DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS?

The Gospels repeatedly reveal about Jesus' brothers and sisters, where some appear with their names and those of their parents.

Some of them, probably sons of Joseph, from a previous marriage; therefore, stepchildren. In all images, even the most ancient Byzantine icons, Joseph is invariably portrayed as an older adult, while Mary is always depicted as a young woman.

Suppose Joseph was a widower and brought his children to marriage with Mary. In that case, it is understandable why none of them became a disciple of Jesus. None of them accompanied the death of the Nazarene, perhaps because the fame of Jesus must have made these sons of Joseph, who disappear into obscurity, jealous.

If Jesus' brothers had been Mary's children, it is difficult to understand why, when he died, he would have placed his mother in the care of his disciple, John. Wouldn't these supposed children have been interested in their mother?

The arbitrary claim of certain theologians, anxious to save Joseph's virginity, cannot be taken seriously. The sacred books are not interested in virginity – so much so that among the Jews, fatherhood and motherhood eclipsed virginity.

Jesus' virginal conception, prophesied by Isaiah, and referred to by Matthew and Luke, has nothing to do with sexphobia, which is a chronological error manifested centuries later. The real reason for Jesus' virginal conception is to motivate the beginning of the new humanity, which the Genesis of Moses announced. Through material fertilization, the new humanity could not appear in the same way as ordinary human creatures. Man, “the image and likeness of God”, must have a genuinely human origin, as was that of Jesus, the “Son of Man”.

This hominal conception, by vital induction, is the process through which a body can transmit energy to another body without material contact, naturally implies the preservation of virginity, which is not an end in itself, but only a concomitant phenomenon of origin of the new humanity.

Luke, the Greek medical scholar, insinuates in his Gospel this kind of conception.

This immaterial and genuinely hominal conception of the body of Jesus has nothing to do with a mythological intervention, of the “holy spirit” if by this word we mean a supposed divine person.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke identify the genealogy of Jesus with that of Joseph, and consider Joseph to be the real, though not material, father, nor do they reduce Joseph to a supposed adoptive or legal father of Jesus.

In Genesis, the triple curse that the Elohim cast on the serpent, woman, and man supposes that true humanity could and should reach this genuinely human conception through a long ascending evolution. However, this ascending evolution has not yet become generalized through the intervention of the serpent, a symbol of human intelligence, contrary to the spirit of God.

However, Genesis gives hope that more advanced humanity will “crush the serpent's head” and open the path for humanity made in the image and likeness of God.

And then “the kingdom of God will be proclaimed on the face of the earth.” And did not Jesus consider himself the usher of this new humanity and this kingdom of God, since almost all of his parables revolve around the central focus of the “kingdom of God”?

Given this, it is only logical that a future woman would be the mother of someone who crushes the serpent's head!

And did not Jesus say of himself: “I have conquered the world?” but of his disciples and other men he said, “The prince of this world, which is the power of darkness, hath power over you.” He sharply distinguishes between two humanities: Adamic humanity, still subject to darkness's power, and the new Christlike humanity, which conquered the power of darkness.