How do Catholics reconcile their belief in the "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" with the fact that Jesus canonically had siblings (Matthew 12:46-50, 13:55-56; Mark 3:31, 6:3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12, 7:3; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5)?
>>16802851Joseph is a widower with 4 children. Hence why he did not give a shit about MaryTheir "marriage" was arranged by their parents.
>>16802851No Protestant would ever use such an image, meaning the person who keeps spamming these anti-catholic threads is falseflagging and also likely from the tiny hat tribe. I will definitely keep this in mind when I see similar threads in the future.
>>16802864Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Joseph was a widower. That's complete Catholic headcanon
>>16802851They can't. And that's why Catholics burn in Hell when the die. Poor schmucks.
>>16802873Nah, Catholicism has no official stance on it.The source for it comes from Greek Orthodoxy which cited it from the Apocrypha text, Protoevangelium of James specificallyTake note that Apocryphas are not Gnostic gospels. Gnostics mean it is fanfiction - its theology often contradicts the canon. Apocryphas just means that they were not divinely inspiredThey still uphold the same theological doctrine and dogma as the Canon gospels but they just weren't written by people who personally met Jesus or his disciples. Supplementary information if you will
>>16803083The only difference between apocrypha and canon is the headcanon of whatever sect you talk to
>>16803116Canon means it was written by the people who were there in person.The Apocryphas are for the second generation. Literally "I heard it from him". The writings of the early Church fathers may qualify as oneThey aren't "reliable" but they aren't in conflict with the canon so no one can really call it wrong.
>>16803131None of the New Testament was written by those who were "there in person." The earliest copies of the New Testament we have are from the 2nd century, after all. They were written by second-third hand sources at best. You seem not to know much about Biblical history.
>>16803134Original authors, dumbass.
>>16803141The original authors weren't actually there to witness Jesus personally. The earliest copies of the New Testament gospels were written decades after the crucifixion.
>>16803149Are veterans who wrote about the war decades after the peace treaty "weren't actually there to witness it"
>>16803153Study the origins of Christianity. You clearly don't understand how the books of the Bible actually came about in the first place. You know when they say "the Gospel of [x]" it wasn't actually written by the Apostle in question, right?
>>16803159Yes, they were written by the people within the communities that the apostles founded and the apostles are there to supervise it allJohn 1-3 most likely hired a very fluent scribe but John 4 may have been written by him personally due to the difference in writing style and fluency
>>16803165Nope. Blatantly anti-historical take.
>>16803131>Canon means it was written by the people who were there in person.My dude, the gospel of Luke literally opens with>Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence[...]
>>16802877>they die and fry
