@glennherron9499did you not pay attention to the video? He explains that in Hebrew tradition and culture, the word used in the verse is one that describes extended familial relationships and includes cousins, etc., and spiritual kinship as well. It is a custom that is practiced across Middle Eastern countries. So the verse you are using is not valid evidence for Jesus having siblings.
.But he knew her not UNTIL she had given birth to a son. Matthew 1:25…Joseph knew Mary. The Bible does absolutely everything to tell you that in Matthew 1:25..regardless of people trying to explain away Jesus’ brothers and sisters just to make a manmade doctrine work. Believe the Bible. Not men.
Yes, will you donate so he can quit his day job and live off everyones donations? Because he has bills to pay and he cant get this cult build up if he has to work all the time.
@@vindicatednews9169 we hope and pray the best for you. We do ask, however, that kindness and charity be used in our comments as we hope to bring a witness of Christ to the world - and fighting in the comments hurts us all (John 17)
Dont be so pius.this video brings a false witness to mary and only serves to merge "catholicism" with "orthodoxy" you are publically displaying this video and I am publically calling it out. Read Galations 2 and tell me again how I should conduct myself when heresy is brought to my attention.
Very well done, and well said! I was raised Catholic, was agnostic for a few years, had an encounter with Jesus in 1981, then was attached to primarily non-denominational churches since. It seems I am now being drawn to the Catholic/Orthodox realm, inclined more toward Orthodox. Your videos are excellent, and very helpful...
You who read this will see if it disappears meaning the uploader agreed with this and doesn't want you to read it and convert, or if it stays and he's willing to allow other opinions so that he can respond to them. In The Gospels when people tried to worship her, YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY would shut it down immediately every time. Another time YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY made it clear that the only family HE had was those who kept HIS FATHER's commandments, turning away from Mary and James to the crowd of disciples saying, "These are MY mother and my brother, those who kept THE FATHER's Commandments" If you honored Mary, you would not torment her spirit with refusing to stop kneeling to statues of her and other things she would never allow. Would you obey Mary if she said not to follow the one you call "pope"? Then do what may said to do. She told those who served her, that whatever CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY told them to do, do it! - John 2:5. That includes not calling any man on earth The Father even if you say it in latin and say the pope, CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY said to not do it so you disobey Mary's orders to you if you disobey CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY's orders and thereby you also reject THE FATHER MOST HIGH. Are you then ready to have your life exam checked knowing that THE HOLY BIBLE states that the lake of fire is permanent damnation? Remember YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY said call no man on earth father and in Catholicism every leader is called father and pope means father, direct defiance against The WORDS of YESHUA CHRIST GOD ALMIGHTY. Research that and you'll find a lot of gibberish defending that point, but no SCRIPTURES saying to call someone father. If even you admit you "fathered" them. In Catholicism high ranking leaders are also called "heavenly father" which is so defiant of CHRIST it's at the point of mocking HIM. Human self worship says I chose this so this is who I am so I will defend this which is defending myself because if this is wrong, I am wrong and I'm not wrong because I am me! You are not a Catholic, you are a human being. You are seeker of CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY, who is currently following mostly catholic teachings. If they're doing then you are damned for ever. Your soul is worth more than risking eternity in hell so you can feel good about your decision to follow Catholicism. You do not have catholic blood in your vessels, if you decided to say you don't agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches but hold 100% to The WORD of GOD, you would not vanish. If you said, I could be wrong, all that means is that you're humble and CHRIST loves that according to THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. If you watched an Andres Bisonni video Or if you said I'm not a anything, not any label, but a CHRISTian, you won't melt. You are free in CHRIST. Decrease everyone except CHRIST. CHRIST before Mary was created by HIM was called The WORD of GOD and before Abraham was HE IS, when HE appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18, where was Mary? She did not exist, so how then could she be The mother of GOD, she's the mother of HIS flesh body, but before her mother Ever was created YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY was, never had been born, never created, always existed so GOD has no mother, but his flesh body did. You are not to build statues, you are not to kneel or bow to statues, you are not to call men father, you are not to command anyone to abstain from marriage or anything else YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY commands you not to do in HIS WORD. You don't love CHRIST, THE FATHER, The HOLY GHOST nor Mary if you continue to do so or have membership of fellowship with those who do so according to THE HOLY BIBLE. If someone is caught see a pedophile and an organization keeps them as a priest then THE WORD OF GOD states not to fellowship with them but to come out from among them and Mary stated to do whatever CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY tells you to do so you have to do so or you've rejected THE FATHER SON HOLY GHOST and you've rejected Mary in place of your priests. Seeing that no priest will be able to speak for you, have you readied an excuse for why you rejected THE WORDs of YESHUA CHRIST GOD ALMIGHTY?
I've been looking into western rite orthodox looks like a good mix of orthodox and Catholic. Unfortunately I don't have a church near me but might be something for you to look into coming from a Catholic background
@Kimberly Love The fullness of truth is only in the Catholic Church with one Head not many, with actual more unity or elase you gonna see what you been seeing lately divison bewteen patriarchs condemning each other which means theres no unity .
His initial basis in Matthew 1:25 is incorrect. Eos (until) is in fact a time limiting expression. It was used as a time limiting expression in a few verses before in Matthew 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations; and from David until (eos) the exile to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the exile to Babylon until (eos) the Messiah, fourteen generations. Matthew actually constantly uses the term as a limiting expression not as an eternal expression. Matthew 2:9, 13, 15; 5:18 to name a few To me this is clearly a stretch of the scriptures to fit a personal belief. I understand that many early church fathers believed in this teaching, but they are not above questioning. They got many things wrong when we look back at it.
@@robertsirico3670 yes that is exactly what I am saying. Scripture is clear 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; and Paul speaks of a James the Lord's brother Galatians 1:19. It is ok to note where the early church got it wrong. When the church holds on to wrong traditions despite the truth being present we commit the sins of the Pharisees.
Thank you for this. Very thoughtful and honest. I became orthodox in July and am still getting to know Mary and appreciate her. Having come from a Protestant background, it does take some time and I can totally relate to what you say. One thing I was quick to notice was how women such as myself have such an esteemed role model in Mary, What a great joy in such a feminist-centric world.
2 reasons mary and joseph were fruitful and multiplied after Jesus. 1) Matthew 13:55 2) Mark 6:3 Ask yourself why mary negligently went a whole days journey without checking on Jesus who was twelve. Ask yourself why mary called joseph his "father" and was corrected by Jesus who was twelve. Any mom of multiple children will tell you, mary had a lot going on. Pun intented.
@@vindicatednews9169 in Jewish usage, brother can indicate any number of relations. For example, in Genesis 14:14 Abram calls his nephew Lot “brother”.
The case can be made for Abram, but not for you to use in the case for the Lords brother(s). I can not say mary was not Jesus's mother just because he called her "woman" and never "mother" directly. Because the scriptures say that she is his mother. You can not find a like fashion example to specify Christ brothers were actually his cousins, etc.
As a Protestant I have been able to understand and accept all the other Catholic and Orthodox Marian doctrines except perpetual virginity. It was the last thing hanging me up. Not so much now, I'm going to study it more in depth. Thank you for such an enlightening video.
Careful with the Marian dogmas. This video is actually an example of the deceptive information provided by those who support this unbiblical teaching. For example the first point made about the word til (until) is inaccurate. The word is an adverb and and the length of time is determined by what the adverb modifies. In the erses in which the text refers to an unspecified amount of time, the other words is how you know the length, not the word til. For example until the end of the age. The indefinite length of time is determined by the phrase "the end of the age" not by the word til. A second example of deception is the idea that the specific Greek word for brother is meant to refer to cousins or other non brother relatives. He is correct that is is used to describe blood relatives but is also means brother. Like most words that have multiple meanings, the definition is determined by the context of the sentence. If you read the passage where Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to follow Him, this word is used to describe their relationship and is translated as brothers because that is what they are. The natural reading of the verses that refer to his brothers is that they are siblings. Why did Jesus ask a disciple to take care of His mother while on the cross if He had brothers? The answer could be as simple as they did not believe Him to be the Messiah at that point in time. Also, this disciple was his cousin. Finally, what is always left out of these types of videos is that Jesus had 2 SISTERS. I am sharing this because I do not want you to be deceived and spend time praying to her. Prayer's purpose is to have a relationship with God Himself. Spending time asking a dead person who is NOT omniscient NOR omnipresent is time that you are not spending speaking with God. There is no greater place to be than in His presence. God Bless.
@@carmendavis512 You have taken great effort to provide erroneous information. I'll start with one point. *MATTHEW 1:25: “UNTIL”* _You keep mentioning that word. I don't think it means what you think it means._ Consider the following verses: *Verse #1:* _For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Co __15:25__)._ Does Jesus ever stop reigning? No. *Verse #2:* _Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching *1 Tim __4:13__._ Should Timothy cease these activities once Paul arrives? No. *Verse #3:* _To which of the angels did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? (Heb 1:13)_ Do the angels or Jesus ever stop sitting at God's right hand after His enemies are made a footstool? No. For at that time there will be great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. Does the word “until” REQUIRE that the previous action or state end in these verses? No. *Verse #4:* _When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. (Mt 1:24-25)_ Does the word “until” REQUIRE that Mary’s virginity end at any point after Jesus’ birth? No. The use of "until" may suggest to our ears that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus' birth. However, the examples provided show that "until" (_heos_) in Scripture often indicates a state that continues indefinitely beyond the specified time. Matthew had no reason to comment on Mary’s sex life; if Mary and Joseph had normal relations, why would Matthew care either way? His purpose was to show the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the virgin birth. In Matthew 1:25, the word “until” should be understood in this broader biblical context and is, therefore, ultimately inconclusive regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. Those who deny this ancient belief must find corroborating evidence elsewhere.
Thank you for posting this. I have a lot to think about as a protestant currently being persuaded by Eastern Orthodoxy. By the way you have a very soothing presence in this video. May God bless you.
@glennherron9499the greek word used for brother is not always used for biological brothers. It can be used for friends, cousins, other family members, ya know, exactly like the english word for brother lol. In fact it is used to describe Jesus’s cousins in the new testament as well.
I see nothing wrong with her having children, it is a blessing for a woman to have children. Yes she should be honored, but Jesus never said in the Bible to pray thru my mother, he said pray our father which is in heaven. The Bible clearly states, Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Bible states Jesus is the mediator between God & Man. The Bible also does not say anything about Catholicism, Catholics are Christians, but worship differently.@glennherron9499
Awesome video. The last line is really powerful. The reason for people being against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an over-zealous response to a misunderstanding of Mary and her role as a Saint. I’m not Catholic, I’m a Protestant who has come to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and now feel strongly about it. I don’t think my salvation depends on it but it’s good to get it right. Please keep making these great videos. Awesome.
on the contrary, I think your salvation may depend on it because keeping that truth invites you to leave Protestantism and become member of an apostolic Church... that is, of a real Church, with true Eucharist...
Except it says in the bible in several places, super specifically, that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The bible names Jesus' brothers specifically. There is even a very detailed prophecy about Jesus, and it mentions his mother specifically and his brothers. It's just Catholic theology, and they like to believe it, so they ignore the scriptures on it.
@@saintejeannedarc9460As a Protestant myself, to be fair an individual stated that. No one else did. We’ve never even read the Greek. I’m confused myself but I’m just unbiasedly studying Orthodoxy. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli have all given her credit as Mother of God. This is all confusing but fun studying
@@FaithfulComforter How do you mean, "an individual stated it, no one else did"? Mary was declared the mother of God. It was in order to protect the divinity of Jesus. I have no issue w/ that, she was the mother of Jesus, and Jesus was divine, as well as his human nature. Things did spiral from there, and as the centuries wended on, Mary was given more divine attributes, and they became dogmatized. Making her more a divinity herself.
This video is actually an example of the deceptive information provided by those who support this unbiblical teaching. For example the first point made about the word til (until) is inaccurate. The word is an adverb and and the length of time is determined by what the adverb modifies. In the erses in which the text refers to an unspecified amount of time, the other words is how you know the length, not the word til. For example until the end of the age. The indefinite length of time is determined by the phrase "the end of the age" not by the word til. A second example of deception is the idea that the specific Greek word for brother is meant to refer to cousins or other non brother relatives. He is correct that is is used to describe blood relatives but is also means brother. Like most words that have multiple meanings, the definition is determined by the context of the sentence. If you read the passage where Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to follow Him, this word is used to describe their relationship and is translated as brothers because that is what they are. The natural reading of the verses that refer to his brothers is that they are siblings and there is no other verses that indicate that the relationship was that of a cousin. Why did Jesus ask a disciple to take care of His mother while on the cross if He had brothers? The answer could be as simple as they did not believe Him to be the Messiah at that point in time. Also, this disciple was his cousin. Finally, what is always left out of these types of videos is that Jesus had 2 SISTERS. I am sharing this because I do not want you to be deceived and spend time praying to her. Prayer's purpose is to have a relationship with God Himself. Spending time asking a dead person who is NOT omniscient NOR omnipresent is time that you are not spending speaking with God. There is no greater place to be than in His presence. God Bless.
I'm still not convinced, though I'm open to it. Many protestant scholars have refuted every point made here more convincingly, if I'm being honest. I don't have time to go through each point, but I would look into Gavin Ortlund or James White. I've also listened to Trent Horn debate them, but his arguments don't really measure up enough to convince me of something the earliest Church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (like Tertulian, Irenaeus, and Origen) taught against. Especially when not ONE other Church fathers back then openly disagreed. It wasn't until 450 or so that perpetual virginity became a DEBATED topic, and eventually became dogma in the late 5th century.
Why does Mary matter Anyway? Why do i need to ask anyone to talk to my Father in Heaven if i myself have a personal relationship wuth Him? I dont get it.
All protestants say they go direct to God,why Mary and the saints matter? In the salvation plan of God for humanity,Mary plays an important role in God becoming Man.Jesus didn't have an earthly father,so the body,blood, genes,the human figure of Jesus ALL came from Mary. So talking about personal relationship with God,man's relationship is imperfect for we are bound to sin.Mary has a biological relationship with God himself (Jesus). Mary may not matter to you but see how the Holy Trinity honoured Mary at the wedding at Cana even his time has not yet come to begin his work of salvation,he turned the water into wine when Mary brought to Jesus's attention the situation faced by the host. God placed people to intercede for us!! GOD INSTRUCTING KING ABIMELEK TO GO TO ABRAHAM Gen 20:7 Now therefore, return his wife to the man, for he is a prophet. And he will pray for you, and you will live. But if you are not willing to return her, know this: you shall die a death, you and all that is yours.
Very well put on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Theo-r-i-a, if i may add something, in 1987 i was going through a bad time, i was brought up a Catholic as a child until my teens, and as many know when we reach our teens we go another way in life, dancing, music, girlfriends, night life, looking for an outward love or something to fill an empty void that we feel time to time, anyway as i was say i hit a point in my life where i was hit hard by panic attacks back in the day, i had no one to turn too only medication from doctors, but that only masked the problem but did not deal with it, sure you can talk with someone the mind field of sorting parts of the issue, but the work is one of the person themselves as i found out later as you read on, i was going out with a girl called Mary, she was a wonderful and pleasant girl, she loved going to Sunday school and loved reading the Bible now and then, we would go for walks in the country, and she asked if i would go with her to one of her Sunday services, i agreed to go along and see what it was like, all nice people where there, and the minister gave a good service, and afterward he asked me if i would be interested in joining them as a member, i replied, thank you but not just now, as i was still in my teens and i wanted to do a teen thing back then and go out in the world and explore, i will get to the point of what i am saying here soon.... later down the line, my girlfriend Mary sat down with me one night, and she reached over me to a drawer at the side of her bed, and she pulled out a book the Bible and wrote something inside and a kilt pin silver two edge sword and placed them on my hand, she said, take these for they will not mean anything to you now, but later in life it will matter, i thank her for that gift, but as she said it wont mean much at that point but would help later, so after many weeks together after that we parted our ways, as good friends, afterwards i was seeing other girls as i grew up, and later i met someone who i married and settled down with, we had children, so things where going great as i thought, until out of the blue i was hit with panic attacks, choking feelings, couldn't eat much and slept little night, my life was draining out me for i was a shadow of my formal self, i was given pill for this and that and stuff for my breathing to free the airwaves so i could relax, but nothing was helping me, talked with many doctors, and spoke to priests but i was alone in my own journey, i hit rock bottom in my life and i didn't fit in anymore, so one night i looked in my cupboard and in one of my boxes i found that Bible my ex-girlfriend Mary gave me so long ago, and i pulled it out and there was that silver kilt pin sword also next to it, i sat down on my bed and opened the Bible, and saw what Mary had written on a black page of the Bible at the top right hand side, it said "John 3:16" that all it was written just that, so i went to that page and saw what it said in that chapter, it blew me away as i felt something special in those words, and i started to read the Bible a bit at a time after that, it gave me hope to hold on to, it took a while to grasp on where to go from there as i had to deal with other things back then, being married and the children and being out of work for some time, i had to get back on my feet. it was a slow process for a while, plus we moved to new house and had much work to do in it, so here is where i am getting at now.... My ex-wife and i had to go up to our local town center to get some goods for the new house, and we walked along to the shops, and i saw this little shop that was a Catholic book shop, i stopped and looked in the window and i had a feeling been drawn into the shop to look around, so the wife and i went in, and i was drawn to the back area of the shop, and i saw book of the Virgin Mary as there was many to choose from, but this book stood out from them all, it was about the size of my palm of my hand, blue cover with the image of Mother Mary on the front cover, i pick it up and the feeling i felt was something that drew me to it, but then i placed it down again because i didn't know if i could afford to buy it then, for i had no money and my wife held the purse then, so i looked around the shop and saw a set of rosary beads and they where all many colors, but the very pale blue bead stood out to me, so i knew that i felt something about them as i did with the little book of Mother Mary, we just kept looking around the shop, then i went to the back of the shop again and picked up the book again, my wife came up to me and said do you want the book, i said can we afford it, she replied we got a bit extra money this week and looked at the price and said we can get it, we went to the counter and i said i saw something else if you don't mind if we could buy them, and i went over to the rosary beads and brought them to the counter, and my wife looked at the price and said add them too and said this is the last thing as we need to get things for the house next before the money drains away,
Great video! I think one reason why modern Evangelicalism rejects the perpetual virginity of Mary is because it seems too "Catholic", and there's so much bad blood between Protestants and Catholics due to 500+ years of conflict. I am a former Evangelical, and now Roman Catholic Christian. I pray together with St. Pope Jon Paul II that some day soon the church will "breathe again with both lungs", East and West; and I think that former Protestants (like us) who found their way by God's grace into a historic See can play a big part in the healing that needs to take place.
She couldn't be a Virgin because marriage is completed through consummation. It has nothing to do with being too Catholic, the orthodox and Isslam venerates Mary. Veneration of Mary is pagan, and that's why it's rejected by Christianity; it's straight paganism to claim a woman was immaculate like Jesus. Only a God is immaculately conceived; that's how you know it's God; That's how you know it's the messiah
She was betrothed and not married plus your belief on consummation is very foreign to Christianity and has never been part of Jude-Christian beliefs or culture. Also who told you about this bizarre belief system? And your references to being “Too Orthodox or Catholic” is very much a reality within Protestantism. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the only apostolic faiths and were once one universal Church during that time there was one valid Christianity then that changed in 1054 then in 16th century birthed an entire realm of Antichristian theology known as Protestantism (PROTEST) that has lost entirely the ancient faith. Which is the cause of people like you making false claims to further confuse people. Please come home to the Orthodox Faith. Have you ever been to Orthodox Divine Liturgy? You should try it. Be forewarned that it is nothing like what you have experienced and it is a serious commitment we don’t let just anyone in.
@@eeaotly we know she was Jewish which is why she isn’t pagan but dude clearly isn’t grasping reality. We just have to pray that people come home to Orthodoxy
I am a convinced Protestant but am appreciating much from the early church fathers, the Roman Catholic tradition, and the Eastern Orthodox tradition. I appreciate the place of Mary in the philosophy of the Eastern church and the beauty and ramifications of it. I still am not convinced of any of the Maryan dogmas and see a lot of eisegesis, but want to learn more. I appreciate this video!
The ECF didn’t believe in this The first mention is 5th century, long after Mary has died If you want to cite the gnostic source of James, then that’s 2nd century after she died and dubious source
The Doctrine of PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Blessed Mary is one of the greatest HERESY ever invented by the Roman Catholic Church... We loved and honored Blessed Mary through the Biblical TRUTH without compromise and not through Man's (Pope's) way... for St. Peter and St. Paul including the early Christian Churches in the 1st Cent. A.D. does not support this doctrine... "For if We (Apostles) or an Angel from Heaven teaches/preaches other Gospel other than the Gospel we (apostles) have preached, taught and received from us (apostles), let the CURSE of God be upon them / be an Anathema / be condemn eternally / be doomed to destruction." (ref. Galatians 1:8 / KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NET, ASB, etc.)... Glory and Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen.
I’d like to offer a short rebuttal. To your first point, Heos (g2193) doesn’t have a uniform connotation of Eternity. Heos is used much the same way “until” is in English. See the other uses of it in Matthew 1. The church reformers believed many things that were unbiblical. Such as limited atonement, or Luther’s beliefs about Jews. To your second point, the word Adelphos (G80) can mean more than brother, but again, look at the other usages all through the Bible. 9/10 times it means brother so without any reason in the text to suspect it means step brother, it’s unreasonable to assume that reading. Additionally, the Protoevangellium of James has never been accepted as scripture, was rejected by Origen, Jerome, Innocent I, and condemned in the Gelasian Decree. Additionally, both the early church and modern scholars agree that the earliest it could have been written is 150 AD, meaning James couldn’t have been the author. I’ll while heartedly agree about Romans 8:29. That’s a bad proof text. That said, I’ve never heard it used to prove Jesus had brothers. And to your third point, it doesn’t seem unreasonable, if God wants to Mary to be a virgin through her whole life He doesn’t need any of our permission. However in the Bible there’s no reason to suspect she was. While it’s true many Christians thought the years have thought Mary to be pictured in the Old Testament, none of them hold up under scrutiny. While it’s true Moses’ face shone after seeing God, Mary is never described as being blindingly radiant. The argument of “God used the womb for Jesus, it wouldn’t be right to use it for normal childbirth” sounds compelling, but that’s not how theology is established. True theology MUST come from clear teaching. If you’re going to appeal to typology, it has to be shown in the New Testament. We can look at Adam as a forerunner of Jesus because the New Testament tells us he was. We can look at Jesus as the Passover Lamb because the New Testament tells us He was. There are no NT types of Mary established anywhere. But to look at the East Gate type you mentioned, is Mary the Temple, or is she the Ark? And if her womb is the east gate, why does Jesus enter it, not exit through it? In closing, you can believe in the True Incarnation of Jesus the Lord and also believe that Mary being a virgin throughout her life is not found in the Bible.
It's hard to believe with good reason that the most ancient Church didn't know as much as you did. You pre-suppose (I assume) that the Holy Spirit didn't do a good job guiding Christ's Church, that somehow some untruths sneaked into what it held to be true and now you have uncovered these untruths?
I just wanted to say, I've been scrolling, and this is the most elaborate comment I've seen the Protestants write. Nonetheless, I am hesitant to call the rebuttal successful. First off, Theoria isn't Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox, which uses Greek as it's liturgical tongue, and many of its followers speak Greek, and so did many of its Church Fathers. In order to become clergy, the Orthodox seminary you must go through a course on Ancient/Biblical Greek, and if you already speak Greek (which is likely if you are Orthodox), chances are Greek clergy generally have high fluency of ancient Greek in the Bible. The Eastern Orthodox have maintained the view of Mary's perpetual Virginity since the earliest Christians, this being essential dogma. That being stated, the language, especially the "until" verse, has not once posed a problem for the Eastern Orthodox Church - itself has been studied deeply, and experienced the debate under Jerome, which didn't cause any damage to the Church dogma. In addition, the general scholarly concensus, even outside of the Orthodox Church, is that the Greek phrase does not imply a change in Mary's Virginity... ever. As for the Protoevangelium of James, it is a gospel that isn't in the cannon, but is often referred to by all non-Protestant Churches. If you have studied history and are aware of how historical source investigation works, you may already know why. The Protoevangelium narrates about many contextual factors of Christianity, and makes mention of various beliefs and practices Christians had since Christ. Not everything in it is factual or dogmatic, hence its lack of canonicity. On the other hand, the Church has a multitude of traditions held since the Early Christians that were taught by Christ and His Apostles. Scholars can link the historical details to conclude the authenticity. We don't know which details in the Protoevangelium are true or not. But we do know which traditions the Church practices. But we have to simply trust the Church that the traditions it practices were practiced by the Early Christians. However, if a Church belief or tradition matches up narrative written in the Protoevangelium, two puzzle pieces are linked, and we know the authenticity of both. For the sake of clarity: the Church's traditions do Not stem from the Protoevangelium - the traditions stem from the Early Christians, those who knew Christ and the Apostles; the Protoevangelium is uncanonical either way. The Protoevangelium is a gospel describing a lot of the context of the Bible's events. It is uncanonical, because despite describing these events, it contains quite a few unfactuals. But because the Church practices traditions since the Early Christians, some of which have been recorded in the Protoevangelium. Thus, these narrations of the Protoevangelium can be factchecked as true, because they were indeed practiced by the Early Christians, as the Church's retain of those traditions proves. In return, the Protoevangelium shows authenticity to the traditions, showing that they did indeed stem from the Early Christians, and aren't later inventions. TLDR: The Church's traditions can prove which parts of the Protoevangelium have a level of canon, whilst their record in the Protoevangelium proves that the traditions have authenticity and were actually practiced by the Early Christians. In that aspect, the non-Protestant Churches (actually all of them, Oriental, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism) often quote the Protoevangelium, despite its lack in the Biblical canon. In that sense, yes of course Jerome and the other Fathers you mentioned reject the Protoevangelium, obviously, it isn't cannon. However, Jerome would still refer to it nonetheless, for the reasons ai explained above. Please note, this "link the ends" is used in historical research in general, it is not unique to the Church traditions. I really respect your attempt, you have done far better than most of your Protestant brethren. But in the end, your base argument is a good but weak one that is common amongst non-conformist Protestants: "So, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, but merely compatible with it, or at best inferred? - that's not strong, and feels like you're adding to the Bible." : I can see why this is may be a compelling argument for some, it sounds reasonable, especially to those new to studying theology. However in the greater picture, it is a very weak argument. One reason for this, is that this argument can just as easily be applied the opposite direction. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a doctrine that has always been in Church tradition. In fact, it is believed by the solid Majority of Christians. It is a key doctrine in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and in Coptic/Oriental Orthodoxy. It is not limited to the traditional denomination either, but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is also belief present in a lot of the Protestant denomination - and accepted by the major Protestant Church Fathers, most prominently Luther himself. The only Christians arguing against her Perpetual Virginity are a few loud minority of non-conformist Protestants. This minisculeness of those who support the criticism isn't for no reason - the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been practiced by Christians since the very Earliest of Christians, and we know not merely from the fact that is a major doctrine in All Christian Denominations, the fact that the Church Fathers have strongly been in support of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, as far back as the Early Christians, and is even included in the Protoevangelium which isn't even fully canonical, yet includes this detail! On the other hand, besides support from a few hereticals, such as the debate against Jerome, disregarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary from one's theology is an extremely modern and questionable stance. This is the pot calling the kettle black. The accusation that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary should not be a doctrine merely because it is implied and plausible, but not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, whilst neither is the loss of her Virginity, especially considering this is a modernistic minority reinterpretation, is deeply hypocritical. But I digress. I am yet to see a single strong enough counterargument from these few Protestants against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The more convincing ones lead no further than an inconclusive back-and-forth, whilst the majority of Protestant counterarguments have long been rebutted, but are only revived by few Sola Scripturas who only just discovered the dilemma and have assumed they've discovered some epithanic hidden truth. In reality, all have been covered, from the "until" debate, to "actually, the word that I didn't know was dual happens to actually mean brother here and not cousin", to the poor counterarguments for the entrusting of Mary to St John ("the brothers were unbelievers"; "the brothers were not present because they feared watching the crucifixion or were disheartened"; etc), to a few other details that are unexplainable by these minorities in the Protestant denomination. The truth is, there are multiple interpretations on Christ's family, not solely the classical view on the loss of Mary's Virginity. But the only one that has reasonable historic and widespread support is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Best wishes, and much love. Hope you guide well upon this research! ☦✝️
that first example: He knew her not "until" she bore her firstborn son Wow you quoted John Calvin who was basically an Augustinian student (since he quotes Augustine over 200 times in his works), as your evidence??? For one, Calvin is not an early church father and two, neither was Augustine. That's like saying Trump is a founding father of our nation and we're only a little over 200 years from the birth of it. #1 The meaning of "until" has more than one meaning. It can and should be interpreted as it seems it should be in this sentence. Such a convolution put upon something as simple as this sentence is nothing short of word witchery. #2 You quoted a Coptic gospel for evidence??? Are you Coptic or Catholic? #3 Is not even something I believe as it's obvious he's referring to spiritual brothers. To believe this is one thing, but to require one to believe it for salvation is heresy. Paul warned us that any teaching about salvation that went against the Gospel message he preached was to be rejected. For one to be saved, we must believe and confess that Jesus Christ is the son of God who came and died for our sins and accept him as his Lord and Savior. But now the doctrine of salvation has changed with the added requirements: Must believe Mary was born without sin in order to be saved Must believe Mary was ever virgin in order to be saved Must believe Mary died without sin in order to be saved Must believe Mary was assumed into heaven in order to be saved Add all the other dogmas one is required to believe outside the Gospel in order to receive salvation and you have the greatest false religion man has ever seen. Much like the "religious rulers" presiding over God's old testament church in Jesus day, they also added to the scriptures with their own doctrines and traditions that made God's word null and void. What did Jesus say to them and do? He called them devils and snakes and tore down their lies with the word of Truth proceeding out of his mouth. The same needs to be done today where the pure plan of salvation is made null and void with false doctrine, revelation, and tradition.
Well said... "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:8
He is eastern orthodox not catholic. He cited protestant sources to refute a protestant argument. Nothing wrong with that. The protoevangelium of James has been considered apocrypha by the oriental, catholic and eastern orthodox churches. Its not uniquely coptic.
Mary, the most blessed among women. We love her but we do not worship, pray & bow down to her, but there is a prayer our Lord taught us to pray and it only has his name in it, our Father who art in Heaven
Jesus said to pray “like this” or “in this manner”. He didn’t say to actually pray this exact prayer. He was using it as an example of HOW to pray. Also, just before that He says “And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think they will be heard for their many words.” Yet, Catholics do this when it’s so obvious in scripture not to.
also in iconography the perpetual virginity of our Most Holy Virgin Mary is visible...How? in every icon of Our Lady Theotokos there are three stars embroidered on her deep red gown(Μαφόριον-Maforion): one star on the head,one on the right arm and one on the left arm that mean: virgin before virgin during and virgin after the birth of Christ......!!! This is how orthodox icons teach theology to the believers...they are the books of the iliterate as St.John Damascene said...Υπεραγία Θεοτόκε σώσον ημάς.
The Matthew 13:33 defense is a little thin. Anyone who has done any baking knows that simply introducing it into flour will eventually end up with a completely leavened batch. What about Matt 5:6? Will the person remain in prison, ‘even after they have paid the last penny’? And Matt. 17:9? ‘Tell the vision to no one even after the Son of Man be risen’? And Matt 18:34. ‘Deliver him to the torturers even after he has paid the debt’? Perhaps “till” means just that… TILL. If God’s first commandment to humanity was, ‘increase and multiply’, why would Mary, a holy and sinless person, disobey it?
Although this teaching was illuminating on some fronts, you cannot “assume” Mary’s perpetual virginity for all her life. That fact is we don’t know. Which I see is difficult for many to say “We don’t know “ there isn’t enough evidence to show she remained a virgin after Jesus birth. Why not just continue in honoring the Blessed virgin Mary and that she is blessed among woman? It’s ok to not add what isn’t there.
Thank you for the thoughtful presentation. It is sad to me that you have reached this conclusion, as it puts you at odds with biblical christianity. Praying to Mary is never done by either Jesus or the apostles as we can tell in the Gospels or the letters. You might call it "seeking her intercession" but she is not omnipresent and we have no reason to believe she hears all prayers. It is not taught by Jesus and His apostles, and is not modeled by the early church, as seen in the letters or in Acts. I also have some comments on your responses against the protestant arguments: In Mt 1:25 it is said Joseph "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus." It is true that "until" in this passage does not necessarily mean it ended after, as you pointed out, even if it is the natural reading. Notice that the Bible´s claims about her virginity is about being a virgin when she bears and delivers Jesus. A virgin will bear a son.... she was a virgin until this time.... there is nothing from the Scriptures that promotes or exhalts being a virgin after. The second thing is that whether "until" implies a change after the birth is determined by context. When Jesus says that He is with us until the end of the Age it does not imply an end, as the end of the Age is His physical return to earth. In this case the end of her virginity is implied by the situation; she was supposed to be a virgin when she gave birth as the prophecies say, but there is no need or good purpose in her staying a virgin any more. Secondly, it is implied since she was married. It is not a good thing to stay a virgin in marriage, Paul condemns the practice in 1 cor 7:1-5. A good believing wife does not stay celibate in marriage, and I believe Mary was a good wife to Joseph. As for the word in greek for brothers, it is true that it is sometimes (but not commonly) used for cousins and similar, but it´s primary meaning is just brothers, so unless you have a bias or other reason to conclude these are not actual brothers it is more reasonable to conclude they were His actual brothers. So even if it is not a 100% certain it is a lot more likely than them being cousins. There are greek words for cousins and other relations that could have been used. Instead the Bible uses a word that naturally means brothers. We see the brothers coming with Mary in Mt 12:47 to stop Jesus, which fits more naturally if they are His brothers and her sons. In Nazareth, the people ask if Jesus parents aren´t Joseph and Mary and if His brothers and sisters does not live among them, which would be more natural if they were also the children of Joseph and Mary. There is nothing in the texts that hints or supports them being anything other than just simply brothers, the children of Mary. To claim we have something to learn from the protoevangelium of James is strange. It´s not recognized to be from James and was written later, probably in the middle of the second century. If we know the person writing it was not James and therefore lies about themselves, why would we take what they write seriously? It is not a good historical source. When you come to the part where you try to promote the idea of her perpetual virginity you have no clear texts, since this teaching is not in the Bible at all. Instead you use typology of the temple gate: Ez 43:27-44:4 If this is to be used as a typology, we must be clear that the temple of God in the NT is not Mary but the Church, where we are all living stones. So what would be the application? Maybe that we are only to allow God to enter and hold preeminence in His church, for example by allowing His Word, Scripture, to be above the words of all other authorities (Sola Scriptura is a good example of how to do this). But if you use this image and apply it to whatever you choose without biblical warrant, you have no case. You could prove anything with a methodolgy like that. The only time I know of in Scripture where anyone tries to apply special significance to the womb of Mary and exhalt her body in any way similar to this, is where a woman cries out (Lk 11:27): "Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!", but Jesus does not support this, He says: “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.” I hope you will take this word of Jesus to heart.
Our Most Holy Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity has been prophesied in the Old Testamen t Ezekiel 44:1-2 , Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. as we can see the gate through God of Israel entered in by it is Virgin Mary and it is clear that NO MAN shall enter in by it and after the birth of Christ she remained shut,because Lord our God entered in by it. Thus it is clear:Virgin Mary before,during and after the birth of Jesus Christ remained virgin...no husband no other children. Proverbs 4:3 For I was a son to my father, tender and an only child in the sight of my mother. here it is not Salomon who speaks about himself,because Bathsheba had other children too...it is the Son of God,Logos who speaks about Himself:He is the Son of His Heavenly Father as God and the ONLY CHILD of his human mother....very clear...Mary had not other children,only ONE Jesus Christ. but even if there were no prophecies about that would any logic and religious man ever think that Our Theotokos after this tremedous honour made from God to her-to become His Mother-would she ever after the birth of God,succumb in carnal desires to make her own family and children like an ordinary woman? She who was impeccable even in the slightest thought would ever continue her life in a human state inferior of her spiritul level...common logic. NO WAY
@@viviennebaptiste please tell me what exactly you don't understand? there are two texts from the Bible-prophecies about Virgin Mary...I made some comments explaining them...what is confusing you?
@@evans3922 after the verse in proverbs where you said " but even if there were no prophecies about that would any logic and religious" i didn't know quite you were trying to say
@@viviennebaptiste Virgin Mary was selected by God to become His Mother because of her utmost pureness... She was not an ordinary virgin woman.. She had never sinned even in thought..she held the Son of God Himself(can you even slightly imagine that) for nine months in her womb...she gave birth to Him and breastfed Him who feeds the whole creation., who sustains the universe.. visible and invisible (also impossible even to think of it) ... After this extremely high honour made to her by God does anyone think that she would continue her life after Jesus Christ birth like an ordinary woman.. having sexual relationship and her own family and children as Protestants claim?? This is not possible because of the height of her virtue and spiritual state... She would not go back to a way of life inferior to her spiritual status... That's what I said
@@evans3922 thanks makes much sense. But that's like impossible for any human not sin not even once. Does that mean the Catholics are correct when they say that Mary had no Original sin? That she was sinless
I finally changed my mind on it when someone brought a verse from Mark calling the Lord's brothers and sisters "relatives" and the Greek word used is never used for sibling to sibling relationships. Also to people who see a married couple not having marital relations.. We can see Essene influence in Christ's ministry. The Essenes had very strict rules around sexuality and so a chaste married couple was not weird. Also we can see as representative of the early Christian piety, the story of the Indian Prince and Princess almost remaining a celibate married couple in the Acts of Thomas. From reading the early Apocryphal Acts and Church Fathers we can see how valued celibacy or chastity was.
Matthew 12 : 48 - 50 While he was still speaking to the crowds, look you, his mother and his brothers stood outside, for they were seeking an opportunity to speak to him. Someone said to him : “Look you, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking an opportunity to speak to you.” He answered the man who had spoken to him : “Who is my mother? And who are my brothers?” And he stretched out his hand towards his disciples. “See,” he said, “my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3 : 20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “ He is out of his mind.” Mark 3 : 31 - 35 Then Jesus’s mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “ Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” John 7 : 5 “For even his brothers did not believe in him.” John 7 : 1 - 9 After these things Jesus moved about in Galilee, for he did not wish to move about in Judaea, because the Jews were out to kill him. The Festival of the Tabernacles was near. So his brothers said to him : “ Leave here and go down to Jerusalem so that your disciples will get the chance to see the works that you do. For no one goes on doing things in secret, when he wishes to draw public attention to himself. Since you can do these things, show yourself to the world.” For even his brothers did not believe in him. So Jesus said to them : “The time of opportunity that I am looking for has not yet come ; but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I bear witness about it that its deeds are evil. Go up to the festival yourselves. I am not yet going up to the festival, because my time has not yet come.” When he had said these things to them he remained in Galilee.
Denis, Mary’s SISTER, MARY, was also at the cross. 2 sisters of the same womb? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Let's not forget also, that if Mary had other kids, Jesus would never have left her in the care of the Apostle John. She even moved in with him... that would be strange if she had sons. Especially in the context of Jewish families. Also, when Jesus stays behind in the temple and they look for Him for 3 days, there were no brothers and sisters with Mary and Joseph. Also, to think that a Godly man like Joseph would ever dare touch Mary after GOD was born from her...man. You'd have to be entitled and American to believe that!
Numbers 30....read it. Explains how a Virgin who consecrated herself to God never has sex in a marriage. Biblical support for the vow the Virgin Mary took at a very young age that she would remain a virgin.
As a protestant this made me think, but i have some issues, In 7:20 it seems that you are saying Jesus was the first born of creation, therefore he cannot be eternal, maybe im getting it wrong, and another issue is, that in the context of Mt 1 25, i dont see how the greek word may reffer to eternally, it just doesnt fit in, hope this gets to someone who can enlight me!
The problem doesn’t revolve around whether or not she had other children. The problem is with the sinless claim. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). So that verse either includes all or it doesn’t. Either the Bible is lying or the Roman Catholic Church is lying. If Mary is sinless then that verse would have to read for everyone besides Mary has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Do infants who die or the severely mentally disabled all sin? Or was Paul speaking in hyperbole, as we see again later in Romans 11:26 when he says that all of Israel will be saved? Mary was not spared from sin simply to glorify her. She was saved by Jesus at her Immaculate Conception so that she would not be destroyed by the powerful presence of God Incarnate in her womb. God could not dwell among the Israelites due to their sin because He said it would destroy them. How could He then dwell in a sinful woman without killing her? Also, the New Covenant must be greater than the Old Covenant. Eve, the Woman in the Old Covenant was created without original sin. How then, could Mary, the Woman of the New Covenant, be created with original sin, and lack the same perfect free will afforded Eve? Jeremiah prophesies in 66:7 "“Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this?" and we see that the Woman to come does not inherit the curse of the Fall, which is pain in childbirth.
Or the third option: Neither is lying but you don't understand. Here's an example of the error you're making: "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment," (Hebrews 9:27) This verse appears to make a clear, universal statement that no one would question. However, Lazarus and other people who were raised from the dead died twice. And Enoch and Elijah never died. From this we see that scripture does make general statements that are not absolute. Paul’s statement in Romans 3:23 that “all have sinned” does not REQUIRE that literally every single person who ever walked the face of the earth committed personal sins against God. Jesus didn’t sin. Infants who die before reaching the age of reason do not sin. So, it is not true that ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING EVER BORN sinned. That’s simply not the case. Thus, Romans 3:23 is not an absolute statement and cannot be used as an iron-clad argument against the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Jesus could stay in Mary’s womb the same way the Holy Spirit can come and dwell with all believers. Before Jesus was born an angel came and told Mary what was going to happen. It makes logical sense she would have been purified before Jesus was in her womb. This does not mean she was sinless and if she was sinless she would not have any need of a savior. Yes statements that say ALL can be used as iron clad. Especially when the exceptions to the ALL have been explained as a super natural work done by God. If God had not taken them to heaven then yes they would have died. For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God includes ALL except of course Jesus who was fully God and fully man.
As a Protestant I do respect Mary as the mother of The Lord Jesus Christ but I can not and will not worship her. There are no commandments or scriptures in The Holy Bible that say to do so, nothing in the Gospels or any of the epistles to the churches. After the book of Acts she is no longer mentioned.
Recently purchased a copy of the infancy gospels of James and Thomas, while non-canonical I have found it still a useful book to support Mary's ever-virginity.
God Bless you for doing the Holy work of our Lord I WILL PRAY for u all morning n night as a sinner that I am 🙏🙏🙏 May our Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary intercede for us all 🙏💒✝️💝
More precisely, isn't Mary the mother of the incarnation of the Word of God? She is not mother of the Father, the Spirit or the Word who preexisted and created her. She had a unique relationship with God in this lifetime, in that she is a daughter of the Father, bride of the Spirit, and mother of the Son. Perhaps she is the example or foreshadow of our own relationships with God in the afterlife.
That's why in Greek, they use "Theotokos" which means "Bearer of God" as she bore God (the Word) in flesh. This avoids the improper connotations that "Mother of God" can carry.
The argumentation presented here seems highly speculative and flimsy. For one, the Protoevangelium of James is a dubious source. Sex within marriage is a good thing which is blessed by God. The burden of proof is on the proponent of perpetual virginity to demonstrate that Mary and her husband did not engage in this natural and blessed aspect of marriage. Speculation is not a sound demonstration. The argument that Joseph would "approach the womb carefully" (i.e. that he would be afraid of having sex with Mary) is bizarre. That argument seems to assume that the sexual act, even when performed within marriage, is in some way shameful or degrading. Also, denying perpetual virginity does not lead to a "dualistic" Christianity where the physical world does not matter. That's an utter non-sequitur.
@Glenn Herron yes. Yield to biblical Gossip. Were the Sanhedrin leaders telling also the Truth when the told Pilates that they had no King? Just because somebody says something in the Bible does it make it true? According to them Jesus is not the rightful heir of the Davidic Kingdom of the Jews?
Because it is the earliest written statement about Mary being a perpetual virgin, even though the Church has always believed that it was fraudulently composed by someone other than the stated author, and therefore rejected it as inspired, but it still does contain some truth in it.
@@photosyntheticzee9915 Well, the easiest way is to see what the work says, and compare it to the Church teaching at the time the work came into existence. If it agrees, then that part is true, if not, its false. Pretty simple. The PVM was already being taught when the POJ showed up in circulation, so the concept didn't come from the POJ, but the POJ corroborated it.
@@jzak5723I suppose you could call it corroboration in favor of the PVM, but it becomes circular imo. Church doctrine justifies parts of the PEJ, not the other way around, so why use parts of PEJ to justify church doctrine? If you look at the reasoning as a whole, it is really just church doctrine justifying itself. If you believe in the church, this is fine, but using PEJ as evidence implies that PEJ is something which could justify church doctrine, which it is not.
@@photosyntheticzee9915 I don't see it as circular reasoning at all. And I certainly didn't mean that the POJ alone justifies Church doctrine, if that is what you think I meant.
@@lukasg9031 Christ’s death and Resurrection saves us but what Catholics and Orthodox have always understood since the beginning (and you can research this in the Church fathers) that Mary’s yes to God when asked if she would be the Mother of the Redeemer untied Eve’s knot ....that we honor her for her role in Salvation never seem to acknowledge this and I just don’t get that.
@@lukasg9031 hi Lukas. The term “save us” when used within the Orthodox Christian prayer life is not a signifier that the Most Holy Theotokos causes our salvation, or that she is the reason humanity is saved, or judges us, or what have you, rather a petition that she please unto the Lord our God to save us, much like how we ask our friends to pray for God’s grace and mercy on us. We truly believe that the prayers of others has an effect, and the Holy Theotokos is no exception. Hope this helps :)
How can Mary, a mere human being, possibly hear everyone’s prayers and intercede for the millions of people praying to her? Only God can do that. Also, why does it matter whether she was a perpetual virgin? There is nothing sinful about married sex. Surely Joseph would have expected it? The Bible says he didn’t have relations with her until after the birth of Jesus. It doesn’t say he never did.
No matter your denomination, it is generally accepted that God can provide individuals with the gift of celibacy. On the other hand, chastity is a virtue in every Christian relationship. If celibacy is a higher form of living, it is not unreasonable to think that the Holy Family lived it. If you‘ve ever heard Christian testimonies of afterlife, you would have heard a lot of them talk about some kind of interconnectivity. People claiming to know other peoples sins and somehow knowing everything about anyone. For God everything is possible. He created both the visible and invisible.
I've never thought that, for one to believe in the perpetual virginity, would be in sake of keeping Christ's glory. To think of her womb as something sacred, not because she is some kind of god, or queen of heavens (don't know if Orthodox also have that view of Mary as queen), or even imply from that we should seek for her intercession (now I know my Orthodox brothers will not agree here 😄), but because our God dwelled in there. Even though I still feel weird in reading the plain texts of Jesus' brothers, and not thinking of Mary's sons, this gave me a lot to think. And also made me understand better this ancient belief of the church Fathers. Thank you.
“While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”” Luke 11:27-28 NASB2020 “And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.” Matthew 1:24-25
This is a non argument really. Whether or not see had children is irrelevant. That she had none before she bore Jesus is pivotal. That she had none or many after is INCONSEQUENTIAL. Countless lives and resources have been lost through out the centuries for maintaining foolish dogmas of Rome which have not one slightest bearing on biblical truths or historic facts. If certain men still wish to be deceived by RELIGION and it's antics after so many years of hindsight good for them. All of the teachings of Rome turn the teachings of the true God upside down.
That is not dogma of Rome. That is Biblical fact. If you read John 19,26-27 and if you ask yourself why she was given to St. John rather than to her alleged "other children", and if you are honest with yourself, you may be able to grasp the truth.
@@johnnyd2383 The bible declares that Jesus was her "first born son" not her "only born son". Big difference. It is much like our Lord to go beyond the boundaries of the Law, Custom,Blood ties,Traditions and what is merely to be expected when he gave the two to each other. "Woman behold thy son and son behold thy mother". He was displaying the spirit of the New Covenant in joining people by Love/obedience to Christ rather than Familial/Tribal obligations. Secondly, no where does Jesus specifically tell John to take Mary to his home. This was his own judgment. Thirdly,no where does it's say that the other brethren of Jesus' neglected Mary. And finally why would Jesus absolve the so-called Joseph children from their legal duty? Dogma is dogma and sad to say people are still blind to let region think for them.
@@jasonfrederick1258 You did not explain why she was given to the "stranger" if she allegedly had other children. In the end, you are not honest to yourself. Pity.
@@johnnyd2383 Sorry I'm only now seeing this comment. Jesus was doing God's will. In commanding John to her and she to John it was only in the principle of the new covenant love...where we love not because of family ties ,tribe or common bond but simply because God commands it. John took care of Mary out of Love for Jesus. Not family bond like her other sons who had their own families also. Didn't Jesus ask "who are my brethren and my mother"? His response was and still is "my mother and brethren are they who do the will of my father". So he gave Mary not to her sons but to her brother in Christ.
@@jasonfrederick1258 You are talking like Jesus is not Christ and God Himself. Also, your explanation is lame and does not provide any valid reasoning. You are telling that water is wet and that is it. In other words, you are imputing to the Bible what Bible does not say. Fact that in Biblical text term "brothers" and "sisters" is used in far wider context that of contemporary western cliche appears to be unknown to you. Tell me... why in Gen 37 all children of Jacob are called "brothers" when they are not born of a same mother.?
Eos is used for a period of time. Even in Mathew 28:20, it doesn’t designate eternity but the end of this age. It is used for a period of time until in other places also, so yes, it does mean no relationship until Jesus was born.
Counterpoint: Mary is not a "touchy subject" among so called "Protestants". In this video a plea is made to the "early Christians" who believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (hereafter referred to as PVM). The "early Christians" were the Apostles and the Disciples of the Lord Jesus and there is no "early" record of them referring to the PVM. The Gospels say nothing about a PVM nor do any of the Old Testament Writings. The term, Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a Roman Catholic construct, it cannot be found in Scripture. Isaiah speaks of a virgin CONCEIVING and giving birth to a child but says nothing about a PV of the woman. Matthew and Luke, the two official biographers of the birth of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, also say nothing about a PV of Mary. According to this video, Protestants are ignorant of the meaning of the word "till" or "until". Supposedly, the word means "forever" and not as Merriam Webster: UNTIL 1 of 2 preposition, un·til ən-ˈtil -ˈtel; ˈən-ˌtil, -ˌtel, -tᵊl Synonyms of until 1chiefly Scotland : TO 2-used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time stayed until morning 3: BEFORE sense 2 not available until tomorrow we don't open until ten until 2 of 2 conjunction : up to the time that : up to such time as play continued until it got dark never able to relax until he took up fishing ran until she was breathless Basically, we are to believe that "until" has no period of time in mind but that it is a continuation of time. However, according to the ordinary grammatical reading of the verse in Matthew, any fifth-grade reader can easily understand that Joseph would "not know", i.e., have sexual relations with his lawfully married wife, UNTIL such time as she gave birth to her "firstborn". Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. This verse also tells us that Jesus was Mary's "firstborn son". If Matthew had believed that Jesus was Mary's "only begotten son" he would have written as such, be he did not. He was accurate, for Joseph (Mary's lawful Husband) and Mary (Joseph's lawful Wife), after the birth of Jesus, "came together" just as all Husbands and Wifes naturally engage in, i.e., have sexual relations. Before Mary and Joseph had "come together", they were already legally married, that is, they were already Husband and Wife. Joseph and Mary were planning to live together as any other Husband and Wife and enjoying the pleasures of marriage. Joseph did not sign up to be Mary's "Guardian"; no Scripture ever refers to Joseph as a "guardian of Mary". Husbands leave their parents and CLEAVE (come together) with their own wives. Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall CLEAVE unto his wife: and they shall be ONE FLESH. Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Jesus promises his Disciples that he will "be with you till the end". In other words, he is with us, Spiritually and Invisibly, in Heaven, UNTIL he Physically and Visibly RETURNS, to Earth, and establishes God's Kingdom here by actually ruling over all the Nations, sitting on "David's throne", from the New Jerusalem (which is a Protestant belief and not Catholic). Catholics believe that the Pope has been, for Centuries now, already sitting on God's Kingdom here on Earth. As for some of the so-called Protestant Reformers, such as Calvin, they were Catholics who had many Catholic beliefs ingrained in them. Many doctrines, which were not Biblically correct, were still being adhered to by these early Reformers. Even now there are many Catholic Protestants, such as Church of England, Episcopalians, and Lutherans, to name a few, who still cling to Roman Catholic doctrines, considered by many Protestants as unbiblical. Also, the word "brother" or "brethren" is often used in Scripture. This is how it is used in these Scriptures: Matt 13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. Matt 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Matt 13:55 Is not this the Carpenter's SON? is not his MOTHER called Mary? and his BRETHREN, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Matt 13:56 And his SISTERS, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Matt 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in HIS OWN HOUSE. Matt 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. The CONTEXT in which the word "brethren" is used, is in CONTEXT with the words "Carpenter's Son" and "his Mother called Mary". So, in CONTEXT, who are the "brethren" referred to in this passage? His "cousins", his "near of kin", his "disciples"? It should be obvious that the "brethren" are Jesus' own Brothers and Sisters, sons and daughters of Jesus' father (as was supposed) and mother, the Carpenter and Mary. The Language tells us who these "brethren" are, they who were of Jesus' "own house". A little reading comprehension is all that is required. Why should the text say or mean anything else? It shouldn't, without an agenda in mind. There is no need for Mary to be a PV. She WAS a virgin before and while she CONCEIVED, through the Power of Almighty God, and naturally BORE the child. That was a Sign given by God as to who the child would be, i.e., the promised Messiah, who would be "conceived and borne" of a virgin maid. After Jesus was born, the Sign came to its fulfillment, and it would eventually be known that Jesus of Nazareth had been the promised Messiah because his conception and birth had been exactly as the Prophet Isaiah had predicted. Mary did not "know" her Husband Joseph, UNTIL she had brought forth her firstborn son, the babe Jesus. Mary's "virginity" did not matter after the child Jesus was born. Joseph and Mary naturally conducted themselves as Husband and Wife. Joseph would still have been alive when Jesus was 30 years of age. Joseph and Mary (say they were both about the age of 17-20 years when they were married) would have been about 47-50 years of age when Jesus first began his ministry among the Children of Israel. That is definitely enough time for them to have had 4 sons and at least 2 daughters. What's wrong with that? Weren't they "husband and wife" as the Scriptures clearly call them? Why would Joseph, who had taken Mary as his lawful WIFE, ever decide on his own (for no mandate was ever given to him by God nor by an Angel of God) to NEVER KNOW her, and to only be her "guardian", live with her alone, under one roof, pretending to be husband and wife? What's wrong with this picture? If a Man does not CLEAVE with his wife, he is NOT doing what he is supposed to do; such a man would literally be disobeying God's command to "cleave unto his wife", even as the Apostle Paul commanded: 1Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man HAVE HIS OWN WIFE, and let every woman HAVE HER OWN HUSBAND 1Cor 7:3 Let the husband RENDER unto the wife DUE BENEVOLENCE: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 1Cor 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 1Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, EXCEPT IT BE WITH CONSENT FOR A TIME, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. Husbands and Wives are not to "defraud" one another "except it be with consent FOR A TIME, i.e., UNTIL. Joseph and Mary were righteous Jews who followed the Laws of God and would not have "defrauded" one another, except for a specific amount of "time".
How do we reconcile 1 Cor 7:5 "Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
Well it can be reconciled with the first part of the verse, mutual consent? Surely Joseph was righteouss enough to respect his wife after seeing the Messiah born through her? I'm still searching and I am non denominational but I thought I'd answer what I found to be obvious to me here. Hope it helps you and you too get the revelation of God you are searching for.
I accept this as orthodox belief. They who dont believe the Aieparthenou Maria also reject Christ. All theologies of the Orthodox Church are Christ-center, means the source of theological development is Christ Himself.
In Mark 6:3 it is clearly stated that Mary had at least 7 children namely James, Joseph, Judas, Simon and daughters. This is clear proof from scripture that she is NOT a perpetual virgin. John 2:12 also makes reference to the brothers of Jesus. Matthew 12:46 also mentions the brothers of Jesus. Matthew 13:55 names the brothers of Jesus as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Galatians 1:19 mentions James as the Lord’s brother. This is the James that wrote the Book of James in the Bible. Catholics should open the Bible and study the truth for themselves instead of relying on man made teachings. To say that Matthew, Mark, John and Paul ALL mistook the brothers and sisters as cousins seems preposterous!!
I love Mary, she is a blessed woman of God and mother of our Lord Jesus. That being said, I honestly can't grasp the reason why this is important. Don't get me wrong the idea of a virgin giving birth in itself is an amazing miracle and the importance of it cannot be understated, amongst women, Mary is indeed blessed. This is in no way to attack, I just don't understand and would like to. And am not against the idea of perpetual virginity to be clear, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind it. But is Mary's value as a woman of God taken away if she is no longer a virgin? If she were to indeed give birth to other children, does that make her impure? I would get that it would make her impure if she slept around, but she was in a faithful marriage and that would have just been the godly thing to do as the Lord intended for all of us. And what does it mean to be perpetually virgin? Does it mean her womb was preserverd during childbirth? Was it regenerated after? Or does it just mean that Mary saved herself for God as a nun would do after the birth of Jesus? If it was perpetual, could she give birth again and stay virgin? If so that would be just as miraculous. And how would Mary know she was still a virgin? How could that be proved in the 1st century? Since to prove virginity one must go into the act and the proof would show if every time she was still a virgin. Again this is in no way to attack, I just don't understand and would like to. I have no hate in my heart for my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith, I'm just confused and would like to learn. Peace be upon you all. May the Lord bless you all.
Not Mary! She is not referred to as Mary in Orthodoxy❤☦️. She is the Theotokos of the Mother of God. She is not called only Mary by Orthodox Christians. When people refer to her as Nary it reminds me of that Protestant song...".Mary did you know"....that song is like fingers on a chalkboard-ugh--I just want to tell the writer: ☦️ yes She knew--when I hear it!
This is a really well made video, and it is evident that Ben Cabe has a sincere heart for what he believes. He is very authentic and speaks with much compassion and gentleness (I wish more teachers were like him.) With that being said, I will make a few observations regarding this video: 1. The scriptural proof for the perpetual virginity of Mary is, at best, insufficient. a. Mr. Cabe affirms that the word ἕως (until) has a connotation of eternity. This is simply not the case. Just a few verses prior in Matthew 1, we see the same word (ἕως) being used with a clear finite connotation: "Therefore all the generations from Abraham to (ἕως) David are fourteen generations; and from David to (ἕως) the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to (ἕως) the Christ, fourteen generations. In each case there is a clear start and end. The same is very much applicable for verses 24-25: "And Joseph got up from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife (Start point) ,25 but kept her a virgin until (ἕως) she gave birth to a Son (End point)" ; and he called His name Jesus. (LSB) If the argument is to be made that it is not the word ἕως by itself, but rather, its usage in conjunction with the word οὗ as it occurs in Matthew 1:25 (ἕως οὗ), then one only has to examine other texts in Matthew such as 18:34 where ἕως οὗ does not have a connotation of infinity:
“And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until (ἕως οὗ) he should repay all that was owed him.” How long will the wicked servant be with the tortures? Until he has repaid all that he owed. We see that ἕως οὗ implies a change. 2. The fact that ἀδελφοὶ (adolphoi) cold mean “kinsmen”, does not mean that it should be interpreted that way in Matthew 13:55-56. The primary meaning of this word is “brothers” and is used only in this way in the New Testament (Notice that the alternate interpretation provided in the video is from Genesis.) When we read the passage in context: ” Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” It is very evident that the context is the one of immediate family. Unless you are reading this text with the presupposition that Mary didn’t have any children, there is no reason to think that ἀδελφοὶ means “kinsmen” in this context. 3. In regards to the Proto Evangelium of James. It’s not necessary to go into much detail. If the perpetual virginity of Mary does indeed carry serious implications regarding Christ (as Ms. Cabe suggests in 11’30’’), then why use a document that is unreliable historically (it wasn’t even written by James), doesn’t have authority (not part of scripture), and contains gnostic overtones? Our core believes must begin from scripture which is the only infallible rule of faith. Scripture is the only source which is θεόπνευστος (God-breathed.) 4. Finally, at 11’30’’ Mr. Cabe states “denying the perpetual virginity, to me, felt like a denial of the incarnation in the sense of denying its implication for us as human beings.” How can this be so? Why would Mary’s subsequent marital intimacy with Joseph interfere with God’s plan of redemption? Christ was fully man and fully human and this did not depend on Mary’s behavior after his birth. How can the idea of Mary’s intimacy with Joseph lead to a “dualistic Christianity where physicality is not important to spirituality." Doesn’t Hebrews 13:4 read “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled…”? Sex in marriage is a sacred act that doesn’t defile the married couple, instead, it does bring honor to God. Lastly, it is important to point out that no orthodox protestant will deny the virgin birth.
So today i learnt that orthodox Christians believe that Mary had a dispassionate conception of James, they believe that she delivered Jesus without pain, that her marriage was arranged to Joseph because he was old and she was intended to be celibate always (the perpetual virginity), but do you also believe that Mary was raised in the temple of Jerusalem as a temple virgin but then when she hit puberty she was married to Joseph, more as a guardian than a husband
Sorry for jumping in.. here are some online resources: Apostolic father's, St. Ignatius - disciple of St. John the Apostle, writings that witness the devotion of the early Church to the Mother of God: The Epistle of St. Ignatius to St. John the Apostle ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/epistles_of_ignatius/anf01.v.xx.i.html A Second Epistle of St. Ignatius to St. John the Apostle ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/epistles_of_ignatius/anf01.v.xxi.i.html The Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Virgin Mary ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/epistles_of_ignatius/anf01.v.xxii.i.html Reply of the Blessed Virgin to this Letter ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/epistles_of_ignatius/anf01.v.xxiii.i.html
We know that the James and Joseph listed were Jesus' first cousins by his aunt, Mary of Clopas, and it is believed that the other two were also his cousins.
@@Gotchism4Life Matthew 27:56 says James and Joseph were sons of Mary of Clophas, who was Jesus' aunt. "Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons."
@@lellachu1682 Here's an article citing Scripture. Let us first sum up what we know from the New Testament of the brothers and sisters of the Lord. They are mentioned in 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; and Paul speaks of a James the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:19). Of the brothers, there seem to have been four who are named in Matthew 13:55: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (see Mark 6:3). Matthew and Mark mention the sisters, but neither the number nor the names are given. From the language of the Nazarenes (Matthew 13:56, "His sisters, are they not all with us?"), there must have been at least two, probably more, and apparently married, and resident at Nazareth. These brothers and sisters are not mentioned at all until after the Lord began His ministry and are first mentioned as going with His mother and Himself to Capernaum (John 2:12). It is in dispute whether any were believers in His Messianic claims, at least until the very end of His ministry (John 7:3-10). Most say that they were made believers through His resurrection, as they appear in company with the Apostles (Acts 1:14). In all the references to the Lord's brethren several things are noticeable: first, that they are always called brothers and sisters, not cousins or kinsmen; second, that their relationship is always defined with reference to Him, not to Joseph or to Mary; they are always called His brothers and sisters, not sons and daughters of Mary; third, that they always appear in connection with Mary (except in John 7:3) as if her children, members of her household, and under her direction.
@lellachu1682 please read the verse again, this particular verse is after Yeshua said it is finished which is also after Yeshua asked John to take care of his mother ( and for the ones wondering why he asked John to care for his mother is because none of his half brothers believed in him as the Messiah until after he rose from the dead and Jewish customs required him to assign a guardian before dying ) now back to the verse, that particular Mary you spoke of was Yeshua's mother but now she is addressed as Mary mother of James and Joseph, now the third woman was Salome mother of Zebedee's sons James and John...
As a former Protestant and current inquirer, I had a thought regarding this issue: If Mary had other children after Christ, would this not have created other claimants to the throne of David after Christ’s death? It is true that He resurrected after His death, but would there not within those three days need to be another son “anointed”?
Satan most hates the Blessed Virgin because (1) she brought the Redeemer to dwell among us+ and (2) because his demons could not conquer her, since she is "Full of Grace" (she is nothing.....but a channel of grace). The most efficient way to harm the faith of human creatures (and to attack the Holy Church) is to impede love for and trust in, the Most Holy, Perfect & Perpetual Virgin, Mary. The Holy Queen, because of her Immaculate Heart, is the only perfect Christian in all of history. She is worthily Spiritual Mother of the faithful. And we also call her, (she, who is Mother of God ) the Mother of the Church. Because The True Faith is a gift, we do well to pray for others also to receive this gift, just as many others have prayed for us to be able now to practice faith in the most loving of all Fathers - the great I AM of the Blessed Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is easily defended using two verses from the gospels. There are others but these two are my favorites: Mark 15:40 and John 19:25.
![Are Icons Idols? [Responding to J.I. Packer's Iconoclasm]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Akkb_EsY4MM/mqdefault.jpg)
This was excellent! As a Protestant studying Orthodoxy, this helped me a lot
Thank God!
Come to orthdox church ☦☦☦
Come to estern orthdox churh ☦☦☦
stop
WAKE UP...
ua-cam.com/video/dq9Y6FswGR0/v-deo.html
As a Protestant, this was super helpful - thank you!🙏
@glennherron9499did you not pay attention to the video? He explains that in Hebrew tradition and culture, the word used in the verse is one that describes extended familial relationships and includes cousins, etc., and spiritual kinship as well. It is a custom that is practiced across Middle Eastern countries. So the verse you are using is not valid evidence for Jesus having siblings.
.But he knew her not UNTIL she had given birth to a son. Matthew 1:25…Joseph knew Mary. The Bible does absolutely everything to tell you that in Matthew 1:25..regardless of people trying to explain away Jesus’ brothers and sisters just to make a manmade doctrine work. Believe the Bible. Not men.
Matthew 13:56-57
Jesus confirms in the greek these are not his brothers and sisters through Mary.
I’ll note Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer (founder of Anglicanism) all affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Very well and convincingly articulated. Congrats. The background music was consistent with the theme.
Lord Jesus Christ,Son of God ,have mercy on me , a sinner🙏☦️!
Amen! If you appreciate our content would you consider becoming a patron: www.patreon.com/user?u=44232317
Yes, will you donate so he can quit his day job and live off everyones donations? Because he has bills to pay and he cant get this cult build up if he has to work all the time.
@@vindicatednews9169 we hope and pray the best for you. We do ask, however, that kindness and charity be used in our comments as we hope to bring a witness of Christ to the world - and fighting in the comments hurts us all (John 17)
Dont be so pius.this video brings a false witness to mary and only serves to merge "catholicism" with "orthodoxy" you are publically displaying this video and I am publically calling it out. Read Galations 2 and tell me again how I should conduct myself when heresy is brought to my attention.
@@vindicatednews9169 are you Orthodox?
Thanks!
Thank you!
Very well done, and well said! I was raised Catholic, was agnostic for a few years, had an encounter with Jesus in 1981, then was attached to primarily non-denominational churches since. It seems I am now being drawn to the Catholic/Orthodox realm, inclined more toward Orthodox. Your videos are excellent, and very helpful...
You who read this will see if it disappears meaning the uploader agreed with this and doesn't want you to read it and convert, or if it stays and he's willing to allow other opinions so that he can respond to them.
In The Gospels when people tried to worship her, YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY would shut it down immediately every time.
Another time YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY made it clear that the only family HE had was those who kept HIS FATHER's commandments, turning away from Mary and James to the crowd of disciples saying, "These are MY mother and my brother, those who kept THE FATHER's Commandments"
If you honored Mary, you would not torment her spirit with refusing to stop kneeling to statues of her and other things she would never allow.
Would you obey Mary if she said not to follow the one you call "pope"? Then do what may said to do. She told those who served her, that whatever CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY told them to do, do it! - John 2:5. That includes not calling any man on earth The Father even if you say it in latin and say the pope, CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY said to not do it so you disobey Mary's orders to you if you disobey CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY's orders and thereby you also reject THE FATHER MOST HIGH. Are you then ready to have your life exam checked knowing that THE HOLY BIBLE states that the lake of fire is permanent damnation?
Remember YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY said call no man on earth father and in Catholicism every leader is called father and pope means father, direct defiance against The WORDS of YESHUA CHRIST GOD ALMIGHTY.
Research that and you'll find a lot of gibberish defending that point, but no SCRIPTURES saying to call someone father. If even you admit you "fathered" them.
In Catholicism high ranking leaders are also called "heavenly father" which is so defiant of CHRIST it's at the point of mocking HIM.
Human self worship says I chose this so this is who I am so I will defend this which is defending myself because if this is wrong, I am wrong and I'm not wrong because I am me!
You are not a Catholic, you are a human being. You are seeker of CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY, who is currently following mostly catholic teachings. If they're doing then you are damned for ever.
Your soul is worth more than risking eternity in hell so you can feel good about your decision to follow Catholicism. You do not have catholic blood in your vessels, if you decided to say you don't agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches but hold 100% to The WORD of GOD, you would not vanish.
If you said, I could be wrong, all that means is that you're humble and CHRIST loves that according to THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
If you watched an Andres Bisonni video
Or if you said I'm not a anything, not any label, but a CHRISTian, you won't melt.
You are free in CHRIST. Decrease everyone except CHRIST. CHRIST before Mary was created by HIM was called The WORD of GOD and before Abraham was HE IS, when HE appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18, where was Mary? She did not exist, so how then could she be The mother of GOD, she's the mother of HIS flesh body, but before her mother Ever was created YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY was, never had been born, never created, always existed so GOD has no mother, but his flesh body did.
You are not to build statues, you are not to kneel or bow to statues, you are not to call men father, you are not to command anyone to abstain from marriage or anything else YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY commands you not to do in HIS WORD. You don't love CHRIST, THE FATHER, The HOLY GHOST nor Mary if you continue to do so or have membership of fellowship with those who do so according to THE HOLY BIBLE. If someone is caught see a pedophile and an organization keeps them as a priest then THE WORD OF GOD states not to fellowship with them but to come out from among them and Mary stated to do whatever CHRIST YESHUA GOD ALMIGHTY tells you to do so you have to do so or you've rejected THE FATHER SON HOLY GHOST and you've rejected Mary in place of your priests.
Seeing that no priest will be able to speak for you, have you readied an excuse for why you rejected THE WORDs of YESHUA CHRIST GOD ALMIGHTY?
Drawn toward Orthodox too. :)
I've been looking into western rite orthodox looks like a good mix of orthodox and Catholic. Unfortunately I don't have a church near me but might be something for you to look into coming from a Catholic background
An update: I became a catechumen today!
@Kimberly Love The fullness of truth is only in the Catholic Church with one Head not many, with actual more unity or elase you gonna see what you been seeing lately divison bewteen patriarchs condemning each other which means theres no unity .
Glad to you are back!!
Love All your series. I too am a convert from Lutheranism.
Wonderful, a presentation offered clearly, powerfully and above all in love.
You're right. Also very Irish.
@@theviridiansons as an English man I agree!
His initial basis in Matthew 1:25 is incorrect. Eos (until) is in fact a time limiting expression. It was used as a time limiting expression in a few verses before in Matthew 1:17
So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations; and from David until (eos) the exile to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the exile to Babylon until (eos) the Messiah, fourteen generations.
Matthew actually constantly uses the term as a limiting expression not as an eternal expression.
Matthew 2:9, 13, 15; 5:18 to name a few
To me this is clearly a stretch of the scriptures to fit a personal belief. I understand that many early church fathers believed in this teaching, but they are not above questioning. They got many things wrong when we look back at it.
@@robertsirico3670 yes that is exactly what I am saying. Scripture is clear 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; and Paul speaks of a James the Lord's brother Galatians 1:19. It is ok to note where the early church got it wrong. When the church holds on to wrong traditions despite the truth being present we commit the sins of the Pharisees.
Amen and well said.
As a Catholic teacher and theologian, well done my brother! Keep it up man!
Thank you for this. Very thoughtful and honest. I became orthodox in July and am still getting to know Mary and appreciate her. Having come from a Protestant background, it does take some time and I can totally relate to what you say. One thing I was quick to notice was how women such as myself have such an esteemed role model in Mary, What a great joy in such a feminist-centric world.
2 reasons mary and joseph were fruitful and multiplied after Jesus.
1) Matthew 13:55
2) Mark 6:3
Ask yourself why mary negligently went a whole days journey without checking on Jesus who was twelve.
Ask yourself why mary called joseph his "father" and was corrected by Jesus who was twelve.
Any mom of multiple children will tell you, mary had a lot going on. Pun intented.
@@vindicatednews9169 in Jewish usage, brother can indicate any number of relations. For example, in Genesis 14:14 Abram calls his nephew Lot “brother”.
The case can be made for Abram, but not for you to use in the case for the Lords brother(s). I can not say mary was not Jesus's mother just because he called her "woman" and never "mother" directly. Because the scriptures say that she is his mother. You can not find a like fashion example to specify Christ brothers were actually his cousins, etc.
@@vindicatednews9169 I had only reiterated what this video says already as part of the “second reason at 5:23...the explanation is in the Greek word.
@@vindicatednews9169 "Mary had a lot going on." You're disgusting.
As a Protestant I have been able to understand and accept all the other Catholic and Orthodox Marian doctrines except perpetual virginity. It was the last thing hanging me up. Not so much now, I'm going to study it more in depth. Thank you for such an enlightening video.
Careful with the Marian dogmas. This video is actually an example of the deceptive information provided by those who support this unbiblical teaching.
For example the first point made about the word til (until) is inaccurate. The word is an adverb and and the length of time is determined by what the adverb modifies. In the erses in which the text refers to an unspecified amount of time, the other words is how you know the length, not the word til. For example until the end of the age. The indefinite length of time is determined by the phrase "the end of the age" not by the word til.
A second example of deception is the idea that the specific Greek word for brother is meant to refer to cousins or other non brother relatives. He is correct that is is used to describe blood relatives but is also means brother. Like most words that have multiple meanings, the definition is determined by the context of the sentence. If you read the passage where Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to follow Him, this word is used to describe their relationship and is translated as brothers because that is what they are. The natural reading of the verses that refer to his brothers is that they are siblings.
Why did Jesus ask a disciple to take care of His mother while on the cross if He had brothers? The answer could be as simple as they did not believe Him to be the Messiah at that point in time. Also, this disciple was his cousin.
Finally, what is always left out of these types of videos is that Jesus had 2 SISTERS.
I am sharing this because I do not want you to be deceived and spend time praying to her. Prayer's purpose is to have a relationship with God Himself. Spending time asking a dead person who is NOT omniscient NOR omnipresent is time that you are not spending speaking with God. There is no greater place to be than in His presence.
God Bless.
@@carmendavis512I'll pray for you.
Check out the comment I made to this video above. Hope it helps to provide another perspective.
You accepted dispassionate conception? The assumption?
@@carmendavis512 You have taken great effort to provide erroneous information. I'll start with one point.
*MATTHEW 1:25: “UNTIL”*
_You keep mentioning that word. I don't think it means what you think it means._
Consider the following verses:
*Verse #1:* _For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet (1 Co __15:25__)._ Does Jesus ever stop reigning? No.
*Verse #2:* _Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching *1 Tim __4:13__._ Should Timothy cease these activities once Paul arrives? No.
*Verse #3:* _To which of the angels did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? (Heb 1:13)_ Do the angels or Jesus ever stop sitting at God's right hand after His enemies are made a footstool? No.
For at that time there will be great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.
Does the word “until” REQUIRE that the previous action or state end in these verses? No.
*Verse #4:* _When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. (Mt 1:24-25)_
Does the word “until” REQUIRE that Mary’s virginity end at any point after Jesus’ birth? No.
The use of "until" may suggest to our ears that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus' birth. However, the examples provided show that "until" (_heos_) in Scripture often indicates a state that continues indefinitely beyond the specified time. Matthew had no reason to comment on Mary’s sex life; if Mary and Joseph had normal relations, why would Matthew care either way? His purpose was to show the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the virgin birth.
In Matthew 1:25, the word “until” should be understood in this broader biblical context and is, therefore, ultimately inconclusive regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity. Those who deny this ancient belief must find corroborating evidence elsewhere.
Thank you for posting this. I have a lot to think about as a protestant currently being persuaded by Eastern Orthodoxy. By the way you have a very soothing presence in this video. May God bless you.
Check out the comment I made about this video above. I hope it gives you another perspective.
I'm an Orthodox curious Episcopalian. These videos have been very enlightening. I want to learn more!
God bless!
@@Theoriacan you post any reference or links relating to the word heos ἕως not definitive
Words cannot express what I feel right now, except that you have unraveled 45 years of Protestant bondage within me. I now understand. Thank you! 😭
What was the bondage?
😂
Love this!
@glennherron9499the greek word used for brother is not always used for biological brothers. It can be used for friends, cousins, other family members, ya know, exactly like the english word for brother lol. In fact it is used to describe Jesus’s cousins in the new testament as well.
I see nothing wrong with her having children, it is a blessing for a woman to have children. Yes she should be honored, but Jesus never said in the Bible to pray thru my mother, he said pray our father which is in heaven. The Bible clearly states, Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Bible states Jesus is the mediator between God & Man. The Bible also does not say anything about Catholicism, Catholics are Christians, but worship differently.@glennherron9499
Awesome video. The last line is really powerful. The reason for people being against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an over-zealous response to a misunderstanding of Mary and her role as a Saint. I’m not Catholic, I’m a Protestant who has come to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and now feel strongly about it. I don’t think my salvation depends on it but it’s good to get it right. Please keep making these great videos. Awesome.
Is Mary the gate to Jesus?
The gospels are pretty clear about Joseph “knew” her after the birth of Jesus. No need to invent the unnecessary mental acrobatics.
on the contrary, I think your salvation may depend on it because keeping that truth invites you to leave Protestantism and become member of an apostolic Church... that is, of a real Church, with true Eucharist...
Informative, truthful and easy enough to consume by a person shaped by smartphone culture like myself. Awesome work! ☦️
Excellent video!
Thank you, and I agree as a Protestant (so far) that there is absolutely no reason to reject the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos.
Except it says in the bible in several places, super specifically, that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The bible names Jesus' brothers specifically. There is even a very detailed prophecy about Jesus, and it mentions his mother specifically and his brothers. It's just Catholic theology, and they like to believe it, so they ignore the scriptures on it.
@@saintejeannedarc9460As a Protestant myself, to be fair an individual stated that. No one else did. We’ve never even read the Greek. I’m confused myself but I’m just unbiasedly studying Orthodoxy. Luther, Calvin and Zwingli have all given her credit as Mother of God. This is all confusing but fun studying
@@FaithfulComforter How do you mean, "an individual stated it, no one else did"? Mary was declared the mother of God. It was in order to protect the divinity of Jesus. I have no issue w/ that, she was the mother of Jesus, and Jesus was divine, as well as his human nature. Things did spiral from there, and as the centuries wended on, Mary was given more divine attributes, and they became dogmatized. Making her more a divinity herself.
@saintejeannedarc9460 you do realize this isn't a Catholic channel, right?
This video is actually an example of the deceptive information provided by those who support this unbiblical teaching.
For example the first point made about the word til (until) is inaccurate. The word is an adverb and and the length of time is determined by what the adverb modifies. In the erses in which the text refers to an unspecified amount of time, the other words is how you know the length, not the word til. For example until the end of the age. The indefinite length of time is determined by the phrase "the end of the age" not by the word til.
A second example of deception is the idea that the specific Greek word for brother is meant to refer to cousins or other non brother relatives. He is correct that is is used to describe blood relatives but is also means brother. Like most words that have multiple meanings, the definition is determined by the context of the sentence. If you read the passage where Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to follow Him, this word is used to describe their relationship and is translated as brothers because that is what they are. The natural reading of the verses that refer to his brothers is that they are siblings and there is no other verses that indicate that the relationship was that of a cousin.
Why did Jesus ask a disciple to take care of His mother while on the cross if He had brothers? The answer could be as simple as they did not believe Him to be the Messiah at that point in time. Also, this disciple was his cousin.
Finally, what is always left out of these types of videos is that Jesus had 2 SISTERS.
I am sharing this because I do not want you to be deceived and spend time praying to her. Prayer's purpose is to have a relationship with God Himself. Spending time asking a dead person who is NOT omniscient NOR omnipresent is time that you are not spending speaking with God. There is no greater place to be than in His presence.
God Bless.
Thank you so much for this video. Please keep them coming!
I'm still not convinced, though I'm open to it. Many protestant scholars have refuted every point made here more convincingly, if I'm being honest. I don't have time to go through each point, but I would look into Gavin Ortlund or James White.
I've also listened to Trent Horn debate them, but his arguments don't really measure up enough to convince me of something the earliest Church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (like Tertulian, Irenaeus, and Origen) taught against. Especially when not ONE other Church fathers back then openly disagreed. It wasn't until 450 or so that perpetual virginity became a DEBATED topic, and eventually became dogma in the late 5th century.
Why does Mary matter Anyway?
Why do i need to ask anyone to talk to my Father in Heaven if i myself have a personal relationship wuth Him? I dont get it.
Exactly !
All protestants say they go direct to God,why Mary and the saints matter?
In the salvation plan of God for humanity,Mary plays an important role in God becoming Man.Jesus didn't have an earthly father,so the body,blood, genes,the human figure of Jesus ALL came from Mary. So talking about personal relationship with God,man's relationship is imperfect for we are bound to sin.Mary has a biological relationship with God himself (Jesus). Mary may not matter to you but see how the Holy Trinity honoured Mary at the wedding at Cana even his time has not yet come to begin his work of salvation,he turned the water into wine when Mary brought to Jesus's attention the situation faced by the host.
God placed people to intercede for us!!
GOD INSTRUCTING KING ABIMELEK TO GO TO ABRAHAM Gen 20:7
Now therefore, return his wife to the man, for he is a prophet. And he will pray for you, and you will live. But if you are not willing to return her, know this: you shall die a death, you and all that is yours.
Thank you! Beautifully done.
Very well put on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Theo-r-i-a, if i may add something, in 1987 i was going through a bad time, i was brought up a Catholic as a child until my teens, and as many know when we reach our teens we go another way in life, dancing, music, girlfriends, night life, looking for an outward love or something to fill an empty void that we feel time to time,
anyway as i was say i hit a point in my life where i was hit hard by panic attacks back in the day, i had no one to turn too only medication from doctors, but that only masked the problem but did not deal with it, sure you can talk with someone the mind field of sorting parts of the issue, but the work is one of the person themselves as i found out later as you read on,
i was going out with a girl called Mary, she was a wonderful and pleasant girl, she loved going to Sunday school and loved reading the Bible now and then, we would go for walks in the country, and she asked if i would go with her to one of her Sunday services, i agreed to go along and see what it was like, all nice people where there, and the minister gave a good service, and afterward he asked me if i would be interested in joining them as a member, i replied, thank you but not just now, as i was still in my teens and i wanted to do a teen thing back then and go out in the world and explore,
i will get to the point of what i am saying here soon.... later down the line, my girlfriend Mary sat down with me one night, and she reached over me to a drawer at the side of her bed, and she pulled out a book the Bible and wrote something inside and a kilt pin silver two edge sword and placed them on my hand, she said, take these for they will not mean anything to you now, but later in life it will matter, i thank her for that gift, but as she said it wont mean much at that point but would help later, so after many weeks together after that we parted our ways, as good friends,
afterwards i was seeing other girls as i grew up, and later i met someone who i married and settled down with, we had children, so things where going great as i thought, until out of the blue i was hit with panic attacks, choking feelings, couldn't eat much and slept little night, my life was draining out me for i was a shadow of my formal self, i was given pill for this and that and stuff for my breathing to free the airwaves so i could relax, but nothing was helping me, talked with many doctors, and spoke to priests but i was alone in my own journey,
i hit rock bottom in my life and i didn't fit in anymore, so one night i looked in my cupboard and in one of my boxes i found that Bible my ex-girlfriend Mary gave me so long ago, and i pulled it out and there was that silver kilt pin sword also next to it, i sat down on my bed and opened the Bible, and saw what Mary had written on a black page of the Bible at the top right hand side, it said "John 3:16" that all it was written just that, so i went to that page and saw what it said in that chapter, it blew me away as i felt something special in those words, and i started to read the Bible a bit at a time after that, it gave me hope to hold on to,
it took a while to grasp on where to go from there as i had to deal with other things back then, being married and the children and being out of work for some time, i had to get back on my feet. it was a slow process for a while, plus we moved to new house and had much work to do in it,
so here is where i am getting at now....
My ex-wife and i had to go up to our local town center to get some goods for the new house, and we walked along to the shops, and i saw this little shop that was a Catholic book shop, i stopped and looked in the window and i had a feeling been drawn into the shop to look around, so the wife and i went in, and i was drawn to the back area of the shop, and i saw book of the Virgin Mary as there was many to choose from, but this book stood out from them all, it was about the size of my palm of my hand, blue cover with the image of Mother Mary on the front cover, i pick it up and the feeling i felt was something that drew me to it, but then i placed it down again because i didn't know if i could afford to buy it then, for i had no money and my wife held the purse then, so i looked around the shop and saw a set of rosary beads and they where all many colors, but the very pale blue bead stood out to me, so i knew that i felt something about them as i did with the little book of Mother Mary, we just kept looking around the shop, then i went to the back of the shop again and picked up the book again, my wife came up to me and said do you want the book, i said can we afford it, she replied we got a bit extra money this week and looked at the price and said we can get it, we went to the counter and i said i saw something else if you don't mind if we could buy them, and i went over to the rosary beads and brought them to the counter, and my wife looked at the price and said add them too and said this is the last thing as we need to get things for the house next before the money drains away,
Great video! I think one reason why modern Evangelicalism rejects the perpetual virginity of Mary is because it seems too "Catholic", and there's so much bad blood between Protestants and Catholics due to 500+ years of conflict. I am a former Evangelical, and now Roman Catholic Christian. I pray together with St. Pope Jon Paul II that some day soon the church will "breathe again with both lungs", East and West; and I think that former Protestants (like us) who found their way by God's grace into a historic See can play a big part in the healing that needs to take place.
WAKE UP...
ua-cam.com/video/dq9Y6FswGR0/v-deo.html
She couldn't be a Virgin because marriage is completed through consummation. It has nothing to do with being too Catholic, the orthodox and Isslam venerates Mary. Veneration of Mary is pagan, and that's why it's rejected by Christianity; it's straight paganism to claim a woman was immaculate like Jesus. Only a God is immaculately conceived; that's how you know it's God; That's how you know it's the messiah
@@forthewin369 She wasn't married and wasn't immaculately conceived. Therefore, she is virgin and not pagan.
She was betrothed and not married plus your belief on consummation is very foreign to Christianity and has never been part of Jude-Christian beliefs or culture. Also who told you about this bizarre belief system? And your references to being “Too Orthodox or Catholic” is very much a reality within Protestantism. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are the only apostolic faiths and were once one universal Church during that time there was one valid Christianity then that changed in 1054 then in 16th century birthed an entire realm of Antichristian theology known as Protestantism (PROTEST) that has lost entirely the ancient faith. Which is the cause of people like you making false claims to further confuse people. Please come home to the Orthodox Faith. Have you ever been to Orthodox Divine Liturgy? You should try it. Be forewarned that it is nothing like what you have experienced and it is a serious commitment we don’t let just anyone in.
@@eeaotly we know she was Jewish which is why she isn’t pagan but dude clearly isn’t grasping reality. We just have to pray that people come home to Orthodoxy
I am a convinced Protestant but am appreciating much from the early church fathers, the Roman Catholic tradition, and the Eastern Orthodox tradition. I appreciate the place of Mary in the philosophy of the Eastern church and the beauty and ramifications of it. I still am not convinced of any of the Maryan dogmas and see a lot of eisegesis, but want to learn more. I appreciate this video!
Then come on home to Orthodoxy! Most people can’t let go of their family heritage which I definitely understand.
The ECF didn’t believe in this
The first mention is 5th century, long after Mary has died
If you want to cite the gnostic source of James, then that’s 2nd century after she died and dubious source
The Doctrine of PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of Blessed Mary is one of the greatest HERESY ever invented by the Roman Catholic Church... We loved and honored Blessed Mary through the Biblical TRUTH without compromise and not through Man's (Pope's) way... for St. Peter and St. Paul including the early Christian Churches in the 1st Cent. A.D. does not support this doctrine...
"For if We (Apostles) or an Angel from Heaven teaches/preaches other Gospel other than the Gospel we (apostles) have preached, taught and received from us (apostles), let the CURSE of God be upon them / be an Anathema / be condemn eternally / be doomed to destruction." (ref. Galatians 1:8 / KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NET, ASB, etc.)...
Glory and Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen.
I’d like to offer a short rebuttal.
To your first point, Heos (g2193) doesn’t have a uniform connotation of Eternity. Heos is used much the same way “until” is in English. See the other uses of it in Matthew 1.
The church reformers believed many things that were unbiblical. Such as limited atonement, or Luther’s beliefs about Jews.
To your second point, the word Adelphos (G80) can mean more than brother, but again, look at the other usages all through the Bible. 9/10 times it means brother so without any reason in the text to suspect it means step brother, it’s unreasonable to assume that reading. Additionally, the Protoevangellium of James has never been accepted as scripture, was rejected by Origen, Jerome, Innocent I, and condemned in the Gelasian Decree. Additionally, both the early church and modern scholars agree that the earliest it could have been written is 150 AD, meaning James couldn’t have been the author.
I’ll while heartedly agree about Romans 8:29. That’s a bad proof text. That said, I’ve never heard it used to prove Jesus had brothers.
And to your third point, it doesn’t seem unreasonable, if God wants to Mary to be a virgin through her whole life He doesn’t need any of our permission. However in the Bible there’s no reason to suspect she was. While it’s true many Christians thought the years have thought Mary to be pictured in the Old Testament, none of them hold up under scrutiny. While it’s true Moses’ face shone after seeing God, Mary is never described as being blindingly radiant. The argument of “God used the womb for Jesus, it wouldn’t be right to use it for normal childbirth” sounds compelling, but that’s not how theology is established. True theology MUST come from clear teaching. If you’re going to appeal to typology, it has to be shown in the New Testament. We can look at Adam as a forerunner of Jesus because the New Testament tells us he was. We can look at Jesus as the Passover Lamb because the New Testament tells us He was. There are no NT types of Mary established anywhere. But to look at the East Gate type you mentioned, is Mary the Temple, or is she the Ark? And if her womb is the east gate, why does Jesus enter it, not exit through it?
In closing, you can believe in the True Incarnation of Jesus the Lord and also believe that Mary being a virgin throughout her life is not found in the Bible.
It's hard to believe with good reason that the most ancient Church didn't know as much as you did. You pre-suppose (I assume) that the Holy Spirit didn't do a good job guiding Christ's Church, that somehow some untruths sneaked into what it held to be true and now you have uncovered these untruths?
I just wanted to say, I've been scrolling, and this is the most elaborate comment I've seen the Protestants write. Nonetheless, I am hesitant to call the rebuttal successful. First off, Theoria isn't Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox, which uses Greek as it's liturgical tongue, and many of its followers speak Greek, and so did many of its Church Fathers. In order to become clergy, the Orthodox seminary you must go through a course on Ancient/Biblical Greek, and if you already speak Greek (which is likely if you are Orthodox), chances are Greek clergy generally have high fluency of ancient Greek in the Bible. The Eastern Orthodox have maintained the view of Mary's perpetual Virginity since the earliest Christians, this being essential dogma. That being stated, the language, especially the "until" verse, has not once posed a problem for the Eastern Orthodox Church - itself has been studied deeply, and experienced the debate under Jerome, which didn't cause any damage to the Church dogma. In addition, the general scholarly concensus, even outside of the Orthodox Church, is that the Greek phrase does not imply a change in Mary's Virginity... ever.
As for the Protoevangelium of James, it is a gospel that isn't in the cannon, but is often referred to by all non-Protestant Churches. If you have studied history and are aware of how historical source investigation works, you may already know why. The Protoevangelium narrates about many contextual factors of Christianity, and makes mention of various beliefs and practices Christians had since Christ. Not everything in it is factual or dogmatic, hence its lack of canonicity. On the other hand, the Church has a multitude of traditions held since the Early Christians that were taught by Christ and His Apostles. Scholars can link the historical details to conclude the authenticity. We don't know which details in the Protoevangelium are true or not. But we do know which traditions the Church practices. But we have to simply trust the Church that the traditions it practices were practiced by the Early Christians. However, if a Church belief or tradition matches up narrative written in the Protoevangelium, two puzzle pieces are linked, and we know the authenticity of both. For the sake of clarity: the Church's traditions do Not stem from the Protoevangelium - the traditions stem from the Early Christians, those who knew Christ and the Apostles; the Protoevangelium is uncanonical either way. The Protoevangelium is a gospel describing a lot of the context of the Bible's events. It is uncanonical, because despite describing these events, it contains quite a few unfactuals. But because the Church practices traditions since the Early Christians, some of which have been recorded in the Protoevangelium. Thus, these narrations of the Protoevangelium can be factchecked as true, because they were indeed practiced by the Early Christians, as the Church's retain of those traditions proves. In return, the Protoevangelium shows authenticity to the traditions, showing that they did indeed stem from the Early Christians, and aren't later inventions. TLDR: The Church's traditions can prove which parts of the Protoevangelium have a level of canon, whilst their record in the Protoevangelium proves that the traditions have authenticity and were actually practiced by the Early Christians. In that aspect, the non-Protestant Churches (actually all of them, Oriental, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism) often quote the Protoevangelium, despite its lack in the Biblical canon. In that sense, yes of course Jerome and the other Fathers you mentioned reject the Protoevangelium, obviously, it isn't cannon. However, Jerome would still refer to it nonetheless, for the reasons ai explained above. Please note, this "link the ends" is used in historical research in general, it is not unique to the Church traditions.
I really respect your attempt, you have done far better than most of your Protestant brethren. But in the end, your base argument is a good but weak one that is common amongst non-conformist Protestants: "So, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, but merely compatible with it, or at best inferred? - that's not strong, and feels like you're adding to the Bible." : I can see why this is may be a compelling argument for some, it sounds reasonable, especially to those new to studying theology. However in the greater picture, it is a very weak argument. One reason for this, is that this argument can just as easily be applied the opposite direction. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a doctrine that has always been in Church tradition. In fact, it is believed by the solid Majority of Christians. It is a key doctrine in Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and in Coptic/Oriental Orthodoxy. It is not limited to the traditional denomination either, but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is also belief present in a lot of the Protestant denomination - and accepted by the major Protestant Church Fathers, most prominently Luther himself. The only Christians arguing against her Perpetual Virginity are a few loud minority of non-conformist Protestants. This minisculeness of those who support the criticism isn't for no reason - the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has been practiced by Christians since the very Earliest of Christians, and we know not merely from the fact that is a major doctrine in All Christian Denominations, the fact that the Church Fathers have strongly been in support of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, as far back as the Early Christians, and is even included in the Protoevangelium which isn't even fully canonical, yet includes this detail! On the other hand, besides support from a few hereticals, such as the debate against Jerome, disregarding the Perpetual Virginity of Mary from one's theology is an extremely modern and questionable stance. This is the pot calling the kettle black. The accusation that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary should not be a doctrine merely because it is implied and plausible, but not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, whilst neither is the loss of her Virginity, especially considering this is a modernistic minority reinterpretation, is deeply hypocritical.
But I digress. I am yet to see a single strong enough counterargument from these few Protestants against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The more convincing ones lead no further than an inconclusive back-and-forth, whilst the majority of Protestant counterarguments have long been rebutted, but are only revived by few Sola Scripturas who only just discovered the dilemma and have assumed they've discovered some epithanic hidden truth. In reality, all have been covered, from the "until" debate, to "actually, the word that I didn't know was dual happens to actually mean brother here and not cousin", to the poor counterarguments for the entrusting of Mary to St John ("the brothers were unbelievers"; "the brothers were not present because they feared watching the crucifixion or were disheartened"; etc), to a few other details that are unexplainable by these minorities in the Protestant denomination.
The truth is, there are multiple interpretations on Christ's family, not solely the classical view on the loss of Mary's Virginity. But the only one that has reasonable historic and widespread support is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Best wishes, and much love. Hope you guide well upon this research! ☦✝️
Thoughtful and helpful. Thank you.
that first example: He knew her not "until" she bore her firstborn son
Wow you quoted John Calvin who was basically an Augustinian student (since he quotes Augustine over 200 times in his works), as your evidence??? For one, Calvin is not an early church father and two, neither was Augustine. That's like saying Trump is a founding father of our nation and we're only a little over 200 years from the birth of it.
#1
The meaning of "until" has more than one meaning. It can and should be interpreted as it seems it should be in this sentence. Such a convolution put upon something as simple as this sentence is nothing short of word witchery.
#2
You quoted a Coptic gospel for evidence??? Are you Coptic or Catholic?
#3
Is not even something I believe as it's obvious he's referring to spiritual brothers.
To believe this is one thing, but to require one to believe it for salvation is heresy. Paul warned us that any teaching about salvation that went against the Gospel message he preached was to be rejected.
For one to be saved, we must believe and confess that Jesus Christ is the son of God who came and died for our sins and accept him as his Lord and Savior. But now the doctrine of salvation has changed with the added requirements:
Must believe Mary was born without sin in order to be saved
Must believe Mary was ever virgin in order to be saved
Must believe Mary died without sin in order to be saved
Must believe Mary was assumed into heaven in order to be saved
Add all the other dogmas one is required to believe outside the Gospel in order to receive salvation and you have the greatest false religion man has ever seen.
Much like the "religious rulers" presiding over God's old testament church in Jesus day, they also added to the scriptures with their own doctrines and traditions that made God's word null and void. What did Jesus say to them and do? He called them devils and snakes and tore down their lies with the word of Truth proceeding out of his mouth.
The same needs to be done today where the pure plan of salvation is made null and void with false doctrine, revelation, and tradition.
Well said...
"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:8
@@spacecoastz4026 Amen
Thank you for these points. Also, this guy looks like he’s in some evil trance (no offense, pal).
He is eastern orthodox not catholic. He cited protestant sources to refute a protestant argument. Nothing wrong with that. The protoevangelium of James has been considered apocrypha by the oriental, catholic and eastern orthodox churches. Its not uniquely coptic.
True
Mary, the most blessed among women. We love her but we do not worship, pray & bow down to her, but there is a prayer our Lord taught us to pray and it only has his name in it, our Father who art in Heaven
Do you ever say any other prayer or just that one.?
@@johnnyd2383 yeah I do n I pray in his name at the end.
@@Qanunmem Have you ever listened to the Orthodox service that lasts for 1.5 hours.?
@@johnnyd2383 yes, even for more than 2 hrs
Jesus said to pray “like this” or “in this manner”. He didn’t say to actually pray this exact prayer. He was using it as an example of HOW to pray.
Also, just before that He says “And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think they will be heard for their many words.” Yet, Catholics do this when it’s so obvious in scripture not to.
Wonderful Video. I love the Mother of God
Glory to God for this video - Thank you for making it. May the Most Holy Theotokos pray for us all.
also in iconography the perpetual virginity of our Most Holy Virgin Mary is visible...How? in every icon of Our Lady Theotokos there are three stars embroidered on her deep red gown(Μαφόριον-Maforion): one star on the head,one on the right arm and one on the left arm that mean: virgin before virgin during and virgin after the birth of Christ......!!! This is how orthodox icons teach theology to the believers...they are the books of the iliterate as St.John Damascene said...Υπεραγία Θεοτόκε σώσον ημάς.
The Matthew 13:33 defense is a little thin. Anyone who has done any baking knows that simply introducing it into flour will eventually end up with a completely leavened batch. What about Matt 5:6? Will the person remain in prison, ‘even after they have paid the last penny’? And Matt. 17:9? ‘Tell the vision to no one even after the Son of Man be risen’? And Matt 18:34. ‘Deliver him to the torturers even after he has paid the debt’? Perhaps “till” means just that… TILL. If God’s first commandment to humanity was, ‘increase and multiply’, why would Mary, a holy and sinless person, disobey it?
Thank you so much for making this video! I think that this has been the best explanation I've heard for this topic :)
@Glenn Herron Did you watch the video? He addresses this :)
@glennherron9499
Mstthew 13:56-57 prove the perpetual virvinity in Christ’ own words in the Greek.
Although this teaching was illuminating on some fronts, you cannot “assume” Mary’s perpetual virginity for all her life. That fact is we don’t know. Which I see is difficult for many to say “We don’t know “ there isn’t enough evidence to show she remained a virgin after Jesus birth. Why not just continue in honoring the Blessed virgin Mary and that she is blessed among woman? It’s ok to not add what isn’t there.
We Orthodox do know as her entire life was with the Church and around the Church and we know how she lived once the Lord ascended back to the Heavens.
But that goes both ways, there is no evidence Mary lost her virginity either. And you guys wont admit that.
Slava Bogu ☦️❤️ Welcome Home ❤️
Agreed! Slava Bogu
Thank you for the thoughtful presentation.
It is sad to me that you have reached this conclusion, as it puts you at odds with biblical christianity. Praying to Mary is never done by either Jesus or the apostles as we can tell in the Gospels or the letters. You might call it "seeking her intercession" but she is not omnipresent and we have no reason to believe she hears all prayers. It is not taught by Jesus and His apostles, and is not modeled by the early church, as seen in the letters or in Acts.
I also have some comments on your responses against the protestant arguments:
In Mt 1:25 it is said Joseph "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus."
It is true that "until" in this passage does not necessarily mean it ended after, as you pointed out, even if it is the natural reading. Notice that the Bible´s claims about her virginity is about being a virgin when she bears and delivers Jesus. A virgin will bear a son.... she was a virgin until this time.... there is nothing from the Scriptures that promotes or exhalts being a virgin after.
The second thing is that whether "until" implies a change after the birth is determined by context. When Jesus says that He is with us until the end of the Age it does not imply an end, as the end of the Age is His physical return to earth. In this case the end of her virginity is implied by the situation; she was supposed to be a virgin when she gave birth as the prophecies say, but there is no need or good purpose in her staying a virgin any more. Secondly, it is implied since she was married. It is not a good thing to stay a virgin in marriage, Paul condemns the practice in 1 cor 7:1-5.
A good believing wife does not stay celibate in marriage, and I believe Mary was a good wife to Joseph.
As for the word in greek for brothers, it is true that it is sometimes (but not commonly) used for cousins and similar, but it´s primary meaning is just brothers, so unless you have a bias or other reason to conclude these are not actual brothers it is more reasonable to conclude they were His actual brothers. So even if it is not a 100% certain it is a lot more likely than them being cousins. There are greek words for cousins and other relations that could have been used. Instead the Bible uses a word that naturally means brothers.
We see the brothers coming with Mary in Mt 12:47 to stop Jesus, which fits more naturally if they are His brothers and her sons. In Nazareth, the people ask if Jesus parents aren´t Joseph and Mary and if His brothers and sisters does not live among them, which would be more natural if they were also the children of Joseph and Mary.
There is nothing in the texts that hints or supports them being anything other than just simply brothers, the children of Mary.
To claim we have something to learn from the protoevangelium of James is strange. It´s not recognized to be from James and was written later, probably in the middle of the second century. If we know the person writing it was not James and therefore lies about themselves, why would we take what they write seriously? It is not a good historical source.
When you come to the part where you try to promote the idea of her perpetual virginity you have no clear texts, since this teaching is not in the Bible at all.
Instead you use typology of the temple gate: Ez 43:27-44:4
If this is to be used as a typology, we must be clear that the temple of God in the NT is not Mary but the Church, where we are all living stones. So what would be the application? Maybe that we are only to allow God to enter and hold preeminence in His church, for example by allowing His Word, Scripture, to be above the words of all other authorities (Sola Scriptura is a good example of how to do this).
But if you use this image and apply it to whatever you choose without biblical warrant, you have no case. You could prove anything with a methodolgy like that.
The only time I know of in Scripture where anyone tries to apply special significance to the womb of Mary and exhalt her body in any way similar to this, is where a woman cries out (Lk 11:27):
"Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!", but Jesus does not support this, He says:
“On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.”
I hope you will take this word of Jesus to heart.
True
Our Most Holy Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity has been prophesied in the Old Testamen
t
Ezekiel 44:1-2 , Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
as we can see the gate through God of Israel entered in by it is Virgin Mary and it is clear that NO MAN shall enter in by it and after the birth of Christ she remained shut,because Lord our God entered in by it. Thus it is clear:Virgin Mary before,during and after the birth of Jesus Christ remained virgin...no husband no other children.
Proverbs 4:3 For I was a son to my father, tender and an only child in the sight of my mother.
here it is not Salomon who speaks about himself,because Bathsheba had other children too...it is the Son of God,Logos who speaks about Himself:He is the Son of His Heavenly Father as God and the ONLY CHILD of his human mother....very clear...Mary had not other children,only ONE Jesus Christ.
but even if there were no prophecies about that would any logic and religious man ever think that Our Theotokos after this tremedous honour made from God to her-to become His Mother-would she ever after the birth of God,succumb in carnal desires to make her own family and children like an ordinary woman? She who was impeccable even in the slightest thought would ever continue her life in a human state inferior of her spiritul level...common logic. NO WAY
Can you please clarify. I got lost a bit but I agree with the first part
@@viviennebaptiste please tell me what exactly you don't understand? there are two texts from the Bible-prophecies about Virgin Mary...I made some comments explaining them...what is confusing you?
@@evans3922 after the verse in proverbs where you said " but even if there were no prophecies about that would any logic and religious" i didn't know quite you were trying to say
@@viviennebaptiste Virgin Mary was selected by God to become His Mother because of her utmost pureness... She was not an ordinary virgin woman.. She had never sinned even in thought..she held the Son of God Himself(can you even slightly imagine that) for nine months in her womb...she gave birth to Him and breastfed Him who feeds the whole creation., who sustains the universe.. visible and invisible (also impossible even to think of it) ... After this extremely high honour made to her by God does anyone think that she would continue her life after Jesus Christ birth like an ordinary woman.. having sexual relationship and her own family and children as Protestants claim?? This is not possible because of the height of her virtue and spiritual state... She would not go back to a way of life inferior to her spiritual status... That's what I said
@@evans3922 thanks makes much sense. But that's like impossible for any human not sin not even once. Does that mean the Catholics are correct when they say that Mary had no Original sin? That she was sinless
I finally changed my mind on it when someone brought a verse from Mark calling the Lord's brothers and sisters "relatives" and the Greek word used is never used for sibling to sibling relationships. Also to people who see a married couple not having marital relations.. We can see Essene influence in Christ's ministry. The Essenes had very strict rules around sexuality and so a chaste married couple was not weird. Also we can see as representative of the early Christian piety, the story of the Indian Prince and Princess almost remaining a celibate married couple in the Acts of Thomas. From reading the early Apocryphal Acts and Church Fathers we can see how valued celibacy or chastity was.
Matthew 12 : 48 - 50 While he was still speaking to the crowds, look you, his mother and his brothers stood outside, for they were seeking an opportunity to speak to him. Someone said to him : “Look you, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking an opportunity to speak to you.” He answered the man who had spoken to him : “Who is my mother? And who are my brothers?” And he stretched out his hand towards his disciples. “See,” he said, “my mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3 : 20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “ He is out of his mind.”
Mark 3 : 31 - 35 Then Jesus’s mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “ Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
John 7 : 5 “For even his brothers did not believe in him.”
John 7 : 1 - 9 After these things Jesus moved about in Galilee, for he did not wish to move about in Judaea, because the Jews were out to kill him. The Festival of the Tabernacles was near. So his brothers said to him : “ Leave here and go down to Jerusalem so that your disciples will get the chance to see the works that you do. For no one goes on doing things in secret, when he wishes to draw public attention to himself. Since you can do these things, show yourself to the world.” For even his brothers did not believe in him. So Jesus said to them : “The time of opportunity that I am looking for has not yet come ; but your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I bear witness about it that its deeds are evil. Go up to the festival yourselves. I am not yet going up to the festival, because my time has not yet come.” When he had said these things to them he remained in Galilee.
Ezeciel 44:1_3 for what that actually stands???
Denis, Mary’s SISTER, MARY, was also at the cross. 2 sisters of the same womb? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Did you listen to the video?
Matthew 13:56-57 prove the perpetual virginity
True
Excellent. Thank you for this beautifully done video.
Let's not forget also, that if Mary had other kids, Jesus would never have left her in the care of the Apostle John. She even moved in with him... that would be strange if she had sons. Especially in the context of Jewish families. Also, when Jesus stays behind in the temple and they look for Him for 3 days, there were no brothers and sisters with Mary and Joseph. Also, to think that a Godly man like Joseph would ever dare touch Mary after GOD was born from her...man. You'd have to be entitled and American to believe that!
Sorry , but Mary had other children with her husband Joseph after Jesus birth! It's says so in the Bible! The Bible is truth,!
Probably cause they were killed for the gospel of God!
How would you go about addressing the claim that Mary's perpetual virginity implies that relations within marriage are sinful/shameful?
Why would that be implied? I know people who have never married. Didn't stop me...35 years and counting.
Numbers 30....read it. Explains how a Virgin who consecrated herself to God never has sex in a marriage. Biblical support for the vow the Virgin Mary took at a very young age that she would remain a virgin.
As a protestant this made me think, but i have some issues, In 7:20 it seems that you are saying Jesus was the first born of creation, therefore he cannot be eternal, maybe im getting it wrong, and another issue is, that in the context of Mt 1 25, i dont see how the greek word may reffer to eternally, it just doesnt fit in, hope this gets to someone who can enlight me!
Absolutely beautifully done....
The problem doesn’t revolve around whether or not she had other children. The problem is with the sinless claim. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). So that verse either includes all or it doesn’t. Either the Bible is lying or the Roman Catholic Church is lying. If Mary is sinless then that verse would have to read for everyone besides Mary has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Do infants who die or the severely mentally disabled all sin? Or was Paul speaking in hyperbole, as we see again later in Romans 11:26 when he says that all of Israel will be saved?
Mary was not spared from sin simply to glorify her. She was saved by Jesus at her Immaculate Conception so that she would not be destroyed by the powerful presence of God Incarnate in her womb. God could not dwell among the Israelites due to their sin because He said it would destroy them. How could He then dwell in a sinful woman without killing her?
Also, the New Covenant must be greater than the Old Covenant. Eve, the Woman in the Old Covenant was created without original sin. How then, could Mary, the Woman of the New Covenant, be created with original sin, and lack the same perfect free will afforded Eve? Jeremiah prophesies in 66:7 "“Before she goes into labor,
she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such things?
Who has ever seen things like this?" and we see that the Woman to come does not inherit the curse of the Fall, which is pain in childbirth.
Or the third option: Neither is lying but you don't understand. Here's an example of the error you're making:
"And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment," (Hebrews 9:27)
This verse appears to make a clear, universal statement that no one would question. However, Lazarus and other people who were raised from the dead died twice. And Enoch and Elijah never died. From this we see that scripture does make general statements that are not absolute.
Paul’s statement in Romans 3:23 that “all have sinned” does not REQUIRE that literally every single person who ever walked the face of the earth committed personal sins against God. Jesus didn’t sin. Infants who die before reaching the age of reason do not sin. So, it is not true that ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING EVER BORN sinned. That’s simply not the case.
Thus, Romans 3:23 is not an absolute statement and cannot be used as an iron-clad argument against the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Jesus could stay in Mary’s womb the same way the Holy Spirit can come and dwell with all believers. Before Jesus was born an angel came and told Mary what was going to happen. It makes logical sense she would have been purified before Jesus was in her womb. This does not mean she was sinless and if she was sinless she would not have any need of a savior.
Yes statements that say ALL can be used as iron clad. Especially when the exceptions to the ALL have been explained as a super natural work done by God. If God had not taken them to heaven then yes they would have died. For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God includes ALL except of course Jesus who was fully God and fully man.
Precarious Protestant here. Ok I get it. Pretty emotional right now.
As a Protestant I do respect Mary as the mother of The Lord Jesus Christ but I can not and will not worship her.
There are no commandments or scriptures in The Holy Bible that say to do so, nothing in the Gospels or any of the epistles to the churches.
After the book of Acts she is no longer mentioned.
No orthodox Christian worships her. That’s a Protestant lie
Right
This is a bad strawman and quite frankly, bearing false witness. Orthodox and Catholics do not worship Mary.
Recently purchased a copy of the infancy gospels of James and Thomas, while non-canonical I have found it still a useful book to support Mary's ever-virginity.
☦️ Awesome explanation! Thank you.
God Bless you for doing the Holy work of our Lord I WILL PRAY for u all morning n night as a sinner that I am 🙏🙏🙏 May our Holy Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary intercede for us all 🙏💒✝️💝
Thank you! Would you consider supporting this channel?
www.patreon.com/user?u=44232317
@@Theoria ofcourse brother in Christ 🙏💝💒✝️ I’ll subscribe now
@@ChristianOrthodoxMiracles Thank you!
Brilliant, thanks! The richness of the Faith found in Scripture never fails to amaze me.
More precisely, isn't Mary the mother of the incarnation of the Word of God? She is not mother of the Father, the Spirit or the Word who preexisted and created her. She had a unique relationship with God in this lifetime, in that she is a daughter of the Father, bride of the Spirit, and mother of the Son. Perhaps she is the example or foreshadow of our own relationships with God in the afterlife.
That's why in Greek, they use "Theotokos" which means "Bearer of God" as she bore God (the Word) in flesh. This avoids the improper connotations that "Mother of God" can carry.
Question: does the idea of NON-Perpetual Virginity possibly find its origins in Gnosticism?
She did not consume her marriage with Joseph, he was too old and his only job was to take care of her and only 👍☦️🙏☝️
The way you say is wrong, in my Orthodox Romanian Bibel is not written so, he never knew her as a woman or anything
Matei 25. Si fara sa fi cunoscut-o pe ea Iosif, Maria a nascut pe Fiul sau Cel Unul-Nascut, Caruia I-a pus numele Iisus.
Sound exegesis. 🙏🏼💙🙏🏼
The argumentation presented here seems highly speculative and flimsy. For one, the Protoevangelium of James is a dubious source. Sex within marriage is a good thing which is blessed by God. The burden of proof is on the proponent of perpetual virginity to demonstrate that Mary and her husband did not engage in this natural and blessed aspect of marriage. Speculation is not a sound demonstration.
The argument that Joseph would "approach the womb carefully" (i.e. that he would be afraid of having sex with Mary) is bizarre. That argument seems to assume that the sexual act, even when performed within marriage, is in some way shameful or degrading.
Also, denying perpetual virginity does not lead to a "dualistic" Christianity where the physical world does not matter. That's an utter non-sequitur.
@Glenn Herron yes. Yield to biblical Gossip. Were the Sanhedrin leaders telling also the Truth when the told Pilates that they had no King? Just because somebody says something in the Bible does it make it true? According to them Jesus is not the rightful heir of the Davidic Kingdom of the Jews?
👏👏👏 well done my brother …
Through the prayers of Yours Holy Mother and all of the saints Lord Jesus Christ,Son of God,have mercy on me , a sinner🙏☦️!
Why bring up the protoevangelium?
Because it is the earliest written statement about Mary being a perpetual virgin, even though the Church has always believed that it was fraudulently composed by someone other than the stated author, and therefore rejected it as inspired, but it still does contain some truth in it.
@@jzak5723So how does the church determine what the true parts of uninspired works are?
@@photosyntheticzee9915
Well, the easiest way is to see what the work says, and compare it to the Church teaching at the time the work came into existence. If it agrees, then that part is true, if not, its false. Pretty simple. The PVM was already being taught when the POJ showed up in circulation, so the concept didn't come from the POJ, but the POJ corroborated it.
@@jzak5723I suppose you could call it corroboration in favor of the PVM, but it becomes circular imo.
Church doctrine justifies parts of the PEJ, not the other way around, so why use parts of PEJ to justify church doctrine?
If you look at the reasoning as a whole, it is really just church doctrine justifying itself. If you believe in the church, this is fine, but using PEJ as evidence implies that PEJ is something which could justify church doctrine, which it is not.
@@photosyntheticzee9915
I don't see it as circular reasoning at all. And I certainly didn't mean that the POJ alone justifies Church doctrine, if that is what you think I meant.
Most Holy Theotokos ,save us 🙏☦️!
Genuine Question: how can Mary save you?
Thanks 🙏
@@lukasg9031 Christ’s death and Resurrection saves us but what Catholics and Orthodox have always understood since the beginning (and you can research this in the Church fathers) that Mary’s yes to God when asked if she would be the Mother of the Redeemer untied Eve’s knot ....that we honor her for her role in Salvation never seem to acknowledge this and I just don’t get that.
@@lukasg9031 hi Lukas. The term “save us” when used within the Orthodox Christian prayer life is not a signifier that the Most Holy Theotokos causes our salvation, or that she is the reason humanity is saved, or judges us, or what have you, rather a petition that she please unto the Lord our God to save us, much like how we ask our friends to pray for God’s grace and mercy on us. We truly believe that the prayers of others has an effect, and the Holy Theotokos is no exception. Hope this helps :)
@@fredfredburger6623 yes I understand but I don’t pray for my friends making a petition and trying to make them look good before God.
@@kathleen0933 but how does Mary play a role in salvation? Would that make her the 4th wheel of the trinity?
How can Mary, a mere human being, possibly hear everyone’s prayers and intercede for the millions of people praying to her? Only God can do that. Also, why does it matter whether she was a perpetual virgin? There is nothing sinful about married sex. Surely Joseph would have expected it? The Bible says he didn’t have relations with her until after the birth of Jesus. It doesn’t say he never did.
True
No matter your denomination, it is generally accepted that God can provide individuals with the gift of celibacy. On the other hand, chastity is a virtue in every Christian relationship. If celibacy is a higher form of living, it is not unreasonable to think that the Holy Family lived it. If you‘ve ever heard Christian testimonies of afterlife, you would have heard a lot of them talk about some kind of interconnectivity. People claiming to know other peoples sins and somehow knowing everything about anyone. For God everything is possible. He created both the visible and invisible.
Υπεραγία Θεοτόκε σώσον ημάς☦
Amen
she didnt save us
@Keysar Efes she isn't the one who saved us. Very simply put. What is written there says o holy mary, save us.
@Keysar Efes really bro? " σωσον ημας " literally means save us.
@@daltondupre8837 paul says i save σώσω some in his epistles 1 cor 9, 22.explain it ...
I've never thought that, for one to believe in the perpetual virginity, would be in sake of keeping Christ's glory. To think of her womb as something sacred, not because she is some kind of god, or queen of heavens (don't know if Orthodox also have that view of Mary as queen), or even imply from that we should seek for her intercession (now I know my Orthodox brothers will not agree here 😄), but because our God dwelled in there. Even though I still feel weird in reading the plain texts of Jesus' brothers, and not thinking of Mary's sons, this gave me a lot to think. And also made me understand better this ancient belief of the church Fathers. Thank you.
“While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that carried You, and the breasts at which You nursed!” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and follow it.””
Luke 11:27-28 NASB2020
“And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.”
Matthew 1:24-25
Yes
This was very well done.
This is a non argument really. Whether or not see had children is irrelevant. That she had none before she bore Jesus is pivotal. That she had none or many after is INCONSEQUENTIAL. Countless lives and resources have been lost through out the centuries for maintaining foolish dogmas of Rome which have not one slightest bearing on biblical truths or historic facts.
If certain men still wish to be deceived by RELIGION and it's antics after so many years of hindsight good for them.
All of the teachings of Rome turn the teachings of the true God upside down.
That is not dogma of Rome. That is Biblical fact. If you read John 19,26-27 and if you ask yourself why she was given to St. John rather than to her alleged "other children", and if you are honest with yourself, you may be able to grasp the truth.
@@johnnyd2383 The bible declares that Jesus was her "first born son" not her "only born son". Big difference.
It is much like our Lord to go beyond the boundaries of the Law, Custom,Blood ties,Traditions and what is merely to be expected when he gave the two to each other.
"Woman behold thy son and son behold thy mother". He was displaying the spirit of the New Covenant in joining people by Love/obedience to Christ rather than Familial/Tribal obligations.
Secondly, no where does Jesus specifically tell John to take Mary to his home. This was his own judgment.
Thirdly,no where does it's say that the other brethren of Jesus' neglected Mary. And finally why would Jesus absolve the so-called Joseph children from their legal duty?
Dogma is dogma and sad to say people are still blind to let region think for them.
@@jasonfrederick1258 You did not explain why she was given to the "stranger" if she allegedly had other children. In the end, you are not honest to yourself. Pity.
@@johnnyd2383 Sorry I'm only now seeing this comment. Jesus was doing God's will. In commanding John to her and she to John it was only in the principle of the new covenant love...where we love not because of family ties ,tribe or common bond but simply because God commands it. John took care of Mary out of Love for Jesus. Not family bond like her other sons who had their own families also.
Didn't Jesus ask "who are my brethren and my mother"? His response was and still is "my mother and brethren are they who do the will of my father". So he gave Mary not to her sons but to her brother in Christ.
@@jasonfrederick1258 You are talking like Jesus is not Christ and God Himself. Also, your explanation is lame and does not provide any valid reasoning. You are telling that water is wet and that is it. In other words, you are imputing to the Bible what Bible does not say. Fact that in Biblical text term "brothers" and "sisters" is used in far wider context that of contemporary western cliche appears to be unknown to you. Tell me... why in Gen 37 all children of Jacob are called "brothers" when they are not born of a same mother.?
Eos is used for a period of time. Even in Mathew 28:20, it doesn’t designate eternity but the end of this age. It is used for a period of time until in other places also, so yes, it does mean no relationship until Jesus was born.
Very well put and concise. Makes the orthodox view understandable. I'm have a Lutheran background.
Thank you my wife and I needed this
Counterpoint: Mary is not a "touchy subject" among so called "Protestants". In this video a plea is made to the "early Christians" who believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (hereafter referred to as PVM). The "early Christians" were the Apostles and the Disciples of the Lord Jesus and there is no "early" record of them referring to the PVM. The Gospels say nothing about a PVM nor do any of the Old Testament Writings.
The term, Perpetual Virginity of Mary is a Roman Catholic construct, it cannot be found in Scripture. Isaiah speaks of a virgin CONCEIVING and giving birth to a child but says nothing about a PV of the woman. Matthew and Luke, the two official biographers of the birth of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, also say nothing about a PV of Mary.
According to this video, Protestants are ignorant of the meaning of the word "till" or "until". Supposedly, the word means "forever" and not as Merriam Webster:
UNTIL
1 of 2
preposition, un·til ən-ˈtil -ˈtel; ˈən-ˌtil, -ˌtel, -tᵊl
Synonyms of until
1chiefly Scotland : TO
2-used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time
stayed until morning
3: BEFORE sense 2
not available until tomorrow
we don't open until ten
until
2 of 2
conjunction
: up to the time that : up to such time as
play continued until it got dark
never able to relax until he took up fishing
ran until she was breathless
Basically, we are to believe that "until" has no period of time in mind but that it is a continuation of time. However, according to the ordinary grammatical reading of the verse in Matthew, any fifth-grade reader can easily understand that Joseph would "not know", i.e., have sexual relations with his lawfully married wife, UNTIL such time as she gave birth to her "firstborn".
Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
This verse also tells us that Jesus was Mary's "firstborn son". If Matthew had believed that Jesus was Mary's "only begotten son" he would have written as such, be he did not. He was accurate, for Joseph (Mary's lawful Husband) and Mary (Joseph's lawful Wife), after the birth of Jesus, "came together" just as all Husbands and Wifes naturally engage in, i.e., have sexual relations.
Before Mary and Joseph had "come together", they were already legally married, that is, they were already Husband and Wife. Joseph and Mary were planning to live together as any other Husband and Wife and enjoying the pleasures of marriage. Joseph did not sign up to be Mary's "Guardian"; no Scripture ever refers to Joseph as a "guardian of Mary". Husbands leave their parents and CLEAVE (come together) with their own wives.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall CLEAVE unto his wife: and they shall be ONE FLESH.
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Jesus promises his Disciples that he will "be with you till the end". In other words, he is with us, Spiritually and Invisibly, in Heaven, UNTIL he Physically and Visibly RETURNS, to Earth, and establishes God's Kingdom here by actually ruling over all the Nations, sitting on "David's throne", from the New Jerusalem (which is a Protestant belief and not Catholic). Catholics believe that the Pope has been, for Centuries now, already sitting on God's Kingdom here on Earth.
As for some of the so-called Protestant Reformers, such as Calvin, they were Catholics who had many Catholic beliefs ingrained in them. Many doctrines, which were not Biblically correct, were still being adhered to by these early Reformers. Even now there are many Catholic Protestants, such as Church of England, Episcopalians, and Lutherans, to name a few, who still cling to Roman Catholic doctrines, considered by many Protestants as unbiblical.
Also, the word "brother" or "brethren" is often used in Scripture. This is how it is used in these Scriptures:
Matt 13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
Matt 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
Matt 13:55 Is not this the Carpenter's SON? is not his MOTHER called Mary? and his BRETHREN, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Matt 13:56 And his SISTERS, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Matt 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in HIS OWN HOUSE.
Matt 13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
The CONTEXT in which the word "brethren" is used, is in CONTEXT with the words "Carpenter's Son" and "his Mother called Mary". So, in CONTEXT, who are the "brethren" referred to in this passage? His "cousins", his "near of kin", his "disciples"? It should be obvious that the "brethren" are Jesus' own Brothers and Sisters, sons and daughters of Jesus' father (as was supposed) and mother, the Carpenter and Mary. The Language tells us who these "brethren" are, they who were of Jesus' "own house". A little reading comprehension is all that is required. Why should the text say or mean anything else? It shouldn't, without an agenda in mind.
There is no need for Mary to be a PV. She WAS a virgin before and while she CONCEIVED, through the Power of Almighty God, and naturally BORE the child. That was a Sign given by God as to who the child would be, i.e., the promised Messiah, who would be "conceived and borne" of a virgin maid. After Jesus was born, the Sign came to its fulfillment, and it would eventually be known that Jesus of Nazareth had been the promised Messiah because his conception and birth had been exactly as the Prophet Isaiah had predicted. Mary did not "know" her Husband Joseph, UNTIL she had brought forth her firstborn son, the babe Jesus.
Mary's "virginity" did not matter after the child Jesus was born. Joseph and Mary naturally conducted themselves as Husband and Wife. Joseph would still have been alive when Jesus was 30 years of age. Joseph and Mary (say they were both about the age of 17-20 years when they were married) would have been about 47-50 years of age when Jesus first began his ministry among the Children of Israel. That is definitely enough time for them to have had 4 sons and at least 2 daughters. What's wrong with that? Weren't they "husband and wife" as the Scriptures clearly call them?
Why would Joseph, who had taken Mary as his lawful WIFE, ever decide on his own (for no mandate was ever given to him by God nor by an Angel of God) to NEVER KNOW her, and to only be her "guardian", live with her alone, under one roof, pretending to be husband and wife? What's wrong with this picture? If a Man does not CLEAVE with his wife, he is NOT doing what he is supposed to do; such a man would literally be disobeying God's command to "cleave unto his wife", even as the Apostle Paul commanded:
1Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man HAVE HIS OWN WIFE, and let every woman HAVE HER OWN HUSBAND
1Cor 7:3 Let the husband RENDER unto the wife DUE BENEVOLENCE: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
1Cor 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
1Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, EXCEPT IT BE WITH CONSENT FOR A TIME, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Husbands and Wives are not to "defraud" one another "except it be with consent FOR A TIME, i.e., UNTIL. Joseph and Mary were righteous Jews who followed the Laws of God and would not have "defrauded" one another, except for a specific amount of "time".
Argument from silence, word concept fallacy, and being ghey. That’s you
Why didn't you mention St. Jerome and his tract against Helvidius of 383 AD?
hmm... is Mary still a virgin after she died? Is her hymen healing in perpetuity?
I need to study any works from the church in the AD100 time frame. 400 years out, I am not sure how to figure things out
How do we reconcile 1 Cor 7:5 "Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
It is really amazing how you Protestants constantly contradict God, the Church, the Bible, and each other.
Well it can be reconciled with the first part of the verse, mutual consent? Surely Joseph was righteouss enough to respect his wife after seeing the Messiah born through her?
I'm still searching and I am non denominational but I thought I'd answer what I found to be obvious to me here. Hope it helps you and you too get the revelation of God you are searching for.
Thank you so much for this presentation. It's explicitly explained. Thanks again ❤❤❤🙏
Is this the Orthodox view? Im just wondering because I met other Orthodox that do not believe in the perpetual virginity
This is the Orthodox view, yes
I accept this as orthodox belief. They who dont believe the Aieparthenou Maria also reject Christ. All theologies of the Orthodox Church are Christ-center, means the source of theological development is Christ Himself.
In Mark 6:3 it is clearly stated that Mary had at least 7 children namely James, Joseph, Judas, Simon and daughters. This is clear proof from scripture that she is NOT a perpetual virgin. John 2:12 also makes reference to the brothers of Jesus. Matthew 12:46 also mentions the brothers of Jesus. Matthew 13:55 names the brothers of Jesus as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Galatians 1:19 mentions James as the Lord’s brother. This is the James that wrote the Book of James in the Bible. Catholics should open the Bible and study the truth for themselves instead of relying on man made teachings. To say that Matthew, Mark, John and Paul ALL mistook the brothers and sisters as cousins seems preposterous!!
Did you even watch the video?
Did you listen to the video?
I love Mary, she is a blessed woman of God and mother of our Lord Jesus. That being said, I honestly can't grasp the reason why this is important. Don't get me wrong the idea of a virgin giving birth in itself is an amazing miracle and the importance of it cannot be understated, amongst women, Mary is indeed blessed.
This is in no way to attack, I just don't understand and would like to. And am not against the idea of perpetual virginity to be clear, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind it.
But is Mary's value as a woman of God taken away if she is no longer a virgin? If she were to indeed give birth to other children, does that make her impure? I would get that it would make her impure if she slept around, but she was in a faithful marriage and that would have just been the godly thing to do as the Lord intended for all of us.
And what does it mean to be perpetually virgin? Does it mean her womb was preserverd during childbirth? Was it regenerated after? Or does it just mean that Mary saved herself for God as a nun would do after the birth of Jesus?
If it was perpetual, could she give birth again and stay virgin? If so that would be just as miraculous.
And how would Mary know she was still a virgin? How could that be proved in the 1st century? Since to prove virginity one must go into the act and the proof would show if every time she was still a virgin.
Again this is in no way to attack, I just don't understand and would like to. I have no hate in my heart for my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith, I'm just confused and would like to learn.
Peace be upon you all. May the Lord bless you all.
Does Mary being a perpetual virgin affect my Salvation? 🤔
Not Mary! She is not referred to as Mary in Orthodoxy❤☦️. She is the Theotokos of the Mother of God. She is not called only Mary by Orthodox Christians.
When people refer to her as Nary it reminds me of that Protestant song...".Mary did you know"....that song is like fingers on a chalkboard-ugh--I just want to tell the writer:
☦️ yes She knew--when I hear it!
Oh man, you exprssed it very well. Thanks 🙏
This is a really well made video, and it is evident that Ben Cabe has a sincere heart for what he believes. He is very authentic and speaks with much compassion and gentleness (I wish more teachers were like him.) With that being said, I will make a few observations regarding this video:
1. The scriptural proof for the perpetual virginity of Mary is, at best, insufficient.
a. Mr. Cabe affirms that the word ἕως (until) has a connotation of eternity. This is simply not the case. Just a few verses prior in Matthew 1, we see the same word (ἕως) being used with a clear finite connotation:
"Therefore all the generations from Abraham to
(ἕως) David are fourteen generations; and from David to (ἕως) the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to (ἕως) the Christ, fourteen generations.
In each case there is a clear start and end. The same is very much applicable for verses 24-25:
"And Joseph got up from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife (Start point) ,25 but kept her a virgin until (ἕως) she gave birth to a Son (End point)" ; and he called His name Jesus. (LSB)
If the argument is to be made that it is not the word ἕως by itself, but rather, its usage in conjunction with the word οὗ as it occurs in Matthew 1:25 (ἕως οὗ), then one only has to examine other texts in Matthew such as 18:34 where ἕως οὗ does not have a connotation of infinity:
“And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until (ἕως οὗ) he should repay all that was owed him.”
How long will the wicked servant be with the tortures? Until he has repaid all that he owed. We see that ἕως οὗ implies a change.
2. The fact that ἀδελφοὶ (adolphoi) cold mean “kinsmen”, does not mean that it should be interpreted that way in Matthew 13:55-56. The primary meaning of this word is “brothers” and is used only in this way in the New Testament (Notice that the alternate interpretation provided in the video is from Genesis.) When we read the passage in context:
” Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
It is very evident that the context is the one of immediate family. Unless you are reading this text with the presupposition that Mary didn’t have any children, there is no reason to think that ἀδελφοὶ means “kinsmen” in this context.
3. In regards to the Proto Evangelium of James. It’s not necessary to go into much detail. If the perpetual virginity of Mary does indeed carry serious implications regarding Christ (as Ms. Cabe suggests in 11’30’’), then why use a document that is unreliable historically (it wasn’t even written by James), doesn’t have authority (not part of scripture), and contains gnostic overtones? Our core believes must begin from scripture which is the only infallible rule of faith. Scripture is the only source which is θεόπνευστος (God-breathed.)
4. Finally, at 11’30’’ Mr. Cabe states “denying the perpetual virginity, to me, felt like a denial of the incarnation in the sense of denying its implication for us as human beings.” How can this be so? Why would Mary’s subsequent marital intimacy with Joseph interfere with God’s plan of redemption? Christ was fully man and fully human and this did not depend on Mary’s behavior after his birth. How can the idea of Mary’s intimacy with Joseph lead to a “dualistic Christianity where physicality is not important to spirituality." Doesn’t Hebrews 13:4 read “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled…”?
Sex in marriage is a sacred act that doesn’t defile the married couple, instead, it does bring honor to God. Lastly, it is important to point out that no orthodox protestant will deny the virgin birth.
Well done. Subscribed :)
Seriously, I still didn’t understand the necessity of Mary being Virgin eternally, what is the need to keep Mary eternally virgin ?
Theotokos Mary Save Us and have Mercy on me. Please intercede for my prayers of school working out so i can start my practicum. ☦️🙏
So today i learnt that orthodox Christians believe that Mary had a dispassionate conception of James, they believe that she delivered Jesus without pain, that her marriage was arranged to Joseph because he was old and she was intended to be celibate always (the perpetual virginity), but do you also believe that Mary was raised in the temple of Jerusalem as a temple virgin but then when she hit puberty she was married to Joseph, more as a guardian than a husband
Could you please share the books you researched in your search to learn more about Mary? I'd lover to read them as well. Thank you.
Sorry for jumping in.. here are some online resources:
Apostolic father's, St. Ignatius - disciple of St. John the Apostle, writings that witness the devotion of the early Church to the Mother of God:
The Epistle of St. Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/epistles_of_ignatius/anf01.v.xx.i.html
A Second Epistle of St. Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/epistles_of_ignatius/anf01.v.xxi.i.html
The Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/epistles_of_ignatius/anf01.v.xxii.i.html
Reply of the Blessed Virgin to this Letter
ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/epistles_of_ignatius/anf01.v.xxiii.i.html
Good one to start with is hail holy queen, the mother of God in scripture by Scott Hahn
What about Matthew 12 when Jesus was told his mother and brothers were outside and wanted to speak to Him? Matthew 13:55 lists them by name.
We know that the James and Joseph listed were Jesus' first cousins by his aunt, Mary of Clopas, and it is believed that the other two were also his cousins.
@@lellachu1682 What chapter and verse cites them as cousins? Which Greek word is used?
@@Gotchism4Life Matthew 27:56 says James and Joseph were sons of Mary of Clophas, who was Jesus' aunt. "Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons."
@@lellachu1682 Here's an article citing Scripture.
Let us first sum up what we know from the New Testament of the brothers and sisters of the Lord. They are mentioned in 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; and Paul speaks of a James the Lord's brother (Galatians 1:19).
Of the brothers, there seem to have been four who are named in Matthew 13:55: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (see Mark 6:3). Matthew and Mark mention the sisters, but neither the number nor the names are given. From the language of the Nazarenes (Matthew 13:56, "His sisters, are they not all with us?"), there must have been at least two, probably more, and apparently married, and resident at Nazareth.
These brothers and sisters are not mentioned at all until after the Lord began His ministry and are first mentioned as going with His mother and Himself to Capernaum (John 2:12). It is in dispute whether any were believers in His Messianic claims, at least until the very end of His ministry (John 7:3-10). Most say that they were made believers through His resurrection, as they appear in company with the Apostles (Acts 1:14).
In all the references to the Lord's brethren several things are noticeable: first, that they are always called brothers and sisters, not cousins or kinsmen; second, that their relationship is always defined with reference to Him, not to Joseph or to Mary; they are always called His brothers and sisters, not sons and daughters of Mary; third, that they always appear in connection with Mary (except in John 7:3) as if her children, members of her household, and under her direction.
@lellachu1682 please read the verse again, this particular verse is after Yeshua said it is finished which is also after Yeshua asked John to take care of his mother ( and for the ones wondering why he asked John to care for his mother is because none of his half brothers believed in him as the Messiah until after he rose from the dead and Jewish customs required him to assign a guardian before dying ) now back to the verse, that particular Mary you spoke of was Yeshua's mother but now she is addressed as Mary mother of James and Joseph, now the third woman was Salome mother of Zebedee's sons James and John...
4:00
This point he makes about the word eos is false. You can see how it is used in Matthew 1:17, Matthew 2:9,17
This is a wonderful video, thank you!
Pray for us, Holy Mother of God!
As a former Protestant and current inquirer, I had a thought regarding this issue: If Mary had other children after Christ, would this not have created other claimants to the throne of David after Christ’s death? It is true that He resurrected after His death, but would there not within those three days need to be another son “anointed”?
No
With all of your research did you find the name of the alleged wife of josephs other children?
Mark chapter 6 verse 3 people open your eyes
Satan most hates the Blessed Virgin because
(1) she brought the Redeemer to dwell among us+
and
(2) because his demons could not conquer her, since she is
"Full of Grace" (she is nothing.....but a channel of grace).
The most efficient way to harm the faith of human creatures (and to attack the Holy Church) is to impede love for and trust in, the Most Holy, Perfect & Perpetual Virgin, Mary.
The Holy Queen, because of her Immaculate Heart, is the only perfect Christian in all of history.
She is worthily Spiritual Mother of the faithful. And we also call her, (she, who is Mother of God ) the Mother of the Church.
Because The True Faith is a gift,
we do well to pray for others also to receive this gift,
just as many others have prayed for us to be able now to practice faith in the most loving of all Fathers - the great I AM of the Blessed Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is easily defended using two verses from the gospels. There are others but these two are my favorites: Mark 15:40 and John 19:25.