probably wouldn't) because after she and Joseph had sex and she conceived and bore those other children, she was no longer a virgin? She was a virgin until after the birth of Christ. There are a number of mentions in the Bible regarding her being the mother of others as well as the implication that she had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born. She was the virgin mother of Christ. Sex is a beautiful thing in marriage. She was married to Joseph truly and had children with him. There was no honor or glory in her remaining virgin after Jesus was born! Rather there would have been disgrace, for she would have not been a good wife to Joseph. I am quite sure she was a good wife!
Why is it that the Bible portrays the Holy Family as consisting of three persons: Jesus, Mary and Joseph?
Could you please show me any reference at all in the Bible which calls these three a "Holy Family"? Jesus was holy. His father and mother were normal -- as believers they would be becoming holy, but not be there from the start as Jesus was.
only Jesus, Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt
What, you want them to adopt others when she has just had her firstborn?
only these three return a while later
Yup. They were only there a short time if you check when Herod died.
only these three go up to Jerusalem when Jesus is twelve
Oh? Here is the passage: Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to custom. After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind.....
Actually, it does not even state they took Jesus with them! We only find that out when we find out he stayed behind! It says absolutely nothing about only Jesus being with them. The point of the story here is not how many were in the family, but what one particular member of the family did and what He said. Don't read into it more than is there.
only these three alone are mentioned after that event
Since the passage concerns only that they looked for Jesus and what He said and their reaction, why should more people be added to the scene. Would you feel better, or be more convinced if there were mention here of Mary juggling a child in her arms and a toddler at her side or something? You will also notice that it says His parents did not understand what He said. A pretty good indication of them both simply being normal people in a somewhat abnormal situation!
None of these episodes in Jesus' childhood mention the birth or existence any brothers or sisters.
Good gravy! We only have two incidents in His childhood mentioned! One was before there were any siblings and the other is the incident at the Temple which concerned only Him! We know NOTHING else about his childhood and youth except that he must have lived there in Nazareth for the people knew Him and His family -- including His brothers and sisters!
Again, in the account of the Wedding Feast at Cana, we read that Mary was present and that Jesus and His disciples were also invited (John 2:1-2). Yet no mention is made of His "brethren" being present, or even being invited, though they come into the picture again in vs. 12, after the feast ends.
I don't know if they were invited or not, or if they attended or not! There is no guest list in the Bible. But yes, you are right, His brothers are mentioned in verse 12 after the wedding. You might consider that Jesus was escorting His mother, as Joseph is not mentioned here, and that is something we WOULD expect had he still been alive. Was Jesus invited as an escort to Mary? That would be the place of the oldest son in that sort of circumstance. The fact that His disciples were also invited is interesting and may indicate that the bride's or groom's family had started paying attention to Jesus.
But yes, His brothers are mentioned in verse 12, as distinct from His disciples, aren't they?
If these "brethren" were also Mary's children, it seems odd that just one of her sons would be invited to the wedding with His followers, while absolutely none of the rest of her children were invited!
Actually, it doesn't say they weren't invited, does it? It doesn't say anything about them. Again, don't read more into this than is there.
Yet if He were an only child, and his "brethren" were actually more distant relatives, this would make more sense.
Not really. Weddings were big celebrations and even distant relatives, if they lived in the vicinity, would have been invited to the feast!
Finally, while on the Cross, Jesus gave Mary into the care of John, telling them to regard one another as mother and son (Jn 19:26-27).
He trusted John. John was also older than Jesus' siblings and may have had more stability financially. But he was not as old as Joseph of Arimathea, who was probably Mary's brother and Jesus' uncle! Jesus, in other words, made a wise choice.
Christ would not have done this unless she had no other sons to provide for her.
And you know this how?
Joseph and Mary were not like any other couple; the were the earthly parents of God Incarnate!
Let's alter that slightly to say they were the earthly parents of the Incarnation of God. No one is God's parent! But yes, they were certainly unique in that respect! I have no argument with that at all.
Mary was a living, sacred Tabernacle of the Lord, the Ark of the New Covenant, chosen and sanctified to bear the God man. How could Joseph even think of having sex with the sacred Ark of the New Covenant?
That's pure Catholic doctrine. It has nothing to do with what is in the Bible or what it was like in reality. Joseph was married to an attractive young lady and when her special mission in bearing Jesus was finished, they were able to live like a regular married couple. Of course he desired her!
He would have to have been a rash man to presume to penetrate and impregnate with his own seed the sacred womb which had borne God! And considering Uzzah's terrible fate when he touched the original Ark (II Samuel 6:6-7), Joseph would not have gotten very far had he tried.
You sure have been indoctrinated! My responses here are for others, actually, who need to know how to respond to some of the Catholic claims.
You are reading the bible in english not Hebrew or Greek.
I have interlinears as well as access to professionals expert in these languages.
There are no words for Cousin in Hebrew, Aramaic or even Arabic, so these "brethren" of Jesus would most likely have been his cousins.
The New Testament is in Greek. There is a word for cousin in Greek.
Jesus alone is called "the Son of Mary" (Mark 6:3),
His siblings would have been known by their father's identification. They would have properly been called James bar Joseph, Joseph bar Joseph, Simon bar Joseph and Judas bar Joseph. Only Jesus did not share their lineage with Joseph and referring to Him as son of Mary was an indication of this. It is also an indication that Joseph was dead by the time Jesus' ministry started, and thus Mary was the only parent living and He was identified with her. He is certainly identified with brothers and sisters by those titles, not titles indicating an extended family.
It is really, really sad to me that you have to refuse the plain and simple meaning of the Bible because you are a Catholic. Has it ever entered your thoughts that the reason your church tells you they must tell you what the Bible 'really' means is because they don't dare allow you to seriously consider the simple, straightforward meaning?